Replies

Have I ever claimed that Linux is ready for general home use? I'll be the first to say that it sucks for almost all home users.

Ergo, initial Linux setup is no better than Windows.

But if you are in the enterprise, a standard install, after making basic user accounts, is generally more locked-down than a Windows install.

Nonsense. The key words in your statement were "after making basic user accounts". Linux doesn't force you to create user accounts. Neither does Windows. You need to take the initiative. But you want to pretend that the effort to do the same with Windows is somehow different than the effort that you would have to put into creating basic user accounts under Linux. Which is nonsense.

I do know they apparently follow Microsoft's example in how to configure Windows. First you want the users to make up for Microsoft's shortcomings, now you want to lay that on the OEMs?

No, I'm putting responsibility on the ADMINISTRATOR of the operating system. OEMs are installing the OS for you. They therefore need to take responsibility for the state of the box before it gets delivered to you.

That figure was from before retail sales of XP even hit their high, still being second to a years-old OS. It would be extremely illogical to assume that these sales dropped to nothing immediately after this article, and therefore sales were not able to reach the millions of copies sold that I claimed.

It would be illogical to conclude that the sales rate climbed after the first six months of release.

Admit it, there are millions of retail copies of XP out there, all configured by Microsoft, all approximately the same as the OEM configs. I have one of these retail installs, an upgrade for that machine that started as a 486/66.

Less than 1% of all installs are retail. It's an insignificant number.

Ergo, initial Linux setup is no better than Windows.

As far as initial accounts go, no. That's one reason why I don't think it's ready for home use, just like Windows isn't in that respect.

They therefore need to take responsibility for the state of the box before it gets delivered to you.

Why don't you become an OEM then, and be the first to offer this service? It's actually a pretty good idea. And what about the millions of copies of XP shipped by Microsoft at retail? Do they have a responsibility to configure it well?

It would be illogical to conclude that the sales rate climbed after the first six months of release.

That 650,000 was the two months following the initial release. Microsoft also claimed stores couldn't keep retail copies stocked. Plus, the XP retail install is the same as the XP corporate license install except for the need for activation, so add all those corporate licenses.

Less than 1% of all installs are retail. It's an insignificant number.

There you go, millions. Whether its an insignificant number doesn't matter. What matters is that Microsoft's practice is to ship poorly configured Windows installs. Are you incapable of admitting that Microsoft can do wrong?