Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 20th Sep 2007 15:31 UTC, submitted by Rahul
Thread beginning with comment 272857
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: And why is that?
by BluenoseJake on Thu 20th Sep 2007 18:30
in reply to "RE: And why is that?"
RE[3]: And why is that?
by raynevandunem on Thu 20th Sep 2007 20:24
in reply to "RE[2]: And why is that?"
OK, yes it worked out for MS. I stand corrected.
But did it work out for the customer? Of course, it didn't.
The second best situation is "one-distro-per-manufacturer". The ultimate best situation is if the distro vendor also makes its own computers (like Apple's "whole widget", but with a more generic OS).
But to have one distro catering to a number of hardware vendors invites the same customer service problems as Microsoft invited.





Member since:
2006-11-24
Why would you offer the same OS as your competitor?
Think man, think. Unless Canonical wanted to become the Microsoft of Linux/FOSS on the Desktop (and look how well that worked out for Microsoft), it wouldn't make sense for Dell and HP to offer the same OS and still go through the same hardware-compatibility changes as desktop computers which host WinXP or WinVista.