Re: Slightly OT: Must Linux buy its way onto the desktop?

Temlakos wrote:

Mike McCarty wrote:

taharka wrote:

Feb. 08, 2006

As you may know, Google is close to making a deal with Dell in which the

search giant will get to preinstall its software package on Dell PCs.
What you may not know is that Google may be spending a billion dollars
over three years for the privilege.

Why should I care? (This is a serious question, not irony.)

Full story at; http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2572482759.html

[QUOTE MODE ON]

What does that have to do with Linux? Everything.

Microsoft may say that what ends up on the desktop is all about having the best products, but that's hooey. I don't say that as a Linux supporter, I say that as someone who knows how the desktop market works. Most users, I'd say 80 percent, stick with what comes on their desktop. Period.

I know this. Microsoft knows this. Everyone in the desktop business knows this, even though we may disagree on the exact numbers.

So, the real way to win the desktop, as I've long said, is to get Linux on it before a user ever sees it.

[QUOTE MODE OFF]


Is "winning the desktop" (whatever that may be) a goal? For me?

I guess I just don't understand the big picture or sth. This just
looks like more "I hate MicroSoft" propaganda than anything worthwhile.

Could someone explain why this is important?

Mike

I'll try to explain.

If we ever expect to quit having our local CIO's roll their eyes at us when we say that we want /Linux/ desktops and /Linux/ client machines, because we know that Linux will cost the company much less overall than buying a bunch of Windows boxes, then we'll need some more attractive options than:

1.    Buying a bunch of machines having Windows pre-installed on them.

2.    Nuking the hard drives.

3.    Installing Linux on them.

Either that, or:

1.    Buying a bunch of machines /without/ hard drives.

2.    Buying hard drives /separately/.

3.    Installing the hard drives.

4.    Installing Linux on these systems.

- T