Because it's free, Linux on Asus boards may not impede my consumer choice at the moment. But it sets a precedent which could greatly damage the environment of choice we currently enjoy. Have another think about this. If Microsoft ever did embed a version of Windows on a motherboard, it's hardly going to be the "Ultimate" edition is it. It would probably be deliberately crippled in order to avoid cannibalizing sales of the full versions. In this scenario Linux could easily compete by being more capable, to the point where it is good enough to use as a main OS for many users (once the hardware reaches the point where it can boot such an OS quickly).
Or if you go the other way, keep things lean and use these motherboards in internet "appliances" - it really doesn't matter what is running underneath. Why purchase Windows PC when you can get a cute little web browser box that does what you need cheaper and faster? This is hardly a market that Microsoft wants to encourage as they're not going to earn anywhere near as much revenue from these devices.
Say Microsoft didn't cripple their embedded version. This lowers the price of entry for Windows - thus further commoditizing the operating system and reducing the value of sales as a source of revenue. In this scenario the provision of services becomes a more important business model - which is precisely the model that generates revenue from Linux.
Whichever way you think the industry is going to head, it's hard to construct a scenario where embedded operating systems are bad for Linux (right now it is really the only choice). And since it's a free (as in speech) operating system, what's good for Linux is good for consumers in the long run.
Great, so let's solve the backwards compatibility problem by punching a gigantic hole in security measures that took 6 years to develop, thus negating the point in developing said security features in the first place.
If MS allowed developers to go along the old path they would, as it's the path of least resistance.
I had the exact same issue, would be interesting to figure out which setting it was that caused it.
But for us the potential risks in using nlite really outweigh the benefits vs a plain old slipstreamed install.
Slashdot Mirror
The UNIX platform is simply too ill adopted to desktop usage scenarios. It's too much of a stretch.
Yeah, OSX is such a crappy desktop. Apple should stick to servers.
Or if you go the other way, keep things lean and use these motherboards in internet "appliances" - it really doesn't matter what is running underneath. Why purchase Windows PC when you can get a cute little web browser box that does what you need cheaper and faster? This is hardly a market that Microsoft wants to encourage as they're not going to earn anywhere near as much revenue from these devices.
Say Microsoft didn't cripple their embedded version. This lowers the price of entry for Windows - thus further commoditizing the operating system and reducing the value of sales as a source of revenue. In this scenario the provision of services becomes a more important business model - which is precisely the model that generates revenue from Linux.
Whichever way you think the industry is going to head, it's hard to construct a scenario where embedded operating systems are bad for Linux (right now it is really the only choice). And since it's a free (as in speech) operating system, what's good for Linux is good for consumers in the long run.
Great, so let's solve the backwards compatibility problem by punching a gigantic hole in security measures that took 6 years to develop, thus negating the point in developing said security features in the first place. If MS allowed developers to go along the old path they would, as it's the path of least resistance.
I had the exact same issue, would be interesting to figure out which setting it was that caused it. But for us the potential risks in using nlite really outweigh the benefits vs a plain old slipstreamed install.