Seth Goodman wrote: > Most people could not complete a Linux install without a phone call to > tech support. I suspect that's one part of the reason there are so > few no-OS boxes. When the install doesn't turn out right, their first > call is to the people who sold them the hardware, even though that's > the least likely place to have a problem. Technically sophisticated > users do not tend to do this, but that's a pretty small market. >
But surely the people most likely to buy no-OS boxes are also most likely to be clued up when it comes to installation? Someone new to Linux (or computing in general) isn't likely to buy a box without an OS on it, just as a newly qualified driver isn't likely to buy a car without an engine in it (unless they happen to be an auto-mechanic, of course). Whether or not this all comes to fruition, it shows that Linux *is* getting "talked about". I would have thought (perhaps naively) that producing a system with Linux pre-installed, or with no OS, would cost less per unit than one with Vista or XP (do manufacturers have to pay M$ to allow them to pre-install Windows?). Then again, why is it that wholemeal bread "with nowt taken out" (thus presumably requiring less in the production process) costs more than white bread? :S -- Paul Walsh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
