Replies

"You're absolutely right: spending even one dollar to create something that is to be given away makes no sense as a business model."

Yes, I know, and I'm glad it's finally getting through to you.

Note that Golden Eagle completely omitted Nick Danger's explanation of why a community-developed project like Linux as an operating system does make good financial sense for hardware manufacturers. This, along with his utterly dishonest attempt to present a sarcastic statement as an expression of genuine sentiment, makes it clear to me that Golden Eagle is not interested in any intelligent discussion, but rather is just here to bash Linux and insult anyone who uses it regardless of the facts. Facts are irrelevant to Golden Eagle, he'll just make up whatever he needs to support his bogus assertions. He's probably best ignored.

Note that Golden Eagle completely omitted Nick Danger's explanation of why a community-developed project like Linux as an operating system does make good financial sense for hardware manufacturers.

No I didn't, you're wrong, again.

I said exactly this:

the rest of your post drifts off into some sad form of an excuse for hardware companies just because time after time they have proven they can't write operating systems worth a flip on their own.

Which I said because it was nothing more than a sad excuse turned into whining for entitlement. Just because operating system software costs are "inconvenient" does not give anyone the right to steal it from them instead.

If you can't afford them, tough. The markets have naturally determined fair price over time through competition. And yes, there is choice already, M$, Unix and Apple. Just becuase you can't afford any of them doesn't mean they're not fairly priced, it simply means you cannot afford them.