Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Perhaps I owe Snit an apology?
18 views
Skip to first unread message
bbgruff
May 8, 2012, 5:47:41 PM5/8/12
to
This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
what the price is relative to the Windows version.
If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
image, then no!
<quote>
Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
writes about it:
To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies. We want to
finds ways to make the developer experience as powerful and simple as
possible. And what better way to do that than beginning with a laptop that
is both highly mobile and extremely stylish, running the 12.04 LTS release
of Ubuntu Linux.
Ubuntu Developer Dustin Kirkland got this device to try out. His experience:
And the hardware -- wow! Aluminum outer shell. Chiclet back-lit keyboard.
Thin, light, sexy. At 13", it's the perfect balance between portability and
usability. The accessories and peripherals are simple, but sufficient. Two
USB ports. A combination mic/headphones jack. An external display port
(dongle required). And one very slim and trim AC/DC power adapter. Oh, and
there's a little button that you can press and see how much battery you have
left. There's a quad-core i7 with VT. Intel video and wifi. Bluetooth.
256GB Samsung SSD. 4GB of RAM (I really could have used 8GB, and it's
soldered onto the motherboard). With a 46W-h battery at 7.4V, I'm getting
6+ hours of uptime.
Project Sputnik laptop will come with some basic pre-installed developer
tools and will include different developer profiles. For instance if you are
Javascript developer, then a Javascript profile will only install needed
tools without stuffing the system with all sorts of unneeded utilities.
More information on Project Sputnik can be found here.
http://bartongeorge.net/2012/05/07/introducing-project-sputnik-developer-
laptop/
If you already have Dell XPS13, a customized Ubuntu 12.04 image for Project
Sputnik can be downloaded from here. Please note that at the moment this
image is not officially supported and it is available for demo purposes
only.
</quote>
http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/05/dell-announces-project-sputnik-
ubuntu.html
http://tinyurl.com/canugpz
some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
what the price is relative to the Windows version.
If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
image, then no!
<quote>
Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
writes about it:
To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies. We want to
finds ways to make the developer experience as powerful and simple as
possible. And what better way to do that than beginning with a laptop that
is both highly mobile and extremely stylish, running the 12.04 LTS release
of Ubuntu Linux.
Ubuntu Developer Dustin Kirkland got this device to try out. His experience:
And the hardware -- wow! Aluminum outer shell. Chiclet back-lit keyboard.
Thin, light, sexy. At 13", it's the perfect balance between portability and
usability. The accessories and peripherals are simple, but sufficient. Two
USB ports. A combination mic/headphones jack. An external display port
(dongle required). And one very slim and trim AC/DC power adapter. Oh, and
there's a little button that you can press and see how much battery you have
left. There's a quad-core i7 with VT. Intel video and wifi. Bluetooth.
256GB Samsung SSD. 4GB of RAM (I really could have used 8GB, and it's
soldered onto the motherboard). With a 46W-h battery at 7.4V, I'm getting
6+ hours of uptime.
Project Sputnik laptop will come with some basic pre-installed developer
tools and will include different developer profiles. For instance if you are
Javascript developer, then a Javascript profile will only install needed
tools without stuffing the system with all sorts of unneeded utilities.
More information on Project Sputnik can be found here.
http://bartongeorge.net/2012/05/07/introducing-project-sputnik-developer-
laptop/
If you already have Dell XPS13, a customized Ubuntu 12.04 image for Project
Sputnik can be downloaded from here. Please note that at the moment this
image is not officially supported and it is available for demo purposes
only.
</quote>
http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/05/dell-announces-project-sputnik-
ubuntu.html
http://tinyurl.com/canugpz
Snit
May 8, 2012, 7:09:25 PM5/8/12
to
On 5/8/12 2:47 PM, in article a0tijo...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
with solid disproof of your claims:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/DellLinux.gif>
You repeatedly insisted that consumers could not buy a system without
Windows, even saying that when I told you otherwise I was in denial.
I showed you the Dell page where you, as a consumer, can select systems with
FreeDOS or Linux.
Neither of those OSs are Windows. Hence you simply are wrong.
Now you are looking at price - as though not only is Dell obligated to sell
you a system without Windows (they are not) but now they must do so at a
price point *you* set for them - it must be lower than the Windows options.
This is not only a change to your past arguments, it is absurd. Why should
they be forced to sell you a system for a lower price even if it may very
well likely cost them more to sell and support? That is insane.
Thank you. Yet more info proving your claims were wrong.
Now keep in mind: I have made it very clear Dell has *no* obligation to sell
systems with *any* configuration you or I might want. They have an
obligation to do what they think is best for themselves and their customers
- customers as a whole. What any one individual wants, or even a small
group, has no bearing on this - and what constitutes "best" is left entirely
up to them. If they decide to sell only bright pink systems, while I would
find that absurd, that is their right. And no boogieman is needed to
explain their decisions.
The herd is all too quick to blame the boogieman for "forcing" Dell to make
the choices they make - but there is *no* evidence they are doing so (yes, I
know there were some illegal acts by MS in the 1990s... that is not
relevant).
So there really is no "perhaps" about it - you were not only incorrect, you
acted poorly based on your incorrect views. It happens. You made a
mistake. Yes: an apology would be appropriate, but I do not expect one.
Just try to learn from your mistake and move forward trying to do better.
That is what I wish from you. Fair enough?
--
Proof cc is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
Why add price into this now? Here is a quick summary of your claims - along
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
with solid disproof of your claims:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/DellLinux.gif>
You repeatedly insisted that consumers could not buy a system without
Windows, even saying that when I told you otherwise I was in denial.
I showed you the Dell page where you, as a consumer, can select systems with
FreeDOS or Linux.
Neither of those OSs are Windows. Hence you simply are wrong.
Now you are looking at price - as though not only is Dell obligated to sell
you a system without Windows (they are not) but now they must do so at a
price point *you* set for them - it must be lower than the Windows options.
This is not only a change to your past arguments, it is absurd. Why should
they be forced to sell you a system for a lower price even if it may very
well likely cost them more to sell and support? That is insane.
Now keep in mind: I have made it very clear Dell has *no* obligation to sell
systems with *any* configuration you or I might want. They have an
obligation to do what they think is best for themselves and their customers
- customers as a whole. What any one individual wants, or even a small
group, has no bearing on this - and what constitutes "best" is left entirely
up to them. If they decide to sell only bright pink systems, while I would
find that absurd, that is their right. And no boogieman is needed to
explain their decisions.
The herd is all too quick to blame the boogieman for "forcing" Dell to make
the choices they make - but there is *no* evidence they are doing so (yes, I
know there were some illegal acts by MS in the 1990s... that is not
relevant).
So there really is no "perhaps" about it - you were not only incorrect, you
acted poorly based on your incorrect views. It happens. You made a
mistake. Yes: an apology would be appropriate, but I do not expect one.
Just try to learn from your mistake and move forward trying to do better.
That is what I wish from you. Fair enough?
--
Proof cc is clueless about his Xerox claims:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/b8aa8b17d0a6dfde>
Chris Ahlstrom
May 8, 2012, 7:32:52 PM5/8/12
to
After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
>
> <quote>
> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>
> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
> writes about it:
>
> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
Zzzzt. Stop right there. Developers. Not consumers.
Not a bad thing, though.
> We want to finds ways to make the developer experience as powerful and
> simple as possible. And what better way to do that than beginning
> with a laptop that is both highly mobile and extremely stylish,
> running the 12.04 LTS release of Ubuntu Linux.
Maybe they'll give Linus one! :-)
> More information on Project Sputnik can be found here.
> http://bartongeorge.net/2012/05/07/introducing-project-sputnik-developer-laptop/
>
> If you already have Dell XPS13, a customized Ubuntu 12.04 image for Project
> Sputnik can be downloaded from here. Please note that at the moment this
> image is not officially supported and it is available for demo purposes
> only.
> </quote>
> http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/05/dell-announces-project-sputnik-
> ubuntu.html
> http://tinyurl.com/canugpz
--
At least he doesn't suck up. He makes a fool of himself in his own time.
AND!!! he makes his money from Linux related things. No matter how much
we laugh at his mistakes he is far above arses like Creepy Chris and
Peter who make their money from Windows SW by day and call Windows users
(who buy and use their SW) wankers by night.
+1 to Telnet. - several million to Creepy and Peter.
-- "Hadron" <fqrva7-...@news.eternal-september.org>
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
>
> <quote>
> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>
> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
> writes about it:
>
> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
Not a bad thing, though.
> We want to finds ways to make the developer experience as powerful and
> simple as possible. And what better way to do that than beginning
> with a laptop that is both highly mobile and extremely stylish,
> running the 12.04 LTS release of Ubuntu Linux.
> More information on Project Sputnik can be found here.
> http://bartongeorge.net/2012/05/07/introducing-project-sputnik-developer-laptop/
>
> If you already have Dell XPS13, a customized Ubuntu 12.04 image for Project
> Sputnik can be downloaded from here. Please note that at the moment this
> image is not officially supported and it is available for demo purposes
> only.
> </quote>
> http://www.ubuntuvibes.com/2012/05/dell-announces-project-sputnik-
> ubuntu.html
> http://tinyurl.com/canugpz
At least he doesn't suck up. He makes a fool of himself in his own time.
AND!!! he makes his money from Linux related things. No matter how much
we laugh at his mistakes he is far above arses like Creepy Chris and
Peter who make their money from Windows SW by day and call Windows users
(who buy and use their SW) wankers by night.
+1 to Telnet. - several million to Creepy and Peter.
-- "Hadron" <fqrva7-...@news.eternal-september.org>
Hadron
May 9, 2012, 7:03:40 AM5/9/12
to
bbgruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
>
> <quote>
> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
How dumb.
> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>
> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
> image, then no!
>
> <quote>
> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
Why not just install a good stable Linux distro like Debian on one of
their existnig laptops? It works and is more than enough for *any*
developer who doesnt need to develop Mac/Windows proprietary
technologies unless they're willing to run Vbox on it too.
For *most* "web developers" a Gnu/Linux box is more than sufficient. I
know as I use one. The main issue comes when developing for smartphones
: needless to say the plugins and emulators for Linux based Android and
Apple phones dont work on Linux or in Eclipse.
So : +1 for using Linux as a development machine. -1 for trying to make
it more than it is in terms of brushed aluminium flyweight machines.
Hadron
May 9, 2012, 7:05:48 AM5/9/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
>> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
>> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
>> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>>
>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>> image, then no!
>>
>> <quote>
>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>>
>> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
>> writes about it:
>>
>> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
>> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
>
> Zzzzt. Stop right there. Developers. Not consumers.
>
> Not a bad thing, though.
>
Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
>> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
>> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
>> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>>
>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>> image, then no!
>>
>> <quote>
>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>>
>> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
>> writes about it:
>>
>> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
>> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
>
> Zzzzt. Stop right there. Developers. Not consumers.
>
> Not a bad thing, though.
>
consumers dont want/need Linux. It isnt windows or mac and people have
already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
it. More to the point, the customers that pay your salary also know
it. Have you *used* Unity for example? The half assed attempt to
re-guify the Linux desktop? People hate it. Linux people that it. Its a
buggy mess and more questions are asked on #Ubuntu about how to remove
it than almost any other Q.
Ezekiel
May 9, 2012, 10:35:20 AM5/9/12
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>>> <quote>
>>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore
>>> the
>>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>>>
>>> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
>>> writes about it:
>>>
>>> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
>>> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
>>
>> Zzzzt. Stop right there. Developers. Not consumers.
>>
>> Not a bad thing, though.
>>
>
> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
> consumers dont want/need Linux. It isnt windows or mac and people have
> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
> it.
He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
> More to the point, the customers that pay your salary
> also know it.
> Have you *used* Unity for example?
Not yet but I've downloaded the .iso and plan on installing it on a spare
drive. My desktop has those "hot swappable" drive-bays where I can
physically switch drives in seconds.
> The half assed attempt to re-guify the Linux desktop?
Haven't seen it yet (or any Unity release) so we'll see. The general problem
for Ubuntu is what should a desktop look/behave like. They can't/don't want
to make it exactly like Windows and if it's "almost" like Windows then the
perception will be that it's a copy-cat. If they go too far off in their own
direction then it'll be "too different" from what users expect. It's
probably a tough line to walk.
* - Yes, you can customize Linux with a different window-manager, different
themes, etc. but that's beyond what most people will ever do. To the average
Joe customizing their desktop means changing their wallpaper image.
> People hate it. Linux people that it.
From what I've read it seems that some do, and some don't.
> Its a buggy mess and more questions are asked on #Ubuntu
> about how to remove it than almost any other Q.
I've never cared much about the desktop "shell." Just give me an icon/menu
to launch an app and switch between running apps and that's essentially all
I need. I spend nearly all my time running "applications" and not on the
desktop.
--
I suggest (Linus) Torvalds cures whatever disease /he/ is suffering from,
before he loses what little is left of his credibility.
Homer - "Mr. Credibility" himself worried about the lack of credibility
Linus has left within the Linux community.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9dd4f899cbc29f3e?hl=en
news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>
>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>
>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>>> image, then no!
You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>>> image, then no!
won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>>> <quote>
>>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore
>>> the
>>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>>>
>>> Barton George, Director of Marketing for Dell's Web and Tech vertical,
>>> writes about it:
>>>
>>> To put it in context, Sputnik is part of an effort by Dell to better
>>> understand and serve the needs of developers in Web companies.
>>
>> Zzzzt. Stop right there. Developers. Not consumers.
>>
>> Not a bad thing, though.
>>
>
> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
> consumers dont want/need Linux. It isnt windows or mac and people have
> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
> it.
Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
> More to the point, the customers that pay your salary
> also know it.
> Have you *used* Unity for example?
drive. My desktop has those "hot swappable" drive-bays where I can
physically switch drives in seconds.
> The half assed attempt to re-guify the Linux desktop?
for Ubuntu is what should a desktop look/behave like. They can't/don't want
to make it exactly like Windows and if it's "almost" like Windows then the
perception will be that it's a copy-cat. If they go too far off in their own
direction then it'll be "too different" from what users expect. It's
probably a tough line to walk.
* - Yes, you can customize Linux with a different window-manager, different
themes, etc. but that's beyond what most people will ever do. To the average
Joe customizing their desktop means changing their wallpaper image.
> People hate it. Linux people that it.
> Its a buggy mess and more questions are asked on #Ubuntu
> about how to remove it than almost any other Q.
to launch an app and switch between running apps and that's essentially all
I need. I spend nearly all my time running "applications" and not on the
desktop.
--
I suggest (Linus) Torvalds cures whatever disease /he/ is suffering from,
before he loses what little is left of his credibility.
Homer - "Mr. Credibility" himself worried about the lack of credibility
Linus has left within the Linux community.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/9dd4f899cbc29f3e?hl=en
DFS
May 9, 2012, 11:03:40 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 7:03 AM, Hadron wrote:
> bbgruff<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
>> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
>> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
>> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>>
>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>> image, then no!
>>
>> <quote>
>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>
> How dumb.
That's what I was thinking. A 6-month research effort to explore the
> bbgruff<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>> This is not an apology you understand, just prior notice that possibly at
>> some time in the future, I might be saying sorry to the poor demented sod.
>> It all depends how this plays out, whether it actually comes to pass, and
>> what the price is relative to the Windows version.
>>
>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>> image, then no!
>>
>> <quote>
>> Dell has announced Project Sputnik, a 6 month research effort to explore the
>> possibility of creating an open source laptop targeted directly at
>> developers. It is based on Ubuntu 12.04 and Dell XPS13 laptop.
>
> How dumb.
possibility of a laptop with a small target sales audience? WTF?
Snit
May 9, 2012, 11:38:09 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 7:35 AM, in article jodvb9$uol$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
with desktop Linux. They "need" to sell them to consumers. They "need" to
sell them for the same price or cheaper than other OSs. They "need" to do
this and that and whatever else. Need. No choice.
The herd is very much *against* choice. It does not matter to them how much
it costs Dell to add such SKUs or how it much it costs to support such
systems or any other financial considerations (including, as you note and I
left out, comparisons to competitors). The herd has a desire... and they
feel entitled.
Their entitlements are not met - thus it must be the fault of the boogieman.
After all, in the 1990s Microsoft lost a legal case. The boogieman must
still be behind it all - no evidence or support needed for the herd to
accept this claim.
...
marketing power of Apple and Windows, and it is true that this matters, it
is also true that word-of-mouth is still massively important. And this word
is not "selling" people on desktop Linux, in the the homes of the herd (at
least not as a general statement). They cannot get their own families to
see the "benefits" they claim exist.
The bottom line is that if you have a product that serves people as well or
better than the competition and is easy to get and install, which are all
claims the herd makes, then desktop Linux should be sweeping the computer
world.
It is not. It is hardly a blip on the best stats we have (the web stats).
>> More to the point, the customers that pay your salary
>> also know it.
>
>> Have you *used* Unity for example?
> Not yet but I've downloaded the .iso and plan on installing it on a spare
> drive. My desktop has those "hot swappable" drive-bays where I can
> physically switch drives in seconds.
>
>> The half assed attempt to re-guify the Linux desktop?
> Haven't seen it yet (or any Unity release) so we'll see. The general problem
> for Ubuntu is what should a desktop look/behave like. They can't/don't want
> to make it exactly like Windows and if it's "almost" like Windows then the
> perception will be that it's a copy-cat. If they go too far off in their own
> direction then it'll be "too different" from what users expect. It's
> probably a tough line to walk.
>
> * - Yes, you can customize Linux with a different window-manager, different
> themes, etc. but that's beyond what most people will ever do. To the average
> Joe customizing their desktop means changing their wallpaper image.
Apple has managed to do this well... but they do what the OSS ecosystem
makes very hard to do on the distro level - they make a (mostly) unified
system. Such a system is able to boost productivity and reduce errors and
offer all sorts of benefits a mix-and-match system (currently) cannot come
close to.
>> People hate it. Linux people that it.
> From what I've read it seems that some do, and some don't.
>
>> Its a buggy mess and more questions are asked on #Ubuntu
>> about how to remove it than almost any other Q.
>
> I've never cared much about the desktop "shell." Just give me an icon/menu
> to launch an app and switch between running apps and that's essentially all
> I need. I spend nearly all my time running "applications" and not on the
> desktop.
Sure: but the system can (and should - and does on competing systems) offer
services which benefit those programs. This is very apparent on OS X - and
I have listed many of those system level benefits and gone into detail with
them. Some examples: proxy icons, saved status indicators, media browser,
unified color selector, consistent common menu item naming and placement,
unified save/open/print dialogs, GUI based backup system where you can use
the application GUI to retrieve past documents (or even just copy and paste
from them), PDF Services (which, although Peter has yet to show he gets it,
is a lot more than Print-to-PDF), Application Services, etc.
Not that desktop Linux distros need to or should copy these things from
Apple, but they could and *should* be able to have their own system-wide
benefits. But given the nature of OSS, this is very hard to accomplish
right now.
--
Proof of cc's lies and bad faith:
<http://goo.gl/a45Rm>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
<ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>
>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>>>> image, then no!
>
> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
> Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
>
> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
But the herd wants to take choice from them. They "need" to sell machines
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>
>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install the
>>>> image, then no!
>
> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
> Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
>
> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
with desktop Linux. They "need" to sell them to consumers. They "need" to
sell them for the same price or cheaper than other OSs. They "need" to do
this and that and whatever else. Need. No choice.
The herd is very much *against* choice. It does not matter to them how much
it costs Dell to add such SKUs or how it much it costs to support such
systems or any other financial considerations (including, as you note and I
left out, comparisons to competitors). The herd has a desire... and they
feel entitled.
Their entitlements are not met - thus it must be the fault of the boogieman.
After all, in the 1990s Microsoft lost a legal case. The boogieman must
still be behind it all - no evidence or support needed for the herd to
accept this claim.
...
> He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
>
> Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
> use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
> of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
> members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
> they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>
> Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
> tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
> to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
Right. While it is true that Ubuntu and other distros do not have the
>
> Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
> use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
> of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
> members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
> they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>
> Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
> tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
> to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
marketing power of Apple and Windows, and it is true that this matters, it
is also true that word-of-mouth is still massively important. And this word
is not "selling" people on desktop Linux, in the the homes of the herd (at
least not as a general statement). They cannot get their own families to
see the "benefits" they claim exist.
The bottom line is that if you have a product that serves people as well or
better than the competition and is easy to get and install, which are all
claims the herd makes, then desktop Linux should be sweeping the computer
world.
It is not. It is hardly a blip on the best stats we have (the web stats).
>> More to the point, the customers that pay your salary
>> also know it.
>
>> Have you *used* Unity for example?
> Not yet but I've downloaded the .iso and plan on installing it on a spare
> drive. My desktop has those "hot swappable" drive-bays where I can
> physically switch drives in seconds.
>
>> The half assed attempt to re-guify the Linux desktop?
> Haven't seen it yet (or any Unity release) so we'll see. The general problem
> for Ubuntu is what should a desktop look/behave like. They can't/don't want
> to make it exactly like Windows and if it's "almost" like Windows then the
> perception will be that it's a copy-cat. If they go too far off in their own
> direction then it'll be "too different" from what users expect. It's
> probably a tough line to walk.
>
> * - Yes, you can customize Linux with a different window-manager, different
> themes, etc. but that's beyond what most people will ever do. To the average
> Joe customizing their desktop means changing their wallpaper image.
makes very hard to do on the distro level - they make a (mostly) unified
system. Such a system is able to boost productivity and reduce errors and
offer all sorts of benefits a mix-and-match system (currently) cannot come
close to.
>> People hate it. Linux people that it.
> From what I've read it seems that some do, and some don't.
>
>> Its a buggy mess and more questions are asked on #Ubuntu
>> about how to remove it than almost any other Q.
>
> I've never cared much about the desktop "shell." Just give me an icon/menu
> to launch an app and switch between running apps and that's essentially all
> I need. I spend nearly all my time running "applications" and not on the
> desktop.
services which benefit those programs. This is very apparent on OS X - and
I have listed many of those system level benefits and gone into detail with
them. Some examples: proxy icons, saved status indicators, media browser,
unified color selector, consistent common menu item naming and placement,
unified save/open/print dialogs, GUI based backup system where you can use
the application GUI to retrieve past documents (or even just copy and paste
from them), PDF Services (which, although Peter has yet to show he gets it,
is a lot more than Print-to-PDF), Application Services, etc.
Not that desktop Linux distros need to or should copy these things from
Apple, but they could and *should* be able to have their own system-wide
benefits. But given the nature of OSS, this is very hard to accomplish
right now.
--
Proof of cc's lies and bad faith:
<http://goo.gl/a45Rm>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinuxTrendMar2012Snit-vs-cc.png>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/LinearTrendLineCreation.mov>
Snit
May 9, 2012, 11:40:04 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 4:05 AM, in article 5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org,
I keep hoping Unity will get its act together. Right now, though, it is -
in my view - a complete and utter mess. Horrible.
--
"It's legal. What more advocating need be done?" -cc
in my view - a complete and utter mess. Horrible.
--
"It's legal. What more advocating need be done?" -cc
chrisv
May 9, 2012, 11:42:53 AM5/9/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
> "Hadron" quacked:
people trust the Dell name and some will even pay a little extra for
it.
>It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>from selling Linux machines.
Wow, what a news flash. M$ can no longer be so blatantly illegal to
"prevent" Dell from selling Linux machines.
>Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>sell it.
Difficult to do, when Micro$oft "incentives" make it so that the Linux
machines cost more than the same machine with Windows.
Same result, in the end.
> Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
In that space there simply is no way that the Micro$oft products can
satisfy the market.
>> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
>> consumers dont want/need Linux.
No such thing has been shown, "true Linux advocate".
In fact, it has been shown time and time again that consumers want and
need choice in *every* market. The desktop OS market is no exception!
There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
*many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
world behind.
>> It isnt windows or mac and people have
>> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
>> it.
That didn't stop people from learning, for example, smart-phones and
tablets, did it?
It also didn't stop people from learning the latest versions of
Windows, did it?
Most people can easily deal with "something new". It's *not that*
that keeps desktop Linux in obscurity, and you know it. The real
reasons have been discussed in here a million times.
>He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
>
>Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>
>Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
You're not thinking logically.
It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
what you use and what I use.
What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
better-suited to their needs.
Also, prices would drop, on everything.
It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
*This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
> "Hadron" quacked:
>>
>
>You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
No it doesn't, it only needs to be "competitively priced". Lots of
>
>You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
people trust the Dell name and some will even pay a little extra for
it.
>It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>from selling Linux machines.
"prevent" Dell from selling Linux machines.
>Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>sell it.
machines cost more than the same machine with Windows.
Same result, in the end.
> Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
satisfy the market.
>> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
>> consumers dont want/need Linux.
In fact, it has been shown time and time again that consumers want and
need choice in *every* market. The desktop OS market is no exception!
There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
*many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
world behind.
>> It isnt windows or mac and people have
>> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
>> it.
tablets, did it?
It also didn't stop people from learning the latest versions of
Windows, did it?
Most people can easily deal with "something new". It's *not that*
that keeps desktop Linux in obscurity, and you know it. The real
reasons have been discussed in here a million times.
>He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
>
>Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>
>Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
what you use and what I use.
What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
better-suited to their needs.
Also, prices would drop, on everything.
It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
*This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
bbgruff
May 9, 2012, 11:53:13 AM5/9/12
to
On Wednesday 09 May 2012 15:35 Ezekiel wrote:
> erences: 1 2 3
Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
3. It's aimed at developers.
It seems to me that a developer would be quite capable of downloading and
installing a Linux build. Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing, buy the Windows version,
and install the Linux.
> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
Indeed, and that is exactly Snit's point of view.
I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their web
page to which Snit kindly directed me) can offer the same machine WITH
Windows at about $200 dollars LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows
(FreeDOS instead).
I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
> erences: 1 2 3
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>
>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>> the image, then no!
>
> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
> Linux machine cheaper than other Linux machines out on the market.
> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>
>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>> the image, then no!
>
> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
3. It's aimed at developers.
It seems to me that a developer would be quite capable of downloading and
installing a Linux build. Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing, buy the Windows version,
and install the Linux.
> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their web
page to which Snit kindly directed me) can offer the same machine WITH
Windows at about $200 dollars LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows
(FreeDOS instead).
I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
chrisv
May 9, 2012, 12:06:47 PM5/9/12
to
chrisv wrote:
>There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>*many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>world behind.
And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
>There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>*many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>world behind.
"Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
Snit
May 9, 2012, 12:26:21 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 8:53 AM, in article a0vi7...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
there is a value in *not* getting Windows, even if they are going to remove
it. If this is really a value to them - something they find important -
then they may very well be willing to cover the additional costs of the work
needed in terms of making additional SKUs, support, etc.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> Indeed, and that is exactly Snit's point of view.
Well, more accurately my view is there is no good support for any such
secret contracts and reasonable evidence that there is not nor is there any
reason to assume one based on the sales practices we see. This does not
prove there is not one, but there is just no good reason to believe it.
So while your claim is not *exactly* right to my view, it is a reasoned
summary, even if slightly inaccurate (in other words, while I offered a
correction I am not saying you were being ignorant or dishonest to make the
claim).
> I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their web
> page to which Snit kindly directed me) can offer the same machine WITH
> Windows at about $200 dollars LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows
> (FreeDOS instead).
Given the market realities this is not something I find that surprising.
Not that I would not like to see them offer if for the same price or less,
but I understand they have costs they have to cover and they have the right
to price things as they see best to do so. I mean, sure, I would love for
my iMac to have been less expensive than it was, but I do not begrudge Apple
for selling a product to me at a price I was willing to pay. For folks such
as Homer who, to them, there is value in *not* getting Windows, the extra
price may very well be worth it.
> I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
> high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
Do as you wish, but in the end you will never "work out" an answer to a
question when you limit your solutions to such a false dichotomy.
--
"I mischaracterize things you say." - cc
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 15:35 Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> erences: 1 2 3
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>>> the image, then no!
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than other Linux machines out on the market.
>
> Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
>
> 1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
>
> 2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
>
> 3. It's aimed at developers.
>
> It seems to me that a developer would be quite capable of downloading and
> installing a Linux build. Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
> version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing, buy the Windows version,
> and install the Linux.
And many will - but keep in mind there are folks such as Homer who, to them,
> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 15:35 Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> erences: 1 2 3
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>>> the image, then no!
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than other Linux machines out on the market.
>
> Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
>
> 1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
>
> 2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
>
> 3. It's aimed at developers.
>
> It seems to me that a developer would be quite capable of downloading and
> installing a Linux build. Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
> version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing, buy the Windows version,
> and install the Linux.
there is a value in *not* getting Windows, even if they are going to remove
it. If this is really a value to them - something they find important -
then they may very well be willing to cover the additional costs of the work
needed in terms of making additional SKUs, support, etc.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> Indeed, and that is exactly Snit's point of view.
secret contracts and reasonable evidence that there is not nor is there any
reason to assume one based on the sales practices we see. This does not
prove there is not one, but there is just no good reason to believe it.
So while your claim is not *exactly* right to my view, it is a reasoned
summary, even if slightly inaccurate (in other words, while I offered a
correction I am not saying you were being ignorant or dishonest to make the
claim).
> I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their web
> page to which Snit kindly directed me) can offer the same machine WITH
> Windows at about $200 dollars LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows
> (FreeDOS instead).
Not that I would not like to see them offer if for the same price or less,
but I understand they have costs they have to cover and they have the right
to price things as they see best to do so. I mean, sure, I would love for
my iMac to have been less expensive than it was, but I do not begrudge Apple
for selling a product to me at a price I was willing to pay. For folks such
as Homer who, to them, there is value in *not* getting Windows, the extra
price may very well be worth it.
> I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
> high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
question when you limit your solutions to such a false dichotomy.
--
"I mischaracterize things you say." - cc
Snit
May 9, 2012, 12:48:10 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 8:42 AM, in article va2lq7h5j00cggg4c...@4ax.com,
say, System 76 and the like. Makes sense people would be willing to spend
more money for a better known name brand that, potentially, has better
support and services.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines.
>
> Wow, what a news flash. M$ can no longer be so blatantly illegal to
> "prevent" Dell from selling Linux machines.
His comment was in reference to the boogieman excuse so often seen in COLA.
>> Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>> sell it.
>
> Difficult to do, when Micro$oft "incentives" make it so that the Linux
> machines cost more than the same machine with Windows.
>
> Same result, in the end.
Now it is the boogieman's fault that it costs money for Dell to add SKUs,
that support for desktop Linux is almost surely higher than it is for
Windows, etc., that Dell has to make up for he economies of scale, etc.
The boogieman controls a lot!
>> Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> In that space there simply is no way that the Micro$oft products can
> satisfy the market.
In that space, other products are compelling and compete well.
If and when Dell can sell a system that is comparable in the consumer space
they will. Heck, they have tried before and, according to Shuttleworth,
shall be trying again soon.
>>> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
>>> consumers dont want/need Linux.
>
> No such thing has been shown, "true Linux advocate".
The evidence for it is overwhelming - but you imply to note it makes one
something other than a Linux advocate. Well, let's look at the words of
these folks who surely must also not be Linux advocates:
Linus Torvalds:
-----
... even if the Hurd didn't depend on Linux code (and as far
as I know, it does, but since I think they have their design
heads firmly up their *sses anyway with that whole
microkernel thing, I've never felt it was worth my time even
looking at their code), I don't believe a religiously
motivated development community can ever generate as good
code except by pure chance.
-----
Mark Shuttleworth:
-----
I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
Linux is the right answer.
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
...
Second thing is, we just can't do this only on GNOME or just
on KDE, we need to figure out on how to move the whole Linux
desktop platform forward. I suspect if we hire a bunch of
upstream developers they will be across both GNOME and KDE.
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say
we should let designers lead the definition of the user
experience.
-----
Jim Zemlin:
-----
Yeah, their stuff's pretty good. [points at a MacBook Air]
That's a pretty sweet laptop there. That's the difference. I
get asked a lot, "Why does Apple get a bye?" from the open
source guys. When you're downstairs I'm sure you'll see a lot
more Macs. The reason why they get a bit more of a bye is
because the stuff is really innovative. It's not the stuff
where you say "Not only is it crap but..."
-----
> What's one application would you like to see for Linux
> that doesn't exist currently?
iTunes. And Microsoft Office.
-----
Open source is a development methodology, and choice is not
guaranteed by a development methodology."
-----
One of the big things that's difficult is consistency, and
that's Window's biggest strength.
-----
As the standards are provided and then adopted, the Linux
desktop will snowball. Microsoft can compete with a Sun, a
Red Hat or a Novell, but they won't be able to compete with
an ecosystem of Linux desktops...
-----
What our standards will do is enable desktop application
vendors to easily target the Linux ecosystem, not just a
single vendor, to make sure they run across all the different
distributions...
-----
[The new LSB desktop group will be dealing with more than
just KDE and GNOME issues though. It will be dealing with]
all issues dealing with interoperability, ... everyone at the
table, and motivated to make the Linux desktop a success,
everyone will be seeking a consensus. This may not [mean]
making developers choose between KDE and GNOME, but instead
finding a way to make it easier for ISVs to create
applications that can easily work with both.
-----
These people are pretty much saying they agree with and understand the
reasons desktop Linux has not caught on - and it has nothing to do with the
boogieman.
> In fact, it has been shown time and time again that consumers want and
> need choice in *every* market. The desktop OS market is no exception!
Nobody is saying people do not look for choice. Heck, if they did not Apple
would be dead. But just because desktop Linux offers a myriad of choices,
that does not imply those choices are desirable to most people. And there
is no reason to think they are - and plenty of evidence that they are not.
> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
> world behind.
Oh, there are some who would do well to switch - people who use their
computers mostly for web kiosks, for example. There is a huge opening for
desktop Linux there.
>>> It isnt windows or mac and people have
>>> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
>>> it.
>
> That didn't stop people from learning, for example, smart-phones and
> tablets, did it?
Right: so the problem is not about just learning something new.
But when a better smart phone was introduced - one that was easier to use
and offered greater productivity, error reduction, etc. - people flocked to
it. And then Google worked to, largely, emulate it. And the old paradigm
of smart phones, essentially, died off.
It is not enough to offer choice - one must offer a compelling choice. And,
in general, for desktop users Linux does not offer that.
> It also didn't stop people from learning the latest versions of
> Windows, did it?
>
> Most people can easily deal with "something new". It's *not that*
> that keeps desktop Linux in obscurity, and you know it. The real
> reasons have been discussed in here a million times.
Right: it deal with the user experience offered by desktop Linux and how it
does not compete well with the alternatives. No boogieman conspiracy
theories needed to understand that.
>> He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
>>
>> Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>> use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>> of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>> members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>> they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>>
>> Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>> tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>> to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
>
> You're not thinking logically.
>
> It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
> what you use and what I use.
>
> What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
> was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
> because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
> better-suited to their needs.
You are inventing a mythical claim of some sort of artificial suppression...
let me guess: from the boogieman again. This is the herd answer to why
desktop Linux does not "sell" - and yet there is no reasonable support for
the boogieman claim.
> Also, prices would drop, on everything.
>
> It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
> makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
> the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
> great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
> many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
Well, when you are not serving people well you do not get a good word of
mouth and some people do not find the product nor test it or whatever. So,
sure, there are some people who use Product X who would be better served wth
Product Y. No doubt. But this is true of all markets. No boogieman
required to understand that.
> *This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
> market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
Is anyone against people having choice? Anyone against seeing healthy
competition? Anyone against fair values? If so, can you please quote
them... this is not something I have seen stated in COLA - except by the
herd! These are the people in COLA who want to force Dell and the like to
*not* be able to offer what they see as the best value they can offer and
want them to not be able to exercise their own choice. These are the people
who want to artificially prop up open source OSs in a way that the market
has not done. These are the people who want to pervert the market to serve
their own self-interests and feelings of entitlement.
As much as I want to see desktop Linux do well, I want it do well because it
has *earned* its place on people's desktops. I do not want to push it on
people and remove choice. The desire of so many in the herd to do this is,
in my view, completely wrong.
> The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
> there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
What unfairness are you in reference to? Please be specific, or at least
relatively so.
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Hadron" quacked:
>>>
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
>
> No it doesn't, it only needs to be "competitively priced". Lots of
> people trust the Dell name and some will even pay a little extra for
> it.
Good point: so Dell can sell the Linux machine at an even higher cost than,
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Hadron" quacked:
>>>
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than *other* Linux machines out on the market.
>
> No it doesn't, it only needs to be "competitively priced". Lots of
> people trust the Dell name and some will even pay a little extra for
> it.
say, System 76 and the like. Makes sense people would be willing to spend
more money for a better known name brand that, potentially, has better
support and services.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines.
>
> Wow, what a news flash. M$ can no longer be so blatantly illegal to
> "prevent" Dell from selling Linux machines.
>> Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they will
>> sell it.
>
> Difficult to do, when Micro$oft "incentives" make it so that the Linux
> machines cost more than the same machine with Windows.
>
> Same result, in the end.
that support for desktop Linux is almost surely higher than it is for
Windows, etc., that Dell has to make up for he economies of scale, etc.
The boogieman controls a lot!
>> Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> In that space there simply is no way that the Micro$oft products can
> satisfy the market.
If and when Dell can sell a system that is comparable in the consumer space
they will. Heck, they have tried before and, according to Shuttleworth,
shall be trying again soon.
>>> Of course not consumers. It has been shown time and time again that
>>> consumers dont want/need Linux.
>
> No such thing has been shown, "true Linux advocate".
something other than a Linux advocate. Well, let's look at the words of
these folks who surely must also not be Linux advocates:
Linus Torvalds:
-----
... even if the Hurd didn't depend on Linux code (and as far
as I know, it does, but since I think they have their design
heads firmly up their *sses anyway with that whole
microkernel thing, I've never felt it was worth my time even
looking at their code), I don't believe a religiously
motivated development community can ever generate as good
code except by pure chance.
-----
Mark Shuttleworth:
-----
I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
Linux is the right answer.
But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.
...
Second thing is, we just can't do this only on GNOME or just
on KDE, we need to figure out on how to move the whole Linux
desktop platform forward. I suspect if we hire a bunch of
upstream developers they will be across both GNOME and KDE.
I think the Apple guys have a very good point when they say
we should let designers lead the definition of the user
experience.
-----
Jim Zemlin:
-----
Yeah, their stuff's pretty good. [points at a MacBook Air]
That's a pretty sweet laptop there. That's the difference. I
get asked a lot, "Why does Apple get a bye?" from the open
source guys. When you're downstairs I'm sure you'll see a lot
more Macs. The reason why they get a bit more of a bye is
because the stuff is really innovative. It's not the stuff
where you say "Not only is it crap but..."
-----
> What's one application would you like to see for Linux
> that doesn't exist currently?
iTunes. And Microsoft Office.
-----
Open source is a development methodology, and choice is not
guaranteed by a development methodology."
-----
One of the big things that's difficult is consistency, and
that's Window's biggest strength.
-----
As the standards are provided and then adopted, the Linux
desktop will snowball. Microsoft can compete with a Sun, a
Red Hat or a Novell, but they won't be able to compete with
an ecosystem of Linux desktops...
-----
What our standards will do is enable desktop application
vendors to easily target the Linux ecosystem, not just a
single vendor, to make sure they run across all the different
distributions...
-----
[The new LSB desktop group will be dealing with more than
just KDE and GNOME issues though. It will be dealing with]
all issues dealing with interoperability, ... everyone at the
table, and motivated to make the Linux desktop a success,
everyone will be seeking a consensus. This may not [mean]
making developers choose between KDE and GNOME, but instead
finding a way to make it easier for ISVs to create
applications that can easily work with both.
-----
These people are pretty much saying they agree with and understand the
reasons desktop Linux has not caught on - and it has nothing to do with the
boogieman.
> In fact, it has been shown time and time again that consumers want and
> need choice in *every* market. The desktop OS market is no exception!
would be dead. But just because desktop Linux offers a myriad of choices,
that does not imply those choices are desirable to most people. And there
is no reason to think they are - and plenty of evidence that they are not.
> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
> world behind.
computers mostly for web kiosks, for example. There is a huge opening for
desktop Linux there.
>>> It isnt windows or mac and people have
>>> already got into their comfort zone with the two. You know it and I know
>>> it.
>
> That didn't stop people from learning, for example, smart-phones and
> tablets, did it?
But when a better smart phone was introduced - one that was easier to use
and offered greater productivity, error reduction, etc. - people flocked to
it. And then Google worked to, largely, emulate it. And the old paradigm
of smart phones, essentially, died off.
It is not enough to offer choice - one must offer a compelling choice. And,
in general, for desktop users Linux does not offer that.
> It also didn't stop people from learning the latest versions of
> Windows, did it?
>
> Most people can easily deal with "something new". It's *not that*
> that keeps desktop Linux in obscurity, and you know it. The real
> reasons have been discussed in here a million times.
does not compete well with the alternatives. No boogieman conspiracy
theories needed to understand that.
>> He not only "knows it" - he lives it and confirms it.
>>
>> Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>> use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>> of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>> members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>> they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>>
>> Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>> tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>> to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
>
> You're not thinking logically.
>
> It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
> what you use and what I use.
>
> What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
> was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
> because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
> better-suited to their needs.
let me guess: from the boogieman again. This is the herd answer to why
desktop Linux does not "sell" - and yet there is no reasonable support for
the boogieman claim.
> Also, prices would drop, on everything.
>
> It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
> makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
> the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
> great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
> many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
mouth and some people do not find the product nor test it or whatever. So,
sure, there are some people who use Product X who would be better served wth
Product Y. No doubt. But this is true of all markets. No boogieman
required to understand that.
> *This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
> market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
competition? Anyone against fair values? If so, can you please quote
them... this is not something I have seen stated in COLA - except by the
herd! These are the people in COLA who want to force Dell and the like to
*not* be able to offer what they see as the best value they can offer and
want them to not be able to exercise their own choice. These are the people
who want to artificially prop up open source OSs in a way that the market
has not done. These are the people who want to pervert the market to serve
their own self-interests and feelings of entitlement.
As much as I want to see desktop Linux do well, I want it do well because it
has *earned* its place on people's desktops. I do not want to push it on
people and remove choice. The desire of so many in the herd to do this is,
in my view, completely wrong.
> The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
> there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
relatively so.
Snit
May 9, 2012, 12:50:15 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 9:06 AM, in article qe5lq79qfam0q7bmv...@4ax.com,
describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
Who are you to decide how much choice is "sufficient"? I am comfortable
with what the market decides is the right amount of "choice" in this area.
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>> world behind.
>
> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
I am served very well by my Mac... and Mac users in almost all surveys
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>> world behind.
>
> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
with what the market decides is the right amount of "choice" in this area.
Chris Ahlstrom
May 9, 2012, 5:15:55 PM5/9/12
to
After swilling some grog, chrisv belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>>use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>>of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>>members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>>they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>>
>>Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>>tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>>to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
Already have. They're used to "Windows apps".
Although both have used Linux readily enough when their Windows setups
shit the bed.
> You're not thinking logically.
>
> It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
> what you use and what I use.
>
> What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
> was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
> because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
> better-suited to their needs.
>
> Also, prices would drop, on everything.
>
> It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
> makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
> the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
> great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
> many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
>
> *This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
> market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
>
> The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
> there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
In a fair market, some niche players would benefit, selling Linux on the
shelves of Walmart and the office stores without tortuous interference
from Microsoft and being able to survive without the pay-back that
bundleware allows.
--
Erm, you mean like the companies I actually listed unlike your mealy
mouthed unsaid anti Apple/MS waffle?
You're really not very bright are you?
Sony pads are not going to challenge anyone. Sony are traditionally top
tier and top price.
-- "Hadron" <2c1uysk...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>Several "advocates" here have made posts about how their own family members
>>use Windows (or OSX in some cases). These "advocates" who tout the virtues
>>of what a great desktop Linux makes can't even *get their own family
>>members* to use a Linux PC. If their kids/wife/etc don't want Linux why do
>>they think that the general public is going pay for a Linux machine?
>>
>>Get your own wife and kids to primarily use Linux on their PC first, then
>>tell me how the masses should be using it. If your own wife/kids don't want
>>to run a Linux desktop then ask *them* for the reason they won't.
Although both have used Linux readily enough when their Windows setups
shit the bed.
> You're not thinking logically.
>
> It's *irrelevant* what "person A" chooses to use. It's irrelevant
> what you use and what I use.
>
> What *is* relevant is that *many people* would benefit if this market
> was fair, and choice was not artificially suppressed by various means,
> because *many* of people would then then end-up with a product
> better-suited to their needs.
>
> Also, prices would drop, on everything.
>
> It is *not important* for what fraction of the market the Linux choice
> makes sense, except that there is *no doubt* that it is greater than
> the fraction that is using it today. *No product in the world* is so
> great that it's the best choice for 90% of the market. There are too
> many different needs, wants, tastes, skill-levels and budgets.
>
> *This* is why we advocate, so that people have *real* choice in the
> market, and that healthy competition ensures fair values.
>
> The "possibility" that an alternate can be obtained does not mean that
> there is *real* choice or that values are fair!
shelves of Walmart and the office stores without tortuous interference
from Microsoft and being able to survive without the pay-back that
bundleware allows.
--
Erm, you mean like the companies I actually listed unlike your mealy
mouthed unsaid anti Apple/MS waffle?
You're really not very bright are you?
Sony pads are not going to challenge anyone. Sony are traditionally top
tier and top price.
-- "Hadron" <2c1uysk...@news.eternal-september.org>
Chris Ahlstrom
May 9, 2012, 5:17:27 PM5/9/12
to
barrier-to-entry, they still keep plying their silly quibbles.
--
You are a fluke of the universe; you have no right to be here.
DFS
May 9, 2012, 5:27:01 PM5/9/12
to
Tell us how much profit is 'fair', turd.
DFS
May 9, 2012, 5:45:03 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/2012 5:17 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> These guys (Zeke and Snit) are idiots. Even in the face of a $150-$200
> barrier-to-entry, they still keep plying their silly quibbles.
http://bayimg.com/fAOnGaADh
> These guys (Zeke and Snit) are idiots. Even in the face of a $150-$200
> barrier-to-entry, they still keep plying their silly quibbles.
Hadron
May 9, 2012, 6:19:11 PM5/9/12
to
Snit
May 9, 2012, 6:56:04 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 2:15 PM, in article joemq6$n4u$2...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
What interference? What is MS doing to stop WalMart from selling Linux
based systems? The answer: nothing. This is just the boogieman excuse
often made by the herd. There is *no* backing for it and no support.
> and being able to survive without the pay-back that
> bundleware allows.
If desktop Linux were to earn popularity, it would also have people willing
to bundle their apps with it.
--
"Stallman thinks it's okay to have sex with 15 year olds (even
though there's no evidence he's done so himself), so he's
advocating child abuse." - cc
based systems? The answer: nothing. This is just the boogieman excuse
often made by the herd. There is *no* backing for it and no support.
> and being able to survive without the pay-back that
> bundleware allows.
to bundle their apps with it.
--
"Stallman thinks it's okay to have sex with 15 year olds (even
though there's no evidence he's done so himself), so he's
advocating child abuse." - cc
Snit
May 9, 2012, 6:57:14 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 2:17 PM, in article joemt1$n4u$3...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
The world does not owe you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you
want at a price you want to pay.
Dell has no obligation to lose money just so you think things are fair. Deal
with it. But you prefer to believe in the boogieman.
--
cc:
-----
Clearly, I don't understand what I read.
-----
want at a price you want to pay.
Dell has no obligation to lose money just so you think things are fair. Deal
with it. But you prefer to believe in the boogieman.
--
cc:
-----
Clearly, I don't understand what I read.
-----
Snit
May 9, 2012, 6:58:37 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 2:27 PM, in article joenf5$tqf$2...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
The "sufficient" choice is achieved when people are forced to do as the herd
wants. That is what they mean by choice. It is absurd 1984 double-talk.
--
"I find prostitution repulsive, therefore I think it should be illegal." -cc
wants. That is what they mean by choice. It is absurd 1984 double-talk.
--
"I find prostitution repulsive, therefore I think it should be illegal." -cc
Snit
May 9, 2012, 6:59:33 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 2:45 PM, in article joeogv$tqf$7...@dont-email.me, "DFS"
Wow... excellent to know. Thanks.
bbgruff
May 9, 2012, 7:51:41 PM5/9/12
to
On Wednesday 09 May 2012 23:57 Snit wrote:
> The world does not owe you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you
> want at a price you want to pay.
What on earth are you talking about?
> The world does not owe you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you
> want at a price you want to pay.
Nobody has mentioned Linux in this context.
The topic on the table is simple:-
Dell machine WITH Windows $200 LESS than same Dell machine WITHOUT Windows.
The same machine costs 42% MORE without Windows than it does WITH Windows.
If it were an isolated instance, I'd put it down to an error.
It's not - and I've seen exactly the same thing, with exactly the same
company, on previous occasions.
The only conclusion I can come to is that either:-
1. There is something fishy going on, or
2. Like you, they are trying to take the piss.
Snit
May 9, 2012, 8:43:57 PM5/9/12
to
On 5/9/12 4:51 PM, in article a10e89...@mid.individual.net, "bbgruff"
replying to. The ones you snipped. The ones where Ahlstrom was whining
about how Linux systems are more expensive than he wants to pay and thus he
feel justified to belittle me... and I am talking about your comments he was
responding to where you presented this false dichotomy:
bbgruff:
-----
So that is what this is all about - the stuff you are snipping and running
from.
> Nobody has mentioned Linux in this context.
> The topic on the table is simple:-
>
> Dell machine WITH Windows $200 LESS than same Dell machine WITHOUT Windows.
> The same machine costs 42% MORE without Windows than it does WITH Windows.
Well, as DFS noted, if you speak to Dell directly you can actually get
around that, but even if you could not - so what? The world does not owe
the cost of the added SKU, the lack of garbage-ware helping to defray the
costs, the cost of support, the fact that the folks looking for such
machines are much more likely to be zealots willing to pay for the "right"
to not get Windows, the smaller base to spread costs through, the
comparisons with other venders who sell similar systems with Linux, etc.,
there is no reason to think their prices are unreasonable.
> If it were an isolated instance, I'd put it down to an error.
An error? Why?
> It's not - and I've seen exactly the same thing, with exactly the same
> company, on previous occasions.
And my Mac cost more than the average PC. Boo hoo for me. If I do not want
to pay that much I do not have to. So the question comes down to if the
product is worth it to me - in my case it was and I am very happy with my
purchase. Are you saying the PCs sold with Linux are not worth the cost?
If that is how you feel then do not buy them. How is this a problem?
> The only conclusion I can come to is that either:-
>
> 1. There is something fishy going on, or
>
> 2. Like you, they are trying to take the piss.
I do not doubt those are the only conclusions *you* can come to... which is
why it is so easy to see how lost you are on the topic. See above where I
explain a lot of other reasons why their might be the price difference.
Oh, and do not forget to thank DFS for pointing out that it does not seem
hard to have that price difference eliminated.
<bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 23:57 Snit wrote:
>
>> The world does not owe you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you
>> want at a price you want to pay.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
I am talking about the comments that were above mine - the ones I was
> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 23:57 Snit wrote:
>
>> The world does not owe you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you
>> want at a price you want to pay.
>
> What on earth are you talking about?
replying to. The ones you snipped. The ones where Ahlstrom was whining
about how Linux systems are more expensive than he wants to pay and thus he
feel justified to belittle me... and I am talking about your comments he was
responding to where you presented this false dichotomy:
bbgruff:
-----
I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of
FreeDOS is very high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each
installation.
-----
FreeDOS is very high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each
installation.
So that is what this is all about - the stuff you are snipping and running
from.
> Nobody has mentioned Linux in this context.
> The topic on the table is simple:-
>
> Dell machine WITH Windows $200 LESS than same Dell machine WITHOUT Windows.
> The same machine costs 42% MORE without Windows than it does WITH Windows.
around that, but even if you could not - so what? The world does not owe
you *anything*... certainly not a Linux system you want at a price you want
to pay. Dell has a right to set up their pricing as they wish - and with
the cost of the added SKU, the lack of garbage-ware helping to defray the
costs, the cost of support, the fact that the folks looking for such
machines are much more likely to be zealots willing to pay for the "right"
to not get Windows, the smaller base to spread costs through, the
comparisons with other venders who sell similar systems with Linux, etc.,
there is no reason to think their prices are unreasonable.
> If it were an isolated instance, I'd put it down to an error.
> It's not - and I've seen exactly the same thing, with exactly the same
> company, on previous occasions.
to pay that much I do not have to. So the question comes down to if the
product is worth it to me - in my case it was and I am very happy with my
purchase. Are you saying the PCs sold with Linux are not worth the cost?
If that is how you feel then do not buy them. How is this a problem?
> The only conclusion I can come to is that either:-
>
> 1. There is something fishy going on, or
>
> 2. Like you, they are trying to take the piss.
why it is so easy to see how lost you are on the topic. See above where I
explain a lot of other reasons why their might be the price difference.
Oh, and do not forget to thank DFS for pointing out that it does not seem
hard to have that price difference eliminated.
Ezekiel
May 10, 2012, 8:15:25 AM5/10/12
to
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a0vi7...@mid.individual.net...
> 2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
Correct.
> 3. It's aimed at developers.
A little odd but true.
> It seems to me that a developer would be quite
> capable of downloading and installing a Linux build.
Some would. If you're talking about a web-developer then they'd be less
likely to do this then someone who works at the OS level.
> Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
> version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing,
> buy the Windows version, and install the Linux.
That's what I would do but I know some good developers who have never
installed an OS before.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they
>> will
>> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> Indeed, and that is exactly Snit's point of view.
> I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their
> web
> page to which Snit kindly directed me)
Don't have thee web page and I didn't see the URL anywhere in this thread.
> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
and installing Linux on it. Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
a new product.
Windows machines are sold in mass quantities so Dell/OEM can amortize the
cost over a large number of these machines bringing the per/unit cost to
almost nothing. Linux machines are still a niche consumer product with low
volumes so the per/unit cost to amortize their initial investment is going
to be much higher.
Factor in the money from demo-ware and I'm not surprised that they can
afford to sell the Windows machine for less.
> I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
> high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
Sure. Microsoft loses $200 on every copy of Windows sold - but they make it
up in quantity. That's how they make the billions in profit every quarter.
Perhaps you've been reading too much Rex?
--
When a Windows-Only PC is sold, the Manufacturer loses money, and the
Retailer loses money. The only "Profit" comes from selling service and
support plans.
Rex Ballard - A Linux "advocate"
news:a0vi7...@mid.individual.net...
> On Wednesday 09 May 2012 15:35 Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> erences: 1 2 3
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>>> the image, then no!
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than other Linux machines out on the market.
>
> Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
>
> 1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
It appears to have the same hardware.
>
>> erences: 1 2 3
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:5gpqadf...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> After swilling some grog, bbgruff belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>
>>>>> If it's cheaper to buy the Windows version, and download and install
>>>>> the image, then no!
>>
>> You're trying to make sense of pricing from a technical viewpoint which
>> won't work. From a pricing world - Dell doesn't need to sell the Linux
>> machine cheaper than their own Windows machine... Dell needs to sell the
>> Linux machine cheaper than other Linux machines out on the market.
>
> Well now, where I was coming from was the statements that this is:-
>
> 1. A Linux version of an existing Windows machine.
> 2. The Linux build can be downloaded.
> 3. It's aimed at developers.
> It seems to me that a developer would be quite
> capable of downloading and installing a Linux build.
likely to do this then someone who works at the OS level.
> Thus, it seems logical that if the Windows
> version is cheaper, they will do the logical thing,
> buy the Windows version, and install the Linux.
installed an OS before.
>> It also shows that there is no "contractural barrier" that prevents Dell
>> from selling Linux machines. Like the other OEMs, they sell products that
>> will make the company money. If there's a profit to be made then they
>> will
>> sell it. Which is why all the major OEMs sell Linux servers.
>
> Indeed, and that is exactly Snit's point of view.
> I'm still intrigued though at the thought that Dell (according to their
> web
> page to which Snit kindly directed me)
> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
and installing Linux on it. Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
a new product.
Windows machines are sold in mass quantities so Dell/OEM can amortize the
cost over a large number of these machines bringing the per/unit cost to
almost nothing. Linux machines are still a niche consumer product with low
volumes so the per/unit cost to amortize their initial investment is going
to be much higher.
Factor in the money from demo-ware and I'm not surprised that they can
afford to sell the Windows machine for less.
> I'm still trying to work out whether the selling price of FreeDOS is very
> high, or Microsoft pays Dell $200 for each installation.
up in quantity. That's how they make the billions in profit every quarter.
Perhaps you've been reading too much Rex?
--
When a Windows-Only PC is sold, the Manufacturer loses money, and the
Retailer loses money. The only "Profit" comes from selling service and
support plans.
Rex Ballard - A Linux "advocate"
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 8:38:26 AM5/10/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>
>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>
>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>
>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine? What intital
>Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>a new product.
Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
fsckwit trolls.
"Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
a decent subset of their products."
Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>
>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>
>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>
>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
investment?
>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>and installing Linux on it.
Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>and installing Linux on it.
>Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>a new product.
reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
fsckwit trolls.
"Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
a decent subset of their products."
Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
offer anything but Windows, you POS.
Hadron
May 10, 2012, 8:42:23 AM5/10/12
to
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>>
>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>
>>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>>
>>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
>
> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine? What intital
> investment?
>
>>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>>and installing Linux on it.
>
> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>>Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>>change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>>a new product.
>
> Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
> reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
> deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
Lack of ANY supporting evidence to back up your claims that marketing,
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>>
>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>
>>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>>
>>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
>
> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine? What intital
> investment?
>
>>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>>and installing Linux on it.
>
> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>>Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>>change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>>a new product.
>
> Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
> reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
> deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
releasing, maintaining, supporting and shipping new PCs with a new OS
doesnt cost a lot of money. Jesus you're a turd turd.
>
> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
> fsckwit trolls.
>
> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
> a decent subset of their products."
on servers and(b) has tried more than once with Linux and failed due to
lack of interest. Possibly you're too much of a turd to find this:-
http://www.dell.com/linux
Boy, are you a clueless stool. Someone should flush you.
>
> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>
> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
ANY idea of the cost in time and materials of handling returns? You
really are a turd turd.
Ezekiel
May 10, 2012, 9:57:07 AM5/10/12
to
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9oaa1gx...@news.eternal-september.org...
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>>
>>>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about
>>>here.
>>>
>>>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a
>>>product
>>>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and
>>>how
>>>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial
>>>investment?
>>
>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>> What intital investment?
Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>"bbgruff" wrote:
>>>>
>>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>>
>>>Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about
>>>here.
>>>
>>>Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a
>>>product
>>>to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and
>>>how
>>>much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial
>>>investment?
>>
>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>> What intital investment?
investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
>>
>>>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the
>>>.iso
>>>and installing Linux on it.
>>
>> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
and money.
>>>Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>>>change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs
>>>creating/documenting/supporting
>>>a new product.
>>
>> Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
>> reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
>> deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
>
> Lack of ANY supporting evidence to back up your claims that marketing,
> releasing, maintaining, supporting and shipping new PCs with a new OS
> doesnt cost a lot of money. Jesus you're a turd turd.
insults while providing zero facts to backup his idiocy.
>>
>> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
>> fsckwit trolls.
>> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
>> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
>> a decent subset of their products."
would it cost Dell to introduce, document, test and support a new OS? And
how many computers with a new OS do they need to sell in order to break even
on that model?
> turd, you have been shown time and time again it (a) does support Linux
> on servers and(b) has tried more than once with Linux and failed due to
> lack of interest. Possibly you're too much of a turd to find this:-
>
> http://www.dell.com/linux
>
> Boy, are you a clueless stool. Someone should flush you.
>>
>> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>>
>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
too ignorant to realize this doesn't change reality.
> You don't think this is taken into account when budgeting? Do you have
> ANY idea of the cost in time and materials of handling returns? You
> really are a turd turd.
system at a loss in order to please a bunch of Windows users like turd and
his daughter.
--
The documented liar "chrisv" made this claim:
Well, according to monopoly-supporting fsckheads like "Ezekiel" and
"Hadron", OEM's should only ship the one OS on everything, to avoid
"confusion".
Message-ID: <u532l7tud4bq1v76s...@4ax.com>
Snit
May 10, 2012, 10:00:36 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 5:38 AM, in article a2dnq7d0ur90d5c2m...@4ax.com,
OS: tracking the SKU, training, support, etc.
>> Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>> and installing Linux on it.
>
> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>> Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>> change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>> a new product.
>
> Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
> reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
> deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
Ah, so it must be the boogieman!
It is not just other companies - Dell does this. They do this very well.
They are the Walmart of the computer world. They know how much the costs,
the know the complexities.
And they include that in their pricing and in their offerings.
> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
> fsckwit trolls.
>
> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
> a decent subset of their products."
A decent subset? What are you talking about? About 1% or so. Say they,
for some reason nobody can fathom, decide to lose money and push it so they
get it up to 2% or 3% or even 5%. Now they have set up a bunch of machines
they are selling where they are having to sell them for more or lose money.
Remember, the margin on a computer is tiny... so here they are, to please a
cult-like group (and *not* to please the mass of customers) they are pushing
an OS that does not serve people as well and is not something that people
want. But they push it anyway. And now they have to set up all sorts of
new systems to deal with it. And not get the money from the garbage-ware
that comes on their Windows system, which may or may not fully cover or beat
the cost of the Windows license. And, of course, the cost of supporting the
consumer Linux systems will be higher. There is not a question about this -
it is a system which does not serve people as well and is not as well
supported by other parties. Dell would be incurring significant costs here.
To please a cult-like group. A group that can get the system they want
*now* by buying a system and installing the distro of their *choice* instead
of having Dell make the choice for them - or do you now want Dell to offer
all distros (or at least all major consumer ones)? Say they offer just the
one - say Ubuntu. Do they support just Unity or do they also support Gnome
and KDE and all the other options?
But none of this matters to you - as long as Dell serves your cult-like
group in the way they feel entitled. And to be clear: I do *not* mean all
Linux users when I refer to your cult-like group. Most Linux users do not
have the religious need to buy a system that has not been touched by the
boogieman... they buy the system they want and they make the choice they
want and install the OS they want. They do not depend on Dell to make their
choices for them and then whine about the cost of Dell doing them this
disservice (remember, you know, how the big "selling" point of desktop Linux
is choice - the very thing you are asking Dell to make for users).
> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>
> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
Of course people would end up ordering the wrong product and being
displeased with it. Imagine if Homer ended up with a system with Windows on
it. Oh my! He would not even be happy of Dell was selling the same system
without Windows and Dell then sent him the media to install Ubuntu. No!
His machine would have already been made "unclean" by having been touched by
the boogieman.
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "bbgruff" wrote:
>>>
>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>
>> Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>>
>> Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>> to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>> much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
>
> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine? What intital
> investment?
There is a lot more to the cost of selling a machine than the cost of the
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "bbgruff" wrote:
>>>
>>> can offer the same machine WITH Windows at about $200 dollars
>>> LESS than that same machine WITHOUT Windows (FreeDOS instead).
>>
>> Again - I don't know specifically what web-page you're talking about here.
>>
>> Is the Windows machine on sale? How much does it cost to "bring a product
>> to market?" How many machines does Dell need to sell to break-even and how
>> much profit must they make on each unit to recoup their initial investment?
>
> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine? What intital
> investment?
OS: tracking the SKU, training, support, etc.
>> Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the .iso
>> and installing Linux on it.
>
> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>> Attempts in COLA to over-simply this doesn't
>> change reality and the costs Dell/oem incurs creating/documenting/supporting
>> a new product.
>
> Attempts by shitty trolls to over-complicate this doesn't change the
> reality that large companies all over the fscking world *routinely*
> deal with such issues, and manke money doing it.
It is not just other companies - Dell does this. They do this very well.
They are the Walmart of the computer world. They know how much the costs,
the know the complexities.
And they include that in their pricing and in their offerings.
> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
> fsckwit trolls.
>
> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
> a decent subset of their products."
for some reason nobody can fathom, decide to lose money and push it so they
get it up to 2% or 3% or even 5%. Now they have set up a bunch of machines
they are selling where they are having to sell them for more or lose money.
Remember, the margin on a computer is tiny... so here they are, to please a
cult-like group (and *not* to please the mass of customers) they are pushing
an OS that does not serve people as well and is not something that people
want. But they push it anyway. And now they have to set up all sorts of
new systems to deal with it. And not get the money from the garbage-ware
that comes on their Windows system, which may or may not fully cover or beat
the cost of the Windows license. And, of course, the cost of supporting the
consumer Linux systems will be higher. There is not a question about this -
it is a system which does not serve people as well and is not as well
supported by other parties. Dell would be incurring significant costs here.
To please a cult-like group. A group that can get the system they want
*now* by buying a system and installing the distro of their *choice* instead
of having Dell make the choice for them - or do you now want Dell to offer
all distros (or at least all major consumer ones)? Say they offer just the
one - say Ubuntu. Do they support just Unity or do they also support Gnome
and KDE and all the other options?
But none of this matters to you - as long as Dell serves your cult-like
group in the way they feel entitled. And to be clear: I do *not* mean all
Linux users when I refer to your cult-like group. Most Linux users do not
have the religious need to buy a system that has not been touched by the
boogieman... they buy the system they want and they make the choice they
want and install the OS they want. They do not depend on Dell to make their
choices for them and then whine about the cost of Dell doing them this
disservice (remember, you know, how the big "selling" point of desktop Linux
is choice - the very thing you are asking Dell to make for users).
> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>
> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
displeased with it. Imagine if Homer ended up with a system with Windows on
it. Oh my! He would not even be happy of Dell was selling the same system
without Windows and Dell then sent him the media to install Ubuntu. No!
His machine would have already been made "unclean" by having been touched by
the boogieman.
Hadron
May 10, 2012, 10:05:44 AM5/10/12
to
since they both use Windows to make a living and/or study/play : and its
these Windows systems DELL sells to the turds of this world.
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 10:24:56 AM5/10/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>> What intital investment?
>
>Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
Ah - so the fsckwit won't acknowledge my *point* that the "cost" to
offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
No wonder "Ezekiel" is such a stupid, dishonest POS.
>>>>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the
>>>>.iso
>>>>and installing Linux on it.
>>>
>>> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>No subject shift at all.
Note the *lie*.
>Introducing any new product costs Dell both time and money.
Not jack-shit, in the case of FreeDOS, fsckwit.
Look at this trolling fsckwit defending a $200 price-premium to get
"FreeDOS* instead of Windows!
*Astounding* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>He's a complete moron. All he can do is flail and froth his childish little
>insults while providing zero facts to backup his idiocy.
More *lies* from "Ezekiel", since logic and common sense are enough to
spank his sorry ass.
The inability for us to calculate Dell's internal costs does *not*
mean that we can't see what is going-on, here!
>>> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
>>> fsckwit trolls.
>
>And in other industries it also costs money to introduce a new product.
Yet they do it, don't they, fsckwit. That's the point.
****** There is no other industry of such size that has such a dearth
of choice. *******
>>> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
>>> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
>>> a decent subset of their products."
>
>Oh look - turd how shifts from FreeDOS to Linux?
Oh look how this fsckwitted POS "Ezekiel" implies that I was as
dishonest as he was.
My point was that *even when* considering the more difficult case of
Linux, it's not an out-of-the-ordinary cost issue.
>Do tell us turd - how much would it cost Dell to introduce, document,
> test and support a new OS?
As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
different?
Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
fsckwit.
>Idiots like turd are pretty much flushed here.
While I slap you all over USENET.
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>
>OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns. Because a turd like you is
>too ignorant to realize this doesn't change reality.
Poor "Ezekiel".
"They shouldn't offer anything but Windows, because people expect
Windows, and they'll get lots of returns."
But there's no monopoly, right, fsckwit?
>Dell and every other OEM is in business to make money.
Yes, and Micro$oft makes them "a deal they can't refuse".
>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>> What intital investment?
>
>Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
No wonder "Ezekiel" is such a stupid, dishonest POS.
>>>>Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the
>>>>.iso
>>>>and installing Linux on it.
>>>
>>> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>
>No subject shift at all.
>Introducing any new product costs Dell both time and money.
Look at this trolling fsckwit defending a $200 price-premium to get
"FreeDOS* instead of Windows!
*Astounding* !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>He's a complete moron. All he can do is flail and froth his childish little
>insults while providing zero facts to backup his idiocy.
spank his sorry ass.
The inability for us to calculate Dell's internal costs does *not*
mean that we can't see what is going-on, here!
>>> Look around yourselves, at other industries, and see the reality, you
>>> fsckwit trolls.
>
>And in other industries it also costs money to introduce a new product.
****** There is no other industry of such size that has such a dearth
of choice. *******
>>> "Oh dear. Multi-billion-dollar Dell Computer only handle supporting
>>> ONE operating system. It would be *so* expensive to support Linux on
>>> a decent subset of their products."
>
>Oh look - turd how shifts from FreeDOS to Linux?
dishonest as he was.
My point was that *even when* considering the more difficult case of
Linux, it's not an out-of-the-ordinary cost issue.
>Do tell us turd - how much would it cost Dell to introduce, document,
> test and support a new OS?
They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
different?
Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
fsckwit.
>Idiots like turd are pretty much flushed here.
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>
>OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns. Because a turd like you is
>too ignorant to realize this doesn't change reality.
"They shouldn't offer anything but Windows, because people expect
Windows, and they'll get lots of returns."
But there's no monopoly, right, fsckwit?
>Dell and every other OEM is in business to make money.
DFS
May 10, 2012, 10:31:23 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
> unavailable at PC OEM's.
What 'dirty deals' would those be, turd?
> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
> unavailable at PC OEM's.
> It's "too expensive" Right.
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 10:46:30 AM5/10/12
to
chrisv wrote:
>As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>
>They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>
>Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
>cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
>of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
>different?
>
>Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>
>But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>
>Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
>fsckwit.
I was just thinking, how it would be quite plausible for a geek
>As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>
>They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>
>Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
>cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
>of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
>different?
>
>Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>
>But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>
>Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
>fsckwit.
building and selling PC's out of his garage to be easily able to
support both Windows and Linux (and FreeDOS) options for his
customers.
Oh, but a multi-BILLION dollar computer corporation? Oh, well, that
would be prohibitively expensive, and require *substantially* higher
prices on the "non standard" machines.
Sheesh!
--
"you have nothing to complain about. You just confirmed that it *IS*
possible to buy a computer without an OS." - trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel"
Steve Carroll
May 10, 2012, 10:53:03 AM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 8:46 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
> >As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>
> >They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>
> >Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
> >cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
> >of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
> >different?
>
> >Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>
> >But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
> >unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>
> >Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
> >fsckwit.
>
> I was just thinking, how it would be quite plausible for a geek
> building and selling PC's out of his garage to be easily able to
> support both Windows and Linux (and FreeDOS) options for his
> customers.
A girl down the street has a lemonade stand.
> chrisv wrote:
> >As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>
> >They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>
> >Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
> >cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
> >of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
> >different?
>
> >Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>
> >But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
> >unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>
> >Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
> >fsckwit.
>
> I was just thinking, how it would be quite plausible for a geek
> building and selling PC's out of his garage to be easily able to
> support both Windows and Linux (and FreeDOS) options for his
> customers.
> Oh, but a multi-BILLION dollar computer corporation? Oh, well, that
> would be prohibitively expensive, and require *substantially* higher
> prices on the "non standard" machines.
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 11:14:24 AM5/10/12
to
A better response:
Ezekiel wrote:
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>
>OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns.
OEM's "worrying about product returns" isn't the issue in disupte, you
mealy-mouthed piece of shit.
What's in dispute is your claim that the "solution" to an OEM's
"worries" about product returns is to restrict choice.
But only when it comes to the operating system, right, fsckwit?
>Because a turd like you is
>too ignorant to realize this doesn't change reality.
A shameless liar, like you, claiming that I don't know that "OEM's
worry about product returns" doesn't change reality.
Nor will your evasion and lying win you the argument, fsckwit.
Ezekiel wrote:
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>
>OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns.
mealy-mouthed piece of shit.
What's in dispute is your claim that the "solution" to an OEM's
"worries" about product returns is to restrict choice.
But only when it comes to the operating system, right, fsckwit?
>Because a turd like you is
>too ignorant to realize this doesn't change reality.
worry about product returns" doesn't change reality.
Nor will your evasion and lying win you the argument, fsckwit.
DFS
May 10, 2012, 11:16:01 AM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 10:46 AM, chrisv wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>>
>> They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>>
>> Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
>> cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
>> of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
>> different?
>>
>> Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>>
>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>> unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>>
>> Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
>> fsckwit.
>
> I was just thinking, how it would be quite plausible for a geek
> building and selling PC's out of his garage to be easily able to
> support both Windows and Linux (and FreeDOS) options for his
> customers.
>
> Oh, but a multi-BILLION dollar computer corporation? Oh, well, that
> would be prohibitively expensive, and require *substantially* higher
> prices on the "non standard" machines.
>
> Sheesh!
Because the geek in the garage doesn't have 1 million customers, you
> chrisv wrote:
>
>> As if getting Linux checked-out is *that* big a deal.
>>
>> They are a multi-BILLION dollar computer company!
>>
>> Do you fscking *assholes* "Ezekiel" and "Hadron" realize how *fscking
>> cheap* offering a software option like Linux is, compared to the cost
>> of choice in many other industries, where actual *hardware* is
>> different?
>>
>> Yet massive amounts of choice still exist, even when it's "expensive"!
>>
>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>> unavailable at PC OEM's. It's "too expensive" Right.
>>
>> Now, *who* is the *asshole* with "no facts"? That you be *you*,
>> fsckwit.
>
> I was just thinking, how it would be quite plausible for a geek
> building and selling PC's out of his garage to be easily able to
> support both Windows and Linux (and FreeDOS) options for his
> customers.
>
> Oh, but a multi-BILLION dollar computer corporation? Oh, well, that
> would be prohibitively expensive, and require *substantially* higher
> prices on the "non standard" machines.
>
> Sheesh!
blithering moron.
And who's to say it's easy for him to support all operating systems for
his 50 customers, anyway?
Slit 'em lengthwise.
Ezekiel
May 10, 2012, 11:16:23 AM5/10/12
to
"DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote in message news:jogjft$hu2$2...@dont-email.me...
abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
it themselves.
>
>> It's "too expensive" Right.
>
> Yes it is, dumbass.
It's not free and it costs money. Dell and every other OEM in the world are
free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
system. If it's so easy as these know-nothing, do-nothing losers claim it is
then they should mortgage their house, start their own "Linux to order"
company and put Dell out of business.
--
Another documented lie from "chrisv."
"Hell, I caught "Ezekiel" in about two dozen *lies* in the last month."
(Mon, 05 Mar 2012 - chrisv turd)
Message-ID: <u1h9l79c78pqshuo1...@4ax.com>
> On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
>
>
>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>
>
> What 'dirty deals' would those be, turd?
It's those imaginary "dirty deals" that every OEM in the world is forced to
>
>
>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>
>
> What 'dirty deals' would those be, turd?
abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
it themselves.
>
>> It's "too expensive" Right.
>
> Yes it is, dumbass.
free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
system. If it's so easy as these know-nothing, do-nothing losers claim it is
then they should mortgage their house, start their own "Linux to order"
company and put Dell out of business.
--
Another documented lie from "chrisv."
"Hell, I caught "Ezekiel" in about two dozen *lies* in the last month."
(Mon, 05 Mar 2012 - chrisv turd)
Message-ID: <u1h9l79c78pqshuo1...@4ax.com>
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 11:35:17 AM5/10/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
>> On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>
>> On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>
>It's those imaginary "dirty deals" that every OEM in the world is forced to
>abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
>it themselves.
Micro$oft "incentives" are "nonsense", are they?
>abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
>it themselves.
>It's not free and it costs money. Dell and every other OEM in the world are
>free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
>system.
>If it's so easy as these know-nothing, do-nothing losers claim it is
>then they should mortgage their house, start their own "Linux to order"
>company and put Dell out of business.
"Ezekiel".
Dell is doing what *any* large OEM must sensibly do!
Get it through your thick skull, you *fscking* idiot!
*****
Micro$oft incentives make it in Dell's *best interest* to restrict
choice.
The lack of choice is *not* because there is some inherant "huge cost"
in offering and supporting Linux!
*****
Sheesh!
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 11:39:59 AM5/10/12
to
chrisv wrote:
> "Ezekiel" whined:
restrict choice there.
LOL
> "Ezekiel" whined:
>>
>> OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns.
>
>OEM's "worrying about product returns" isn't the issue in disupte, you
>mealy-mouthed piece of shit.
>
>What's in dispute is your claim that the "solution" to an OEM's
>"worries" about product returns is to restrict choice.
>
>But only when it comes to the operating system, right, fsckwit?
Or, perhaps, the CPU, when the OEM is also getting *bribed* to
>> OEMs should and *do* worry about product returns.
>
>OEM's "worrying about product returns" isn't the issue in disupte, you
>mealy-mouthed piece of shit.
>
>What's in dispute is your claim that the "solution" to an OEM's
>"worries" about product returns is to restrict choice.
>
>But only when it comes to the operating system, right, fsckwit?
restrict choice there.
LOL
chrisv
May 10, 2012, 11:43:07 AM5/10/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
>It's not free and it costs money.
Yeah, you know that, you stupid POS.
>It's not free and it costs money.
Software options are *fscking cheap* compared to many other things in
the world, where the hardware is actually different.
Even when huge tooling expenses are incurred to offer choice, as in
cars, it's *still* done!
>Dell and every other OEM in the world are
>free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
>system
Hadron
May 10, 2012, 12:12:05 PM5/10/12
to
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>>> What intital investment?
>>
>>Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>>investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
>
> Ah - so the fsckwit won't acknowledge my *point* that the "cost" to
> offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
Because your point is so fucking wrong and clueless it just isn't
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>>> What intital investment?
>>
>>Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>>investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
>
> Ah - so the fsckwit won't acknowledge my *point* that the "cost" to
> offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
funny. You don't even *begin* to make any sense turd. "insignificant"
basically equates to nothing in the context of discussing costs accrued
providing this choice.
Could you be more of a turd? I doubt it.
Ezekiel
May 10, 2012, 12:47:23 PM5/10/12
to
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:CBCFEE57.980%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> On 5/9/12 9:06 AM, in article qe5lq79qfam0q7bmv...@4ax.com,
a Mac is "quirky" then to the average user Linux is going to be
ultra-quirky.
> I am served very well by my Mac... and Mac users in almost all surveys
> describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
> Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
I bought a MacBook Air recently (my first Mac) and love it. The other
benefit it that Apple products tend to hold their value extremely well
compared to a PC. Compare the resale price of a year old used Mac to a year
old used PC to see why.
>> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
>
> Who are you to decide how much choice is "sufficient"?
He's a nobody and gets to decide nothing.
> I am comfortable with what the market decides is the
> right amount of "choice" in this area.
There's a small group of people who want to see Plan9 and BeOS computers
sold. So should Dell, Walmart, etc all carry Plan9 and BeOS systems just
because there's an insignificant number of people who want that choice?
Dell is running a business. As is Walmart and every other retailer that
learned from experience that just because you carry a niche product doesn't
mean that a meaningful number of people will buy it.
Dell, Walmart, Lenovo, etc are free to choose what products they do or don't
want to carry and what price to sell them at. It's their choice how they
decide to run their company.
Because I can't order a computer with BeOS, Plan9, FreeDos or Linux does NOT
mean there's some boogie-man conspiracy against those systems. It simply
means that there isn't enough of a market to make it worthwhile and
cost-effective for companies to sell these niche products to such a small
minority of users.
--
"The iPad might give Apple a black eye. I think Jobs is just too arrogant to
admit that he made a mistake not getting into the netbook market - so now
he's compounding the mistake by trying to use a failed (tablet) platform to
compete against a successful one."
RonB demonstrating why he's known as WRonG
<hkl0ug$8du$7...@news.eternal-september.org>
news:CBCFEE57.980%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> On 5/9/12 9:06 AM, in article qe5lq79qfam0q7bmv...@4ax.com,
> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>>> world behind.
>>
>> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
"Quirky" Mac: Quirky how exactly - because it's different from Windows? If
>>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>>> world behind.
>>
>> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
a Mac is "quirky" then to the average user Linux is going to be
ultra-quirky.
> I am served very well by my Mac... and Mac users in almost all surveys
> describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
> Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
I bought a MacBook Air recently (my first Mac) and love it. The other
benefit it that Apple products tend to hold their value extremely well
compared to a PC. Compare the resale price of a year old used Mac to a year
old used PC to see why.
>> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
>
He's a nobody and gets to decide nothing.
> I am comfortable with what the market decides is the
> right amount of "choice" in this area.
There's a small group of people who want to see Plan9 and BeOS computers
sold. So should Dell, Walmart, etc all carry Plan9 and BeOS systems just
because there's an insignificant number of people who want that choice?
Dell is running a business. As is Walmart and every other retailer that
learned from experience that just because you carry a niche product doesn't
mean that a meaningful number of people will buy it.
Dell, Walmart, Lenovo, etc are free to choose what products they do or don't
want to carry and what price to sell them at. It's their choice how they
decide to run their company.
Because I can't order a computer with BeOS, Plan9, FreeDos or Linux does NOT
mean there's some boogie-man conspiracy against those systems. It simply
means that there isn't enough of a market to make it worthwhile and
cost-effective for companies to sell these niche products to such a small
minority of users.
--
"The iPad might give Apple a black eye. I think Jobs is just too arrogant to
admit that he made a mistake not getting into the netbook market - so now
he's compounding the mistake by trying to use a failed (tablet) platform to
compete against a successful one."
RonB demonstrating why he's known as WRonG
<hkl0ug$8du$7...@news.eternal-september.org>
GreyCloud
May 10, 2012, 1:42:51 PM5/10/12
to
GreyCloud
May 10, 2012, 1:44:08 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 8:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> chrisv<chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>>> What intital investment?
>>
>> Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>> investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
>
> Ah - so the fsckwit won't acknowledge my *point* that the "cost" to
> offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
>
> No wonder "Ezekiel" is such a stupid, dishonest POS.
>
>>>>> Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the
>>>>> .iso
>>>>> and installing Linux on it.
>>>>
>>>> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>>
>> No subject shift at all.
>
> Note the *lie*.
>
Note your stupidity.
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> chrisv<chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Recoup their initial investment? In a FreeDOS machine?
>>>> What intital investment?
>>
>> Ah - so turd thinks it costs nothing to introduce a new product. No initial
>> investment? No wonder the chrisv turd is such a moron.
>
> Ah - so the fsckwit won't acknowledge my *point* that the "cost" to
> offer FreeDOS is *insignificant*, and twists it into "costs nothing".
>
> No wonder "Ezekiel" is such a stupid, dishonest POS.
>
>>>>> Note: Bringing a product to market is a LOT more than downloading the
>>>>> .iso
>>>>> and installing Linux on it.
>>>>
>>>> Note the subject shift from FreeDOS to Linux.
>>
>> No subject shift at all.
>
> Note the *lie*.
>
>> Introducing any new product costs Dell both time and money.
>
> Not jack-shit, in the case of FreeDOS, fsckwit.
>
Guffaw!!!
<snipped pig tripe>
GreyCloud
May 10, 2012, 1:44:50 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 9:35 AM, chrisv wrote:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>>>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>>
>> It's those imaginary "dirty deals" that every OEM in the world is forced to
>> abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
>> it themselves.
>
> Micro$oft "incentives" are "nonsense", are they?
>
>> It's not free and it costs money. Dell and every other OEM in the world are
>> free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
>> system.
>
>
>> If it's so easy as these know-nothing, do-nothing losers claim it is
>> then they should mortgage their house, start their own "Linux to order"
>> company and put Dell out of business.
>
> What a *stupid* and transparently dishonest *asshole* you are,
> "Ezekiel".
>
Are you looking in the mirror again, turd?
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>> On 5/10/2012 10:24 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> But, oh, no. It's not Micro$oft dirty-dealing that keeps Linux mostly
>>>> unavailable at PC OEM's.
>>
>> It's those imaginary "dirty deals" that every OEM in the world is forced to
>> abide by. If these idiots repeat the nonsense long enough they will believe
>> it themselves.
>
> Micro$oft "incentives" are "nonsense", are they?
>
>> It's not free and it costs money. Dell and every other OEM in the world are
>> free to set their price at whatever they need to make a profit on the
>> system.
>
>
>> If it's so easy as these know-nothing, do-nothing losers claim it is
>> then they should mortgage their house, start their own "Linux to order"
>> company and put Dell out of business.
>
> What a *stupid* and transparently dishonest *asshole* you are,
> "Ezekiel".
>
<snipped tripe>
Ezekiel
May 10, 2012, 2:14:59 PM5/10/12
to
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:WvSdnR0QUaO9YzbS...@bresnan.com...
something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
actually happen.
--
"It just boggles the mind that shills like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" actually
claim that all the world's desktop Windows users have freely chosen it"
Date: Apr 12, 2012
Message-ID: <tn3eo7pbnai0ntee2...@4ax.com>
Documented liar "chrisv" turd.
news:WvSdnR0QUaO9YzbS...@bresnan.com...
> Well folks... another witless response from chrisv aka turd.
>
Only a low-IQ idiot like "chrisv" would think that product returns aren't
>
something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
actually happen.
--
"It just boggles the mind that shills like "Hadron" and "Ezekiel" actually
claim that all the world's desktop Windows users have freely chosen it"
Date: Apr 12, 2012
Message-ID: <tn3eo7pbnai0ntee2...@4ax.com>
Documented liar "chrisv" turd.
Snit
May 10, 2012, 2:44:50 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 8:39 AM, in article e4onq790f8vgjvrus...@4ax.com,
TomB: see - blaming the boogieman.
As I have noted the herd does.
But you will deny this.
--
cc: proving he is technologically incompetent
-----
Snit, what's my private IP address
-----
As I have noted the herd does.
But you will deny this.
--
cc: proving he is technologically incompetent
-----
Snit, what's my private IP address
-----
Snit
May 10, 2012, 2:45:42 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 8:43 AM, in article mconq7hctrpba9d1h...@4ax.com,
TomB: denial of the problems of offering desktop Linux as a choice for Dell,
etc.
As I predicted.
As I noted would be easy to predict.
--
"There's a mountain of evidence that I've committed forgeries." - cc
etc.
As I predicted.
As I noted would be easy to predict.
--
"There's a mountain of evidence that I've committed forgeries." - cc
Snit
May 10, 2012, 2:49:47 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 9:47 AM, in article jogres$829$1...@dont-email.me, "Ezekiel"
And one the herd will never answer. Not chrisv.. and none of the rest of
them will ever call him on it nor ask him about it.
>> I am served very well by my Mac... and Mac users in almost all surveys
>> describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
>> Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
>
> I bought a MacBook Air recently (my first Mac) and love it. The other
> benefit it that Apple products tend to hold their value extremely well
> compared to a PC. Compare the resale price of a year old used Mac to a year
> old used PC to see why.
This is true of many high end products. Then again, I use mine for
"forever" or until they die... my current "old" Mac is a G4 800. Still runs
fine - though its CD drive died some time ago. I have no use for it so not
a big deal.
>>> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
>>
>> Who are you to decide how much choice is "sufficient"?
>
> He's a nobody and gets to decide nothing.
>
>
>> I am comfortable with what the market decides is the
>> right amount of "choice" in this area.
>
> There's a small group of people who want to see Plan9 and BeOS computers
> sold. So should Dell, Walmart, etc all carry Plan9 and BeOS systems just
> because there's an insignificant number of people who want that choice?
> Dell is running a business. As is Walmart and every other retailer that
> learned from experience that just because you carry a niche product doesn't
> mean that a meaningful number of people will buy it.
>
> Dell, Walmart, Lenovo, etc are free to choose what products they do or don't
> want to carry and what price to sell them at. It's their choice how they
> decide to run their company.
But the herd, which claims to want choice, is against such choice.
It is their double-talk.
> Because I can't order a computer with BeOS, Plan9, FreeDos or Linux does NOT
> mean there's some boogie-man conspiracy against those systems. It simply
> means that there isn't enough of a market to make it worthwhile and
> cost-effective for companies to sell these niche products to such a small
> minority of users.
Absolutely correct. And nothing anti-Linux or trollish for you to note
this.
<ze...@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:CBCFEE57.980%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> On 5/9/12 9:06 AM, in article qe5lq79qfam0q7bmv...@4ax.com,
>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>>>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>>>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>>>> world behind.
>>>
>>> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
>
> "Quirky" Mac: Quirky how exactly - because it's different from Windows? If
> a Mac is "quirky" then to the average user Linux is going to be
> ultra-quirky.
Excellent question.
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:CBCFEE57.980%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> On 5/9/12 9:06 AM, in article qe5lq79qfam0q7bmv...@4ax.com,
>> "chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no question that desktop Linux would be a great choice for
>>>> *many* people who, today, either do not know about it, or have too
>>>> high a level of fear, uncertainty, and doubt about leaving the Windows
>>>> world behind.
>>>
>>> And also are not well-served by the quirky, expensive MacIntosh.
>
> "Quirky" Mac: Quirky how exactly - because it's different from Windows? If
> a Mac is "quirky" then to the average user Linux is going to be
> ultra-quirky.
And one the herd will never answer. Not chrisv.. and none of the rest of
them will ever call him on it nor ask him about it.
>> I am served very well by my Mac... and Mac users in almost all surveys
>> describe themselves as being more satisfied than the users of other OSs.
>> Clearly Macs / OS X *do* serve people well.
>
> I bought a MacBook Air recently (my first Mac) and love it. The other
> benefit it that Apple products tend to hold their value extremely well
> compared to a PC. Compare the resale price of a year old used Mac to a year
> old used PC to see why.
"forever" or until they die... my current "old" Mac is a G4 800. Still runs
fine - though its CD drive died some time ago. I have no use for it so not
a big deal.
>>> "Choice exists" does not mean that there is *sufficient* choice!
>>
>> Who are you to decide how much choice is "sufficient"?
>
> He's a nobody and gets to decide nothing.
>
>
>> I am comfortable with what the market decides is the
>> right amount of "choice" in this area.
>
> There's a small group of people who want to see Plan9 and BeOS computers
> sold. So should Dell, Walmart, etc all carry Plan9 and BeOS systems just
> because there's an insignificant number of people who want that choice?
> Dell is running a business. As is Walmart and every other retailer that
> learned from experience that just because you carry a niche product doesn't
> mean that a meaningful number of people will buy it.
>
> Dell, Walmart, Lenovo, etc are free to choose what products they do or don't
> want to carry and what price to sell them at. It's their choice how they
> decide to run their company.
It is their double-talk.
> Because I can't order a computer with BeOS, Plan9, FreeDos or Linux does NOT
> mean there's some boogie-man conspiracy against those systems. It simply
> means that there isn't enough of a market to make it worthwhile and
> cost-effective for companies to sell these niche products to such a small
> minority of users.
this.
Snit
May 10, 2012, 2:51:14 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/12 5:42 AM, in article 9oaa1gx...@news.eternal-september.org,
TomB: are you reading this. All this is being noted is that the boogieman
excuse is bogus.
That does not make Hadron anti-Linux or a troll. It just shows he is
countering the myths of the herd.
--
"Stallman thinks it's okay to have sex with 15 year olds (even
though there's no evidence he's done so himself), so he's
advocating child abuse." - cc
excuse is bogus.
That does not make Hadron anti-Linux or a troll. It just shows he is
countering the myths of the herd.
--
"Stallman thinks it's okay to have sex with 15 year olds (even
though there's no evidence he's done so himself), so he's
advocating child abuse." - cc
GreyCloud
May 10, 2012, 5:09:56 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 12:14 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "GreyCloud"<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
> news:WvSdnR0QUaO9YzbS...@bresnan.com...
>> On 5/10/2012 6:38 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>>>
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>>
>>
>> Well folks... another witless response from chrisv aka turd.
>>
>
> Only a low-IQ idiot like "chrisv" would think that product returns aren't
> something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
> actually happen.
>
I know, and he's is nuttier than a fruitcake.
> "GreyCloud"<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
> news:WvSdnR0QUaO9YzbS...@bresnan.com...
>> On 5/10/2012 6:38 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>>>
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>>
>>
>> Well folks... another witless response from chrisv aka turd.
>>
>
> Only a low-IQ idiot like "chrisv" would think that product returns aren't
> something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
> actually happen.
>
chrisv
May 11, 2012, 8:49:33 AM5/11/12
to
Ezekiel wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>>>
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
You can't *really* think that anyone will believe that I don't know
that "product returns are something that OEM's need to deal with".
*Everyone* here knows that the issue is your FUD that offering a
choice of OS is a particularly risky/ expensive decision for an OEM to
make, because "average Joe" doesn't know what an operating system is.
It's just too expensive to allow average Joe that choice, eh? Sellers
couldn't figure-out some way to guide people to the right choice, eh?
Funny, but I look around I see *countless* sellers offering *massive
amounts of choice, quite-often with only very subtle, even technical,
differences, and a solution that works for both the seller and the
consumer is figured-out.
Hell, if necessary, customers can talk to a real human being that will
explain the choices to them.
Sellers don't quake in fear that if they offer a certain choice, it
will lead to an inordinate number of product returns! They figure-out
a way to guide their customers to the proper choice, within acceptable
costs and margins for error.
BTW, it does *not* make you less dishonest that you replied to some
piece of shit's post where my "offer anything but Windows" was
trimmed-out. You *know* that this will happen when your shitty pals
quote my posts. You *knew* that my sentence was cut-off in the
middle.
Another "Ezekiel" bald-faced lie. Documented.
*SPANK* again, "Ezekiel", you POS liar.
>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>> Sheesh, you are a filthy, shitty, lying creep, "Ezekiel".
>>>
>>> Let's hear-again your FUD about how OEM's should worry about people
>>> ordering the wrong product and so needing to return it, should they
>>> offer anything but Windows, you POS.
>
>
>Only a low-IQ idiot like "chrisv" would think that product returns aren't
>something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
>actually happen.
Why bother which such ridiculous *lies*, "Ezekiel"?
>something that OEMs need to deal with. This is just "FUD" and doesn't
>actually happen.
You can't *really* think that anyone will believe that I don't know
that "product returns are something that OEM's need to deal with".
*Everyone* here knows that the issue is your FUD that offering a
choice of OS is a particularly risky/ expensive decision for an OEM to
make, because "average Joe" doesn't know what an operating system is.
It's just too expensive to allow average Joe that choice, eh? Sellers
couldn't figure-out some way to guide people to the right choice, eh?
Funny, but I look around I see *countless* sellers offering *massive
amounts of choice, quite-often with only very subtle, even technical,
differences, and a solution that works for both the seller and the
consumer is figured-out.
Hell, if necessary, customers can talk to a real human being that will
explain the choices to them.
Sellers don't quake in fear that if they offer a certain choice, it
will lead to an inordinate number of product returns! They figure-out
a way to guide their customers to the proper choice, within acceptable
costs and margins for error.
BTW, it does *not* make you less dishonest that you replied to some
piece of shit's post where my "offer anything but Windows" was
trimmed-out. You *know* that this will happen when your shitty pals
quote my posts. You *knew* that my sentence was cut-off in the
middle.
Another "Ezekiel" bald-faced lie. Documented.
*SPANK* again, "Ezekiel", you POS liar.
chrisv
May 11, 2012, 9:41:56 AM5/11/12
to
chrisv wrote:
>Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>It's not free and it costs money.
>
>Yeah, you know that, you stupid POS.
>
>Software options are *fscking cheap* compared to many other things in
>the world, where the hardware is actually different.
>
>Even when huge tooling expenses are incurred to offer choice, as in
>cars, it's *still* done!
Looks like the trolling fsckwit is taking has straw-man arguments and
>Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>It's not free and it costs money.
>
>Yeah, you know that, you stupid POS.
>
>Software options are *fscking cheap* compared to many other things in
>the world, where the hardware is actually different.
>
>Even when huge tooling expenses are incurred to offer choice, as in
>cars, it's *still* done!
running-away with his tail between his legs.
All the while screeching his *lies* that I'm "too stupid" to know
things like "choice costs money" and "returns are something an OEM
needs to deal with".
All the while ignoring that these issues are *routinely* dealt-with by
businesses.
Chris Ahlstrom
May 11, 2012, 10:37:42 AM5/11/12
to
chrisv wrote:
>>Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>It's not free and it costs money.
>
>Yeah, you know that, you stupid POS.
How much longer are you going to stalk Zeke and respond to every post he makes?
>>Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>It's not free and it costs money.
>
>Yeah, you know that, you stupid POS.
<giggle>
Quit being a turd and stealing from your employer.<chuckle>
chrisv
May 11, 2012, 11:32:22 AM5/11/12
to
Fake Chris A post was deleted, unread.
Foster
May 11, 2012, 11:34:05 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 10:32:22 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> Fake Chris A post was deleted, unread.
If you didn't read it how did you know it was fake?
> Fake Chris A post was deleted, unread.
Great self nuke turd.....
GreyCloud
May 11, 2012, 3:51:18 PM5/11/12
to
On 5/11/2012 9:32 AM, chrisv wrote:
>
> Fake Chris A post was deleted, unread.
>
Oh, you read it all right. OTW, you wouldn't have responded, liar.
>
> Fake Chris A post was deleted, unread.
>
GreyCloud
May 11, 2012, 3:52:35 PM5/11/12
to
Does your momma know you are playing in the middle of a freeway?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Gee, look ma! There's a big flat turd on the freeway!
0 new messages