Killergran said:
Counter argument: First, to get Ubuntu you'll have to burn it to a DVD. Not terribly expensive, but around 1 dollar. So it is not more than 150 times more expensive. Counter argument nr two: I got my windows for free. I have never paid for a standalone version of windows, most have come with the computer, but I actually got this version of Vista for free. And since I didn't burn it (which was a stupid mistake btw) I paid less for it than I did for Ubuntu. |
The rub for this is that the person buying the machine has to ask for Windows to NOT be included and the manufacturer has to agree for Windows to NOT be included. Most dealers put it on my default and unless you're willing to go through 7 levels of heck and back to not have it on there then that's the way it's going to stay.
The result is that the user doesn't see Windows as a cost. It's just there. You're not getting Linux instead of Windows, you're getting both but only using Linux or Windows. Telling a user that it's cheaper to use Linux when they're already running Windows on their machine will make them think you're an idiot. It's not like you're handing them a wad of cash in exchange for taking Windows off and putting Linux on so cost is totally irrelevant.
You can shout at the sky all day long till you turn blue in the face that Linux is free but until the consumer has the choice of free or not free, it doesn't matter.
| Viper1 said: Switched to Ubuntu in May...never looked back. I like telling my OS what to do instead of my OS back talking. |
And then a bad update for HAL comes along and screws over your xorg. 








