By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - M$: OEM Windows is only 5% of PC cost.

Xoj said:
heruamon said:
Xoj said:
heruamon said:
Xoj said:
Ubuntu = 0% of OEM cost.

what it can't do windows can't? direct x11
(it can do 9 =P).

and it does opengl 3.2 nicely :D

Errr...so how do you make money off ubuntu?  maybe video cards and processors should be free too...hey...why are we even paying for the PCs...this shit should all be free...WTF is going on here!  Maybe we should jsut get a bunch of engineers and technicians and jsut work on stuff in a commune to build a totally free PC...sorry...but communism doesn't work...sooner of later...somebody is going to try to get that extra slice of pie... 

Red hat does it by provinding support, and those things are hardware. ;)

germany and brazil are smart people they already moving to linux and saving millions on licenses.

or you saying linux = evil comunist ?!! oh noez!

I know about unbuntu (the term, BTW was copyrighted...how the heck can you copyright an old African principle?...this is like saying I'm going to copyright Carpe Diem...or Freedom!)

Sorry, but nothing is free in life, and it's just a matter of pay now or pay later...I'm still not sure why you don't think other "components" of a PC should be free...and have everthing on a service fee basis...why only focus on the OS?

nothing in this life is free? of course there is, ubuntu is one it made for the people, canonical funds the development with other sources of course.

but using the OS is free, and it's going to change.

red hat makes money from giving support to companies, 

hardware is not free because besides the human work emsambling the piece, there is  materials used to build  but bulding yourself a pc is free u only pay for the components.

linux it's the same but the materials are free, you only install the components you want. some people do that work for free, test and package the components that conform and OS.

and make it easy to install them and update them.

So it's NOT free..and people need to stop saying that it is...it's fee-for-service.  I have nothing against Linux, per say, but it gets on my nerves, when commercial companies, who are trying to get market share...try to use that free tag...especially in this case, when they are copyrighting something, which imho shouldn't be allowed to.  If you want to argue on the technical merits of Unbuntu against Windows 7...sure...but to compare a company that isn't making a dime..and working off venture capital, against one of the most successful companies is a bit of a joke.  Google operated under the radar like everybody’s friend as well...but notice that Apple recent did a WTF, and boot Eric Schmidt off the board...

Dell along with others offers OS options worldwide...and we will see in 5-6 years how the experiment in Brazil and Germany works out.  From an engineering mgmt perspective...lifecycle cost are normal the greatest cost for a given system...and so time will tell.



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Around the Network

What matters is user freedoms. I don't care how much money Canonical make as long as me or anyone else has a right to modify, redistribute, and view source code of the programs/OS I use. If Microsoft did this, and allowed others to patch the flaws in its OS, I would have no problem with them making billions of dollars.

Microsoft aren't making the billions through being the best choice - they are making them because they are seen as the only choice. For example, I resent my school forcing me to have Windows at home to run certain programs and view certain files.



Soleron said:

What matters is user freedoms. I don't care how much money Canonical make as long as me or anyone else has a right to modify, redistribute, and view source code of the programs/OS I use. If Microsoft did this, and allowed others to patch the flaws in its OS, I would have no problem with them making billions of dollars.

Microsoft aren't making the billions through being the best choice - they are making them because they are seen as the only choice. For example, I resent my school forcing me to have Windows at home to run certain programs and view certain files.

While you may resent it, every institution must have standards and Office software is by far the best at what it does. Open Office is good, however it just does not really compare with the overall feature set in Office. Thus, the best choice for business and education firms is to use Office, then to ensure full compatibility and reduce any potential headache they create standards, i.e. you must use Office, which means you must use MS.



Vista was a flub...but like Intel rebounded with Core architecture, I think M$ is poised to do so with 7...



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder