On Monday 10 February 2003 19:46, Tass wrote: > What I've heard on this matter is that the M$ contract states only that > builders can no longer sell "empty" chassis. There must be AN OS with the > computer. > > This was to counter the practice of quantity purchasers buying blank boxes, > (and by M$'s concern) loading a single copy of some M$ OS on dozens of > boxes with only one license. But, they would be hauled into court by every > company and State in the US if they went so far as to say it HAD to be an > M$ OS. So they left it as *an* OS knowing full well that theirs would be > the most likely candidate, and thus another sale made. > > Not wanting to loose thousands upon thousands from customers not wanting > to spend the extra for the installed OS, BUT, also not wanting to breech or > lose the contract with M$, for these special customers they would build an > empty chassis to the customers' specs, then, just before sealing up the > box, they toss in a floppy containing a copy of "free DOS". Thus, they > have met the contract stipulation of "providing *an* OS, but not having to > charge the client for the product, or installation. > > I haven't confirmed this for myself. But he who told me has a strong > purchasing arrangement with Dell, so, could be. :-)
I have heard this to but I cannot confirm. Remember, these decisions are made by big time businessmen with $$Billions at stake. I called IBM today for fun and talked to a sales rep. He said things like....: I feel your pain. Believe me I have lost some million dollar sales because of this issue. There is nothing he can do except take my complaint to his supervisor. (again) Then he joked about the fact I should try to contact Palmisano. hehe Maybe someday folks, we can buy a Thinkpad with Redhat pre-loaded......maybe someday. Things like this change very slowly, especially when there are $$Billions at stake. Andy -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
