On 22/06/07, John Madden <john+ilug at jmadden.eu> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>> On (22/06/07 11:02), Ian O'Connell said:
> > >> Despite the extreme unpopularity of Tim's view, for the average
> > >> scenario he's quite correct, and in all my systems which came
> > >> pre-installed with windows that partition is re-sized down and left
> > >> alone.
> > >
> > >There are at least a few list members who have no use for windows and
> > >use some flavour of Unix. Not out of zealotry, but because of
> > >preference, habit, employment and other such sensible reasons.
> > A use for windows is irrelevent. if the machine came with windows
> > there is no sensible reason to just delete it unless you've several
> > machines to hand.
> So, what do the engineers do when they go to do an install in a
> completely non-Windows house or business? Eg., if they were to come to
> my house to install something, they'd have a choice of Mac OSX, Ubuntu
> or Debian (deliberately omitting my partner's Vista laptop here for
> illustrative purposes).
He'll plod about i imagine, give you the settings and leave.....
> > >> Whether its right or not is irrelevant, 99% of the worlds pc
> > >> computers are running windows, when it comes to on site technicians
> > >> or dealing with phone support regarding hardware faults its only
> > >> sensible if the machine came with windows then keep it about and
> > >> don't go causing agro that benefits no one......
> > >
> > >So what are you suggesting exactly?
> > >
> > >That all non-windows users must keep a windows partition around?
> > on one of their machines to hand yes, i don't see why not. you've
> > already paid for it in the purchase.
> This is utter bullsh*t, and is the reason so many hardware manufacturers
> have encumbered us (us == those of us with _no_ requirement or wish to
> have Windows) with the extra cost of a Windows licence on top of the
Yes, i never said i agreed with it, but its just the way it is. If
your forced to pay for something i damn sure try get some use out of
>> > If an installer comes onsite and wants to configure a windows machine
> > to use service or do x y z, and wants windows, i'll let him off
> > configure and get the windows working. Thats fine, it'll test the
> > networking aspect by doing it. I can come back later with no hassle
> > and port any settings to linux and go back to not using windows. I
> > don't need for him to leave early cause he doesn't know what he's
> > doing to just discover that there is some problem out of my control
> > but he's now gone since he couldn't test it.....
> If he wants to configure it, he can leave the settings with me and I'll
> configure my own choice of OS if he can't. If he wants to test it, then
> he should have the relevant equipment necessary to test it with him, and
> not be dependant on me for it.
True and thats all well and good, and if it doesn't work? you've to
wait for another engineer to come out... i just don't see the point in
the extra hassle if you don't need to. (and in your case he might be
able to use os x regardless).
>> > >The desire that it continue to remain possible to have a choice in
> > >what OS to run is not zealotry.
> > No but you seem to be suggesting one should limit ones choices not
> > increase them. Having windows and linux does not limit your choices...
> > Tim can refresh me here its a year since i finished but 1 + 1 = 2
> > right which is > 1?
> Nobody is saying someone should limit their choices, but those of us who
> choose not to keep Windows around, or who don't have it to keep around
> in the first place, should not be required to have it to configure or
> use a particular service. And if said service cannot be done with your
> choice of OS, then vote with your wallet and look elsewhere for a
> similar service that can.
Thats all some great idealism and what not, but given the
inconvenience of leaving a pre-installed os alone isn't huge, or even
making the the bart BE, i don't see why its a great plan to delete it?
I'm all for your view of voting with wallets to a service provider
that supports all oses, but that just isn't always possible. if your
forced to pay the windows tax you might aswell head off future
potential hassle. i just don't see this need to drive for a windows
>> > >Your view however is a sort of awful, false pragmatism. One which
> > >would eventually lead to a situation that only zealots could agree is
> > >desireable: a monoculture. Ironic.
> > Huh what now? a monoculture? not deleting something you paid for
> > incase you need it some day is a form of being a zealot?
> I think what he means here is that you'll enforce the Windows
> monoculture that most businesses focus on. Your choice of OS is your own
> obviously, but you shouldn't be forced into having to keep one around
> just to keep service providers happy.
shouldn't, but its the nature of the world. I don't run windows on
those machines every day, some i've never ran it on since the day i
got them. But its not exactly put me out for there to be an extra
option in the grub boot loader.....
and since dell has been mentioned came across a painfull senario with
a powervault a few months baack where we'd to move the scsi card, and
connect the PV to a windows machine since you couldn't update its bios
under anything but windows , or a specific version of linux. (machine
runs freebsd, nfs server). Painfull, but its the way it is.........
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!