Whilst I fully understand why a PC, pre-installed with a Linux distro, is no cheaper than one with Windows I do question what is gained by paying a significant premium. A Linux enthusiast will presumably be both prepared and able to install a distro on any piece of kit that can run it, the newbie will probably start with a PC he/she already owns, and the non-techie is unlikely to be interested to the extent of paying over the odds.
I've never been able to persuade any non-Linux user to install Ubuntu or any other distro on a brand new machine. However, I've have a fair bit of success with people owning older PCs, those infested with malware and people who are simply sick of Windows. I believe they will all stay with Linux when they replace their kit, but will probably ask me to do the installation rather than pay extra for a pre-configured PC. >From my experience, encouraging people to use free software is relatively >easy. I know plenty who have gone over to LibreOffice, GIMP etc, but on >Windows. Cost (absence of) is the principle motivation. When it comes to the >operating system itself, the cost of Windows on a new machine doesn't really >feature - lots of people assume it is free of charge anyway. They will pay >extra for a Mac because it is somehow perceived to be better - the triumph of >hype and marketing. This leaves Linux in a sort of limbo. If a computer that >comes with Linux pre-installed is not cheaper than a Windows PC, then it's >hard to see any other incentive. Nige
-- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UKTeam/
