On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 17:29:05 -0700 (PDT), Rex Ballard wrote:

> On Jul 6, 10:04 am, "Psyc Geek (TAB)" wrote:
>> There is a very simple reason Linux does not take off.

> Microsoft is still allowed to force OEMs to install Windows/Vista on
> practically every machine they ship.


> Microsoft is still allowed to force retailers not to show Linux on the
> same shelves as Windows/Vista (revoke Authorized Microsoft reseller
> status, along with right to display Microsoft trademarks and logos,
> including on PCs).

Pepsi products cannot be displayed in the same case as Coke products.

Your point?

> Microsoft is still allowed to force OEMs NOT to install other systems,
> such as Linux, in dual-boot, or Virtualized configurations.


>> Linux is still about geeks. Geeks say things like:
>> -Read the manual.

> If the OEMs could install Linux, and the related applications, end-
> users wouldn't have to read the manual.
> They would just turn on the computer, and Linux would be up and
> working. My ASUS EEE works perfectly, and I didn't need to read any
> manuals to get it configured.

How does Walmart and Dell and HP and IBM get around this?
They sell Linux based machines, or at least they try to.

As usual you are FOS.

>> -Works on my machine.

> If the OEMs could install Linux, and the related drivers and
> applications, it would work on the machine, because you could just
> choose Linux when you "booted up".

See above.

>> -You are too stupid.
>> It is almost like the mainframe geeks of the 70's,
>> are back.

> Actually, the mainframe guys weren't geeks, they were guys who wore 3
> piece suits, commanded salaries as high as most corporate officers,
> and took their jobs very seriously, as seriously as flying a plane, or
> running a train. When a Mainframe went down, for any reason, it could
> cost millions of dollars per minute, so they didn't leave much to
> chance.

It still does.
These days however they call Bangalore and speak to some guy they can't
understand and who is making $2.00/hour.

> No, the Geeks were the ones playing with MS-DOS, trying to create
> charts from Lotus 1-2-3, creating documents with Word Perfect, and
> trying put the various pieces of the report together with glue so they
> could xerox it and put the copies on everybody's desk chair, in the
> hopes that they would read it before the meeting the following day.


> They would get the feedback the day after the meeting, usually marked
> up with Red Pen, and they would try to manually input that feedback
> into the report before reprinting and having another meeting, which
> could take a week or more for one iteration of incorporating the
> revisions, publishing the new document, having the meeting in the
> conference room, and getting back more feedback.


> Back in the 1970s and early 1980s, many corporations spend 60% of
> their time documenting what they were going to do, 30% of their time
> documenting what was done, and less than 10% of their time actually
> doing anything useful. This was also reflected in the budget.

I dunno..
Any proof of this ?

Snip....too much stuff to read....

Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots: