From: nospam@dfs.com   
      
    From Quora   
      
   Douglas Jewell   
   Former Computer Technician (1994–2011) Sun   
      
   Question   
   Why do computer manufacturers not deliver consumer computers installed   
   with open source Linux operating systems instead of the Microsoft   
   Windows operating system? Does Microsoft pay them to do so?   
      
      
   Jewell's Answer   
   Way back in 2007 I worked for a computer retailer. We received a   
   shipment of a new tiny notebook PC made by Asus - the eeePC. It was   
   pretty low spec, but importantly was dirt cheap. It retailed for $399   
   Australian (probably about $199 US), which at the time was hundreds of   
   dollars cheaper than its nearest competitor. Unusually, it shipped with   
   Linux. Asus had their own customised distribution that made it pretty   
   easy to use. Primarily due to the low price point, they sold like hot-cakes…   
      
   And got returned almost as fast. “I can’t work out how to use it”, “it   
   won’t run any software” were typical complaints. We burnt a crapload of   
   money on them after we had to return a bucketload which we then tried to   
   sell cheap as refurbs. At one stage we were selling them for $99 to try   
   and get rid of our stock, and they still came back.   
      
   A few months later, Asus brought out a new model. Same low-end spec   
   hardware, but $100 (Australian) more expensive. The difference was the   
   more expensive model had Windows XP. Because the hardware was very low   
   end for XP it ran like a dog. But again because it was considerably less   
   expensive than a real notebook, it sold like hot-cakes.   
      
   And we didn’t return any.   
      
   Once the XP version came out, and we were able to get appropriate   
   Windows drivers for the machines, we actually ended up buying retail   
   copies of windows xp (which I think cost us something like $150),   
   installed it on the Linux machines and sold them as refurbs $449, still   
   way below the cost of the machine + windows, but we were burning less   
   than we were trying to sell them with Linux. This way we could actually   
   get rid of the things.   
      
   That’s the reality of the industry. People preferred a machine that ran   
   windows like a dog, and were willing to pay more for it, than a machine   
   that ran Linux well. Because at the end of the day, the operating system   
   is meaningless. People don’t use operating systems, they use   
   applications. A computer that doesn’t run their applications is useless   
   to them. Asus gambled on people just wanting to run things like email,   
   web browser, open office, etc, and the Linux version did all that and   
   more. But it would only take one application that wasn’t available on   
   Linux for the whole thing to fail.   
      
   Now, these days there are notebooks sold with a customised Linux - we   
   call them Chromebooks. They benefit from the fact that there are better   
   online applications, than back in 2007, but they are still quite limited   
   compared to a Windows or Mac notebook.   
      
   Sure Linux does work ok for *some* desktop uses. And in the server space   
   it is fantastic. But even now, almost 20 years after the failed eeePC   
   experiment, Linux on the desktop suffers most of the same shortcomings   
   it had then. The most critical of which is lack of application support.   
      
   Application support fails because Linux is not a platform that makes it   
   easy for closed-source software vendors to ship their product. The   
   trouble is, Linux is not an operating system. Linux is an operating   
   system kernel. What we typically know as Linux is more correctly   
   GNU/Linux - a suite of unix-like applications running on the Linux   
   kernel. But then things muddy even further - there is no single standard   
   of GNU/Linux either. There’s the top distributions, such as Debian and   
   RedHat and a few others, then an absolute plethora of sub-distributions.   
   And there is no guarantee that any one of them will have any level of   
   consistency.   
      
   When you sell application software for Windows, you know what the OS   
   will provide, and what libraries etc you are responsible for installing.   
   It’s straightforward. For Linux it is less clear cut. An installation   
   may or may not have certain libraries. You may need to install   
   dependencies, and how you doing so will vary depending on the   
   distribution. Unlike Windows there is no surety of binary compatibility.   
   I can install an application compiled for Windows XP in 2003 on a   
   Windows 11 PC and it will almost certainly still work as designed. If I   
   take a Linux binary compiled against a 2 year old version of the same   
   distribution, it’s a gamble if it will run. If it is compiled against a   
   different distribution it almost certainly won’t run.   
      
   The upshot of this, is that for a software vendor to support Linux, it   
   requires a whole lot of effort on their behalf. More than what is needed   
   to support Mac or Windows. Yet the potential Linux customer base is a   
   tiny fraction of the Mac or Windows customer base. If it takes more   
   resources to target the 2% than to target the 98%, it doesn’t make   
   economic sense to target the 2%. So we have a catch-22 - Linux doesn’t   
   have the app support to capture market share, and it doesn’t have the   
   market share to catch app support.   
      
   There is one final factor that makes it unlikely for vendors to bundle   
   Linux, and it is related to the issue of so many distributions. Which   
   version should they put on? If they install Ubuntu the customer would   
   want Fedora. Install Fedora and the customer would want Mint, etc etc   
   etc. Linux users generally like to have things customised their way, so   
   they are probably going to reinstall anyway. Even if the PC shipped with   
   Windows, a Linux user can still install whatever form of Linux they want.   
      
   So these factors combined is why it is rare to find computers pre   
   installed with Linux. Ultimately it comes down to one key thing - it is   
   not a selling point. Having Linux preinstalled isn’t a selling point for   
   Linux users, because they will want to install their own Linux, which is   
   the same amount of work to install over Windows. Windows or Mac users   
   won’t buy it because it doesn’t do what they want. It would be no   
   cheaper than a pre-installed machine, because the slight cost saving by   
   avoiding a Windows licence will be more than offset by increased costs   
   in assembly (by having a different software clone process), maintaining   
   additional inventory, and in after-sales product support.   
      
      
   https://tinyurl.com/4s2nbpwr   
      
   https://www.quora.com/Why-do-computer-manufacturers-not-deliver-   
   onsumer-computers-installed-with-open-source-Linux-operating-sys   
   ems-instead-of-the-Microsoft-Windows-operating-system-Does-Micro   
   oft-pay-them-to-do-so   
      
      
   MS is doomed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)