As long as MS Windows is the only preinstalled OS in purchased computers, Linux is a major loser. The purchased computer may even cost the same or more (more likely) if you don't want the MS Windows. Think about the world in which Linux is the only preinstalled OS in the purchased computers: how many domestic users would spend additional $$$ for MS Windows? I don't understand PC sellers because Linux is free. I'm sure in the above situation very soon people would demand more software to Linux so that people would not have to put $$$ extra to additional OS. I'm toying with the idea that when a computer is tax-deductible, the goverment pays with respect to lowest priced OS. Similarly with all kind of taxpayer funded grants/awards: grant would include only the lowest priced OS. And not only OS, any software would be treated the similar way: GIMP instead of Photoshop, Blender instead of Maya or Max, Ardour instead of Protools. When people do not get grants for $$$$ software, they are more willing to use the lowest priced alternative. We should educate politicians and grant givers about the lowest priced alternatives. Juhana -- http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-graphics-dev for developers of open source graphics software
