Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> Users split over naked PCs
This is the essential issue of the moment, and I predict will continue
to be a hot topic of debate for some time to come. We can't allow this
issue to rest until there is some form of official resolution, the
outcome is too important. The future of an essential freedom hangs in
the balance - the freedom to choose an OS for your PC at the POS. To be
able to choose between Windows and GNU/Linux, always, regardless of PC
model and vendor. To be able to choose to /not/ have Windows on your new PC.
Unbundling Windows just makes sense from every angle (except from the
POV of Microsoft protecting their monopoly, of course).
Businesses generally buy bulk licenses for Windows or GNU/Linux anyway,
or deploy service-free systems like Centos, etc., so having the OEM
pre-install the OS is literally a waste of time and money.
When it comes to home users, although having the OEM pre-install the OS
may be useful to those unsure of the process, it encourages OS bias, so
this service should only be offered where the OEM can guarantee
/neutrality/, and offer to install /any/ OS, not just the one they're
paid to "recommend". At the very least, they should be required to offer
an alternative between GNU/Linux and Windows across their /entire/ PC
range.
If the OEM feels they are unable or unwilling to offer such a service,
because they feel that hardware and software are somehow inextricable
(or for some other less benign reason), and that they /must/ be able to
provide support for the OS (despite the fact that /software/ support
should always come from the /software/ vendor), then that OEM should be
required to offer naked PCs, rather than show bias towards just /one/
software vendor.
Additionally, there should be a requirement that the license costs for
pre-installed software are /not/ cheaper than retail packages, and that
pre-installed software /still/ comes with the original /full/ install
disk regardless - not some ridiculous "rescue" disk. Watch how the
retail cost of Vista Ultimate would magically drop to $50. Hehe.
OEMs who already offer Free operating systems (e.g. FreeBSD, Debian)
across their entire PC range, would be exempt from the above
requirements, since the installation of a Free OS does not show bias to,
nor financially benefit, any commercial software vendor. As always, I
define Free as in Freedom, rather than cost. The installation of a Free
OS will undoubtedly still incur costs to the OEM, in one way or another.
IOW such OEMs would /not/ be required to also offer Windows as an
alternative to GNU/Linux, unless the particular distribution they were
offering was a commercial one.
/This/ would guarantee neutrality and level the playing field, then we'd
/really/ discover how "popular" Windows is.
Like I said in another post, if Windows is /really/ as "popular" (rather
than "ubiquitous") as its proponents claim, then they should have
nothing to fear from such an arrangement.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "OOXML is a superb standard"
| - GNU/Linux traitor, Miguel de Icaza.
`----
Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.22.1-41.fc7
19:54:25 up 54 days, 18:49, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
|
|
