Re:But will they be cheaper?
on
Dell Linux Details
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Does anyone else think that offering only 3 models is a little underwhelming? I think it would be incredibly stupid to offer Linux on every PC they sell at this stage. Firstly, they are doing a trial project by installing Linux on the computers in question. Secondly, it takes time and money to verify to the point where they can guarantee that the hardware will actually work reliably with Linux. Thirdly, they would have to go through every Dell computer to find the incompatible components and change suppliers and specifications on each one. Not a great idea for a trial line. A much more sensible option is to do it in stages. Offer a small sub set of their stock, then slowly increase it according to demand, and increase the number of countries that they sell in.
I have no way of checking, but I would assume when optical mice, LCD monitors and various other options came to be offered by Dell first, they rolled them out on a small number of computers first, then extended them based on customer feedback and support calls etc. This Linux experiment is only the first step. We will have to wait for step two before we can make any informed judgment about their long term commitment.
I disagree. The problem IS Microsoft. The reason is the same as usual.. lock in. The goal is to be the only practical choice for anybody wanting a media PC. Nothing to do with any fear of the RIAA/MPAA suing them, but everything to do with market domination.
Media center PCs are just another segment of the market that they can try to control. If the market for these becomes profitable over the next few years, then Microsoft can offer a more awkward to hack and constantly updating system to the content providers. On condition that they sign an exclusive deal. In return, perhaps a nice little feature that refuses to allow a DVD to be played if ripping software is detected, and constantly updating DRM features that break last month's illegal content hacks.
Why is it, by the way, that having 300+ Linux distro's and dozens of GUI is "choice" and a good thing, but having more than one document format is "stupid"?
Possibly the same reason that it's also choice to have several keyboard manufacturers, but all do the same thing when you press a specific key.
In the case of NWN 1, that theory doesn't seem to work. Bioware released two expansion packs and a handful of cheap paid for standalone modules. Not user created stuff, but their own work. They didn't profit from the user created content except in the sense that a strong community is good for sales. Some people just like building things, and will often do things for the love of creating something. No financial reward required. In the case of Bioware, the license for the rule set and various other things were owned by Wizards of the coast and Atari, so they would possibly have run into licensing problems had anybody tried to use any of the monsters or concepts that either company owned. The Bioware paid for content was even at the discression of Atari, which is possibly why the Witches wake series never came to anything. Create a great new mod, and have one of the characters mention Elminster or set it in the sword coast, and you are infringing someone else's IP. A lot of mod makers would be happily ripping off the WOC IP and recreating packaged DnD modules for use in NWN, and getting cease and desist letters for their efforts. They might have got the license to use the content in free modules, but any commercial product would very likely have been subject to Atari and WOC having a cut.
There were several thousand free modules for the game last time I looked, so not exactly a flop. Some as good as or better than the paid for content. The expansions added new content for the users to take advantage of and they even compiled a community expansion pack or two which had even more new user created stuff, and hosted it for free. Add to that a longer patching cycle than many games, which also added some new content, and you have a pretty good community based game. Which is why I have been playing it for years.
Had Bioware been out for money over all else, then the online component of the game would have been a paid subscription. While the user created content may or may not have been transfered to them, they didn't use the community stuff in their expansion packs as far as I remember, and I seem to remember them hiring some of the better mod makers.
The problem with selling user created content is that the majority of it will be garbage, and by the time you get stung paying for a few bad ones, you are less likely to come across the good ones. With the best will in the world, few people can both code and be creative enough to make a really good module.
Same here in the UK. I don't think I have seen any off the shelf PCs with anything other than Home Premium. Just checked with three off the shelf places and all had the same version. If nobody is offering anything but this version, then obviously the licenses are going to reflect this. Kind of like listing Pizza as medium, large and super.
My apologies. I misunderstood the statistics you quoted.
As to Linux and Windows not being the same, Right now, I agree, but with some more market visibility, which will lead to more software and hardware support, the differences will shrink. Windows needs to be more open and more secure, while Linux needs to be easier to use in some aspects for mass market use. Assuming that Microsoft doesn't break it's self apart from inside and go down in a blaze of law suits and legacy code.
The case you cite was MS competing with MS. So they effectively had a monopoly then, Just slightly different formats to support. Although I seem to remember DRDOS kicking about around that time, and GEM being available on the old Amstrad almost PCs. In the early days of PCs MS had to compete with different and totally incompatible platforms. Both hardware and software. In the business sector they had thin client terminals, and who knows how many non compatible systems. In the home market, PCs didn't really take off until they got to a price that more could afford. By then, there was nothing else that could compete on the market. The PC is already a commodity right now. There is very little real difference between PC makers apart from cosmetics and bundled software/peripherals. And judging by what I have worked on for friends, there isn't that much quality either. Having MS or any other OS competing on features and quality is a huge step forward. It will be bad for MS if they can't lock things down any more, but perhaps they can get back to making an OS instead of an empire.
More visible market penetration of Linux would remove the lack of games. Problem solved.
No technical reason to not run games on Linux, No installation reason either. If you download the second life Linux client, all you have to do for installation is to unzip it and run the executable 3D graphics, sound, internet connection, All ready configured just like Windows. Add a simple script to auto run on a game CD, and you have the same ease of installation as you have with Windows right now. Installing on Linux doesn't mean that you have to compile everything anymore, and the problems of different packages for different distros is got around by this method quite nicely too. One download/set of disks will work for all of them.
The fines aren't important. The real costs of being treated as a monopoly are strategic, not financial. Without monopoly restrictions, Microsoft could require all firms selling Windows to bundle IE, exclude Java, Firefox and any Google software, set all the search defaults to MSN/Live, require bundling of free competitors to any threatening applications, e.g. a free XPS reader with degraded PDF support, etc. In other words, they could return to the way they behaved in the early 90s.
And if MS had competition, the seller could tell them to stick their software demands where the sun doesn't shine. MS doesn't have the legal ability to tell a seller what to pre install while they are considered a monopoly, but you can bet they get a nice little bonus if they default to MS related stuff, and a cut in their advertising bonus or a higher unit price if they don't. Without a monopoly, the seller defines the terms They can choose which OS to use, and it is in their best interest to offer all of them if possible. They decide what they bundle with their product, not MS as it is now.
The key application for Windows is probably Office, which Microsoft also own, and could keep off of Linux. Most bespoke software tied to Windows is built with MS tools and uses.NET, ActiveX, etc., so that wouldn't be easy to port to Linux either. Two of the most important things tying users to Windows are thus owned by Microsoft, so won't be ported to Linux.
Unless ODF becomes more common... With more people deciding to use Open Office and governments deciding to go for ISO standard formats instead of Microsoft only formats, MS Office will become less important. MS Office isn't a unique bit of software, There used to be several Office suites. Its just the most common because its pretty much the only show in town. Show me someone who uses all the features of Office and I'll show you someone who gets nothing much done, and produces documents that can only be read by the same version of Office without exporting and possibly ruining the formatting. You buy Office, or you can't send documents to other companies or customers. This is only possible because MS has a monopoly.
No monopoly, no need to use Office. Soon there would be Open Office, MS Office, and several others. All vying on features and performance, and all using the same file formats so it doesn't matter which one you use, you choose according to what you need, not according to what will run on the latest version of Windows and support the latest version of their file format. If you choose to use an 8 year old version of a word processor and a 6 year old spread sheet, thats fine too.
Without Microsoft's monopoly the customer sets the agenda. What you have listed are MS exclusive lockins. Just because they work well and are popular, doesn't mean they are not lockins. With open source alternatives, you can move from one Linux distributer to another based on price and service, not on how much it would cost to completly rewrite your IT infrastructure. True market forces allow this. A monopoly vendor controlling everything gives them the power to set the price at whatever they like, and makes it very difficult to change. With a continuing monopoly, MS could just decide to reduce the supported lifetimes for all software, and who would be able to stop them? Or multiply the price of the software and change it to a rented service instead. $100 a year doesn't seem too bad, until you see that that means $500 over just 5 years. New computer, new rental agreement with the last year of the rental term being paid too. Not much good if the only choices are Windows or nothing.
In any case, if 25% market share will allow Linux to kill Windows, then it's only a matter of time before it happens. However, I don't think it's so simple. I think Microsoft's own applications, development tools and vendor support add enough value to make Windows a competitive platform. As an example, none of the
All the more reason to do it. MS is a big bully that has had it's way for far too long. When a company can say to a whole global industry " this is how my product works. Support it!" instead of "how can we support each other", its a bad thing for everyone in that market.
Who is being forced? The government in these countries have stated that they will be using an open format which anybody can support. Including Microsoft. Not that they will be requiring everyone to use it. No different to Amazon stating that they would be adopting ODF or any other format, but not requiring any of it's customers to switch too. It just means that anybody can read a government created file in a format that doesn't require the use of a specific application.
Nothing wrong with breaking a lock in. As it stands, virtually every business uses MS Office of some version. Why? because the bulk of their documents are in Office formats, and manually converting them to a different format is expensive and time consuming, as is switching to a different suite. Their alternatives are few or none. With ODF, they can still use the exact same software, but are required to save as ODF But so can every other Office suite. Result, zero retraining and zero lock in. If there is competition for any market, then all the competitors need to improve the product or face going out of business. Not just throw more and more vaguely useful features at it every few years. Diversity is good.
And on the smoking issue, I agree with the bans in public enclosed places, and I'm a smoker. I don't think I have any right to inflict my addiction on anybody else, and have been known to not smoke in my home out of courtesy to my guests.
True enough, but the system is already established. How are they going to significantly change all the playstations and Xboxes, and the standalone players if they alter the system too much. The product is out there now, and they can't make it radically different until the next format comes on the scene. The sloppy coding on the software player is just one way in. Now that the mechanism is understood, its just a matter of time before someone creates a program to interrogate the stream in some way to find the codes and then AACS will be just as broken as CSS is now. DRM of any kind has a fatal flaw. You have to be able to play the content. And to do so, there has to be a way in. The MPAA and the content owners have financial motivation, but the hackers have collectively more skill than any company that has or will ever create a DRM system. Best case scenario for the movie industry, they get a few months before they have the first cracks, Worst case, they have to spend a lot more money and play tag with the hackers breaking each new key.
Thing is.. the average web porn addict isn't really Windows savvy either. Like most of us with any interest in computers, I'm the person many friends go to when they need to buy a PC or they have broken something on their own system. Usually my first contact is when the existing PC slows down and they don't understand why. Most are delighted when I call them next day and arrange for them to pick up their freshly valeted system that is working better than new, and they have a crash course in safe surfing.
The problem for new computer users as a whole is that there are few if any places that will actually show them how to use the computer from scratch. The few self motivated ones will find someone to take them through the basics and they are the ones that would do well with Linux. Nobody expects to become a virtuoso just by buying a violin, so why should buying a complex device like a computer be any different?
I would agree that a Linux PC to a complete novice would be a bad idea if they didn't have anybody to help them set everything up, but I don't agree that they can't learn. There are just a few more things to learn than in Windows for basic use, and the more complex stuff follows easily enough.
There are more types of user than Joe Average. Just as there are many types of camera or stereo on the market, why should there only be one type of PC operating system in common use? Many have the level of interest to get themselves up to speed with Linux so long as they have a good starting point with known compatible hardware and a properly set up system. Thus you have the market for the Dell Linux experiment. Who knows.. they might sell well enough to make a profitable line.
If you use reverse psychology to create a scare (i.e. calling the authorities and saying something basic like "I am on the road and not in cell range. I left all these packages at the train stations for marketing purposes. They are not bombs or connected to any terrorist threat. I repeat, they are not bombs." And say, you write on them prominantly, "This is not a bomb" then are you absolved of liability when they conclude that it must be a bomb threat? Funnily enough.. A friend of mine who worked as a security guard got fired for a similar thing. He sent a package to a friend in the building he was working at with the words "This is not a bomb" written clearly on the package" The friend wasn't at work that day, and the building was evacuated. This was about 18 years ago on London.
When buying a system, you practically are always forced to buy a license for whatever product. Usually it is just an OEM license which are a lot cheaper for the consumers. Even if Dell would put a linux distro on it, they would have to pay for a license, maybe even cheaper but still the customer is paying for a license and in case of linux, the majority of users would be buying more expansive support with it since they have little knowledge of the OS. Not always. From a big OEM, Or from an electronics chain, then yes if its Windows, you will be buying a license. But from a small local computer shop or for home builders, you can get anything or nothing put on it. And Linux doesn't have a paid license outside the corporate versions, so unless Joe is accidentally buying a server, no Windows, no license fee. Support may be needed, but not always, paid for, and certainly not if Joe knows someone who already knows Linux well enough to help them get started. Its difficult for someone to learn Windows on their own too.
AND they would be doing a lot less with their system compared to what they would be doing with a windows based system, being playing games, watching porn, downloading illegal music etc.... As long as the mainstream software for the average joe is build for the windows OS, they are better off with that OS You do know that Firefox is available for Linux too... Why exactly should Joe not be able to do his one handed surfing on Linux? Or is porn only compatible with IE? Linux also has several bit torrent apps and P2P apps too, so plenty of opportunity to fall foul of the RIAA or the BPI if you live in the UK. Games I'll accept are pretty few and far between. That would change once Linux became more visible. So apart from that, what are the lots of things that a Linux user isn't able to do that a Windows user is? Unless you are counting defragging their hard drive, and scanning for viruses and malware as doing something with their system.
There was a way to decrypt discs any disc. There is not one any longer. How is that not a win for the AACS side and a loss for those who want to decrypt discs? Because the method of using the key has not changed. The moment someone found the first key, the war was lost. No amount of new keys can be anything other than a slight delay. Even if it takes a week for the new key to be discovered, it will still be discovered, and a new key will be needed, which will last a short time before the new key is discovered.
Its a no win situation. The AACS is having to defend the system constantly by revoking the old keys and issuing new ones. If they have to change the master each time too, they will have to pay for the new master, and the drive maker has to pay to reflash the drive with the new key. Cost for the manufacturers of the disks and the drives, but nothing for the crackers, and the users of the cracks.
Linux has improved in ease of use and I would imagine user numbers dramatically over the years, but the bad press that Vista has generated has given a huge amount of publicity to Linux. Even if it goes no further, many people will at least do the research to find out if they might be able to use Linux as an alternative to a Vista upgrade. Some will try, and some will stay.
That is the whole point. The money is made on the printer as it should be. The ink is then sold at a sensible price, so the refill companies can supply lower priced refills or not. Kodak have already made their money. And if the refills are not that much cheaper, only a few penny pinching fools are going to buy the third party versions.
Years ago when I got my first inkjet, it cost about £130, and the ink was reasonable for a black and 3 color cartridge set. My current printer has individual ink refills for each color, prints CDs and can print directly from my camera if I so desire. Yet it cost me about £45 for much more complex engineering, and the ink costs as much if not more than the printer for the Epson branded ink. Good for Kodak, and hopefully more will follow. This ink racket should have ended long ago. If they make the printers Linux compatible too, then I'm a very willing customer even if I had to settle for slightly lower quality.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no way of checking, but I would assume when optical mice, LCD monitors and various other options came to be offered by Dell first, they rolled them out on a small number of computers first, then extended them based on customer feedback and support calls etc. This Linux experiment is only the first step. We will have to wait for step two before we can make any informed judgment about their long term commitment.
I disagree. The problem IS Microsoft. The reason is the same as usual.. lock in. The goal is to be the only practical choice for anybody wanting a media PC. Nothing to do with any fear of the RIAA/MPAA suing them, but everything to do with market domination.
Media center PCs are just another segment of the market that they can try to control. If the market for these becomes profitable over the next few years, then Microsoft can offer a more awkward to hack and constantly updating system to the content providers. On condition that they sign an exclusive deal. In return, perhaps a nice little feature that refuses to allow a DVD to be played if ripping software is detected, and constantly updating DRM features that break last month's illegal content hacks.
Possibly the same reason that it's also choice to have several keyboard manufacturers, but all do the same thing when you press a specific key.
In the case of NWN 1, that theory doesn't seem to work. Bioware released two expansion packs and a handful of cheap paid for standalone modules. Not user created stuff, but their own work. They didn't profit from the user created content except in the sense that a strong community is good for sales. Some people just like building things, and will often do things for the love of creating something. No financial reward required. In the case of Bioware, the license for the rule set and various other things were owned by Wizards of the coast and Atari, so they would possibly have run into licensing problems had anybody tried to use any of the monsters or concepts that either company owned. The Bioware paid for content was even at the discression of Atari, which is possibly why the Witches wake series never came to anything. Create a great new mod, and have one of the characters mention Elminster or set it in the sword coast, and you are infringing someone else's IP. A lot of mod makers would be happily ripping off the WOC IP and recreating packaged DnD modules for use in NWN, and getting cease and desist letters for their efforts. They might have got the license to use the content in free modules, but any commercial product would very likely have been subject to Atari and WOC having a cut.
There were several thousand free modules for the game last time I looked, so not exactly a flop. Some as good as or better than the paid for content. The expansions added new content for the users to take advantage of and they even compiled a community expansion pack or two which had even more new user created stuff, and hosted it for free. Add to that a longer patching cycle than many games, which also added some new content, and you have a pretty good community based game. Which is why I have been playing it for years.
Had Bioware been out for money over all else, then the online component of the game would have been a paid subscription. While the user created content may or may not have been transfered to them, they didn't use the community stuff in their expansion packs as far as I remember, and I seem to remember them hiring some of the better mod makers.
The problem with selling user created content is that the majority of it will be garbage, and by the time you get stung paying for a few bad ones, you are less likely to come across the good ones. With the best will in the world, few people can both code and be creative enough to make a really good module.
Same here in the UK. I don't think I have seen any off the shelf PCs with anything other than Home Premium. Just checked with three off the shelf places and all had the same version. If nobody is offering anything but this version, then obviously the licenses are going to reflect this. Kind of like listing Pizza as medium, large and super.
My apologies. I misunderstood the statistics you quoted.
As to Linux and Windows not being the same, Right now, I agree, but with some more market visibility, which will lead to more software and hardware support, the differences will shrink. Windows needs to be more open and more secure, while Linux needs to be easier to use in some aspects for mass market use. Assuming that Microsoft doesn't break it's self apart from inside and go down in a blaze of law suits and legacy code.
The case you cite was MS competing with MS. So they effectively had a monopoly then, Just slightly different formats to support. Although I seem to remember DRDOS kicking about around that time, and GEM being available on the old Amstrad almost PCs. In the early days of PCs MS had to compete with different and totally incompatible platforms. Both hardware and software. In the business sector they had thin client terminals, and who knows how many non compatible systems. In the home market, PCs didn't really take off until they got to a price that more could afford. By then, there was nothing else that could compete on the market. The PC is already a commodity right now. There is very little real difference between PC makers apart from cosmetics and bundled software/peripherals. And judging by what I have worked on for friends, there isn't that much quality either. Having MS or any other OS competing on features and quality is a huge step forward. It will be bad for MS if they can't lock things down any more, but perhaps they can get back to making an OS instead of an empire.
More visible market penetration of Linux would remove the lack of games. Problem solved.
No technical reason to not run games on Linux, No installation reason either. If you download the second life Linux client, all you have to do for installation is to unzip it and run the executable 3D graphics, sound, internet connection, All ready configured just like Windows. Add a simple script to auto run on a game CD, and you have the same ease of installation as you have with Windows right now. Installing on Linux doesn't mean that you have to compile everything anymore, and the problems of different packages for different distros is got around by this method quite nicely too. One download/set of disks will work for all of them.
The fines aren't important. The real costs of being treated as a monopoly are strategic, not financial. Without monopoly restrictions, Microsoft could require all firms selling Windows to bundle IE, exclude Java, Firefox and any Google software, set all the search defaults to MSN/Live, require bundling of free competitors to any threatening applications, e.g. a free XPS reader with degraded PDF support, etc. In other words, they could return to the way they behaved in the early 90s.
And if MS had competition, the seller could tell them to stick their software demands where the sun doesn't shine. MS doesn't have the legal ability to tell a seller what to pre install while they are considered a monopoly, but you can bet they get a nice little bonus if they default to MS related stuff, and a cut in their advertising bonus or a higher unit price if they don't. Without a monopoly, the seller defines the terms They can choose which OS to use, and it is in their best interest to offer all of them if possible. They decide what they bundle with their product, not MS as it is now.
The key application for Windows is probably Office, which Microsoft also own, and could keep off of Linux. Most bespoke software tied to Windows is built with MS tools and uses .NET, ActiveX, etc., so that wouldn't be easy to port to Linux either. Two of the most important things tying users to Windows are thus owned by Microsoft, so won't be ported to Linux.
Unless ODF becomes more common... With more people deciding to use Open Office and governments deciding to go for ISO standard formats instead of Microsoft only formats, MS Office will become less important. MS Office isn't a unique bit of software, There used to be several Office suites. Its just the most common because its pretty much the only show in town. Show me someone who uses all the features of Office and I'll show you someone who gets nothing much done, and produces documents that can only be read by the same version of Office without exporting and possibly ruining the formatting. You buy Office, or you can't send documents to other companies or customers. This is only possible because MS has a monopoly.
No monopoly, no need to use Office. Soon there would be Open Office, MS Office, and several others. All vying on features and performance, and all using the same file formats so it doesn't matter which one you use, you choose according to what you need, not according to what will run on the latest version of Windows and support the latest version of their file format. If you choose to use an 8 year old version of a word processor and a 6 year old spread sheet, thats fine too.
Without Microsoft's monopoly the customer sets the agenda. What you have listed are MS exclusive lockins. Just because they work well and are popular, doesn't mean they are not lockins. With open source alternatives, you can move from one Linux distributer to another based on price and service, not on how much it would cost to completly rewrite your IT infrastructure. True market forces allow this. A monopoly vendor controlling everything gives them the power to set the price at whatever they like, and makes it very difficult to change. With a continuing monopoly, MS could just decide to reduce the supported lifetimes for all software, and who would be able to stop them? Or multiply the price of the software and change it to a rented service instead. $100 a year doesn't seem too bad, until you see that that means $500 over just 5 years. New computer, new rental agreement with the last year of the rental term being paid too. Not much good if the only choices are Windows or nothing.
In any case, if 25% market share will allow Linux to kill Windows, then it's only a matter of time before it happens. However, I don't think it's so simple. I think Microsoft's own applications, development tools and vendor support add enough value to make Windows a competitive platform. As an example, none of the
All the more reason to do it. MS is a big bully that has had it's way for far too long. When a company can say to a whole global industry " this is how my product works. Support it!" instead of "how can we support each other", its a bad thing for everyone in that market.
Who is being forced? The government in these countries have stated that they will be using an open format which anybody can support. Including Microsoft. Not that they will be requiring everyone to use it. No different to Amazon stating that they would be adopting ODF or any other format, but not requiring any of it's customers to switch too. It just means that anybody can read a government created file in a format that doesn't require the use of a specific application.
Nothing wrong with breaking a lock in. As it stands, virtually every business uses MS Office of some version. Why? because the bulk of their documents are in Office formats, and manually converting them to a different format is expensive and time consuming, as is switching to a different suite. Their alternatives are few or none. With ODF, they can still use the exact same software, but are required to save as ODF But so can every other Office suite. Result, zero retraining and zero lock in. If there is competition for any market, then all the competitors need to improve the product or face going out of business. Not just throw more and more vaguely useful features at it every few years. Diversity is good.
And on the smoking issue, I agree with the bans in public enclosed places, and I'm a smoker. I don't think I have any right to inflict my addiction on anybody else, and have been known to not smoke in my home out of courtesy to my guests.
They did, but there were prunes on the menu that day.. Disaster..
True enough, but the system is already established. How are they going to significantly change all the playstations and Xboxes, and the standalone players if they alter the system too much. The product is out there now, and they can't make it radically different until the next format comes on the scene. The sloppy coding on the software player is just one way in. Now that the mechanism is understood, its just a matter of time before someone creates a program to interrogate the stream in some way to find the codes and then AACS will be just as broken as CSS is now. DRM of any kind has a fatal flaw. You have to be able to play the content. And to do so, there has to be a way in. The MPAA and the content owners have financial motivation, but the hackers have collectively more skill than any company that has or will ever create a DRM system. Best case scenario for the movie industry, they get a few months before they have the first cracks, Worst case, they have to spend a lot more money and play tag with the hackers breaking each new key.
Thing is.. the average web porn addict isn't really Windows savvy either. Like most of us with any interest in computers, I'm the person many friends go to when they need to buy a PC or they have broken something on their own system. Usually my first contact is when the existing PC slows down and they don't understand why. Most are delighted when I call them next day and arrange for them to pick up their freshly valeted system that is working better than new, and they have a crash course in safe surfing.
The problem for new computer users as a whole is that there are few if any places that will actually show them how to use the computer from scratch. The few self motivated ones will find someone to take them through the basics and they are the ones that would do well with Linux. Nobody expects to become a virtuoso just by buying a violin, so why should buying a complex device like a computer be any different?
I would agree that a Linux PC to a complete novice would be a bad idea if they didn't have anybody to help them set everything up, but I don't agree that they can't learn. There are just a few more things to learn than in Windows for basic use, and the more complex stuff follows easily enough.
There are more types of user than Joe Average. Just as there are many types of camera or stereo on the market, why should there only be one type of PC operating system in common use? Many have the level of interest to get themselves up to speed with Linux so long as they have a good starting point with known compatible hardware and a properly set up system. Thus you have the market for the Dell Linux experiment. Who knows.. they might sell well enough to make a profitable line.
AND they would be doing a lot less with their system compared to what they would be doing with a windows based system, being playing games, watching porn, downloading illegal music etc.... As long as the mainstream software for the average joe is build for the windows OS, they are better off with that OS You do know that Firefox is available for Linux too... Why exactly should Joe not be able to do his one handed surfing on Linux? Or is porn only compatible with IE? Linux also has several bit torrent apps and P2P apps too, so plenty of opportunity to fall foul of the RIAA or the BPI if you live in the UK. Games I'll accept are pretty few and far between. That would change once Linux became more visible. So apart from that, what are the lots of things that a Linux user isn't able to do that a Windows user is? Unless you are counting defragging their hard drive, and scanning for viruses and malware as doing something with their system.
Linux has improved in ease of use and I would imagine user numbers dramatically over the years, but the bad press that Vista has generated has given a huge amount of publicity to Linux. Even if it goes no further, many people will at least do the research to find out if they might be able to use Linux as an alternative to a Vista upgrade. Some will try, and some will stay.
That is the whole point. The money is made on the printer as it should be. The ink is then sold at a sensible price, so the refill companies can supply lower priced refills or not. Kodak have already made their money. And if the refills are not that much cheaper, only a few penny pinching fools are going to buy the third party versions. Years ago when I got my first inkjet, it cost about £130, and the ink was reasonable for a black and 3 color cartridge set. My current printer has individual ink refills for each color, prints CDs and can print directly from my camera if I so desire. Yet it cost me about £45 for much more complex engineering, and the ink costs as much if not more than the printer for the Epson branded ink. Good for Kodak, and hopefully more will follow. This ink racket should have ended long ago. If they make the printers Linux compatible too, then I'm a very willing customer even if I had to settle for slightly lower quality.