Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:34:33 GMT, Matt wrote:
Lloyd Finkerstein wrote:
"Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:gaaoj.3158$7d1.3078@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Duncan Meyer wrote:
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1402596.M5k0I8BD3X@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The great news is that most of these people using Firefox over in
Finland are running it on Windows machines.
NO problem.
First move to cross-platform apps, then change the OS.
Haven't people grasped that yet?
People don't care about the OS.
Most people don't even know what a OS is.
It's the applications stupid.
Haven't people grasped that yet?
We are in agreement then, except for the 'stupid' part.
Once people are used to the cross-platform applications, they will look
at the prices of new computers and choose the one that is $50-100
cheaper, and that will be the one running Linux.
True in theory, but in practice it's been pointed out many times that the
Linux version of the same, or similar computer, can actually cost MORE.
Talking about the (future) case wherein Linux has a larger market share,
say at least 5%-10%. Economies of scale brings the average per-copy
cost to the vendor to something near zero.
I don't know if things have changed, but emporer linux was known for this.
Talking about best practice, not worst practice, best distros, not
worst. No offense intended to "emperor linux", which I've barely heard of.
And even if it is less, the difference doesn't make it worth it.
Most times it seems to be about $35.00 or so.
For $35.00 I would take the Vista loaded machine, and if I wanted Linux, I
would wipe it and install Linux.
You can't buy Vista for $35.00.
Nowadays I would do that too, when buying a single machine for my own
use (I already have an XP box).
In future, Windows' market share declines, and the average per-copy cost
of Windows goes up. That's already evidenced by the way MS is dumping
Vista onto schools. Same thing will happen to the cost of Office as
OpenOffice displaces Office.
|
|