[SATLUG] Network+ Question
demeler at biochem.uthscsa.edu
Wed Jan 6 10:14:53 CST 2010
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Doug <ftm at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> > Good answer to my rather sarcastic question. =A0Of Course it is the marke=
> > budget.
> In my opinion, the main reason is that MS is an entrenched
> monopoly. They have used and continue to use anti-
> competitive methods. In the US MS has benefited from
> the justice department's uneven concern about their
> practices and their ability to eventually find an appeals
> court judge who never saw a monopoly he didn't like (the
> business of America is business, and all that). In Europe
> it has been a different story as the courts there know how
> to spot monopolistic practices.
Another reason is that the general populus doesn't demand any better.
The average joe has no clue of what their computer could do if it were to
run Linux, and is quite content with the mediocrity they get when they
buy a generic PC with Windows preloaded (as they are with so many other
things Americans buy). Curiously, if something doesn't work, they *always*
either blame their own lack of knowledge or assume the hardware is at
fault and go out and buy a bigger and more expensive MS computer. There
is this blind trust that the OS could not be at fault (most people don't
even know what an OS is, and assume the OS is part of the hardware).
What gets me is that even after you explain the "facts" (see John
Kirch's article) they still insist on running MS, because everyone else
does it and they bought into the FUD that Linux requires an insurmountable
learning curve, which, by the way, barely anyone would be willing to climb.
More information about the SATLUG