> Why don't more computers come with Linux pre-installed? […] Is it all somebody else's fault
That coquetry of ignorance wasn't cool on Slashdot twenty years ago, what makes you think it's acceptable here?
Microsoft's actions, for which they have been convicted in courts of law all over the world, have set back desktop computing by two decades. A PC clone with e.g. BeOS on it could not be had for money or good words, and the reason was precisely because they killed off competitors with their anti-capitalist, anti-consumer stranglehold on the vendors and markets before the competitors even had a chance to show their quality or lack thereof.
Linux' boon was that it by-passed that system, thriving from the figurative grass roots. It makes little sense – merely in order to take it seriously – to demand to be able to buy a pre-installed Linux.
I'm sorry if I come across as obtuse, but I just need to understand this clearly. Is it your belief that the low usage of Linux has nothing to do with Linux itself?
That coquetry of ignorance wasn't cool on Slashdot twenty years ago, what makes you think it's acceptable here?
Microsoft's actions, for which they have been convicted in courts of law all over the world, have set back desktop computing by two decades. A PC clone with e.g. BeOS on it could not be had for money or good words, and the reason was precisely because they killed off competitors with their anti-capitalist, anti-consumer stranglehold on the vendors and markets before the competitors even had a chance to show their quality or lack thereof.
Linux' boon was that it by-passed that system, thriving from the figurative grass roots. It makes little sense – merely in order to take it seriously – to demand to be able to buy a pre-installed Linux.