[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: OT. Message to all computer vendors.



On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 at 03:14 GMT, alex penned:
> What do you think of everyone on this list  and other Linux lists
> sending a form letter to all computer vendors asking them if they have
> systemless computers or components that will  work with Linux?   Do
> you think that would give them some incentive to become interested in
> providing such computers and advertise them as such?   As it is now,
> what incentive do they have ?

I'm not sure how many requests they have to get before they have an
effect.  People are already asking now, aren't they?  But maybe the
sales person on the other end doesn't report this request to his/her
boss ...

Maybe having the right address / point of contact is the key.

> Such a letter could be drafted and posted on lists along with as many
> major vendor addresses such as Tiger Direct .  It could be designed so
> all one would have to do is copy it and the TO addresses and send it..

In my opinion, a form letter will not have as much impact as a number of
individual letters.  On the other hand, I don't know how much more of an
impact a form letter has than no letter at all.

> My thought is the letter should not be system specific but use the
> word Linux in a generic sense..

Well, this poses problems, doesn't it?  I agree with you in theory, but
they want concrete facts, because they can probably be sued if they say
"certified to work with linux" and then it turns out that some asshat is
running redhat 6.2 and the driver support isn't present.  So they want
to be able to say "certified to work with X version of Y operating
system."  Problem is, I'd be pretty surprised if most new systems will
work with, say, woody, right off the bat.

Ideally, they would say "certified to work with linux, and here, the
linux drivers for all the hardware are on the CD we shipped with your
system."  Even that probably falls prey to issues of gcc versioning and
whatnot, though ...

-- 
monique



Reply to: