Peter Bradley wrote:
Ysgrifennodd Tony Alfrey:
<snip>
But if the goal is to convert more away from M$, it would help the
average user for the end result to be more Mac-like. Hence the
possible usefulness of such a compatibility list. I'm not the first
to propose ways to make the transition to Linux easier for the masses,
I'm just thinking about ways to quantify it.
All that would do would be to make Linux systems as expensive as Apple
systems. The two things are in different markets. Making Linux boxes
expensive will not increase market penetration. And anyway, who's going
to sell these guaranteed-linux-compatible systems? Not PC World, and
that's where Joe public goes to get his PC. In case you missed it,
Walmart have been trying something like this. I haven't heard them
shouting about its success.
Let me see if I can succinctly restate my position:
1. If Macs were cheap, people would use Macs, not PCs (possibly a false
premise, otherwise the Mac Mini would be more successful).
2. Linux/SuSE or some other distro has the potential to be like a cheap
Mac. It needs
a. the GUI and apps to be ready for prime time, nearly Mac-like.
Getting there.
b. the hassle factor to be at the level of that for a Mac. A list
of absolutely compatible systems would help *on the hardware side*.
With respect to Wal-Mart, I think their system fails at (2a) above.
With respect to a list of standard systems increasing the cost of a
linux box, I don't understand this point. But it is in the interest of
the vendors of distros to know which systems *are* absolutely compatible
and to publish such a list.
--
Tony Alfrey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"I'd Rather Be Sailing"
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
