Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 09, 2007 11:54 AM
<a href="http://linux.dell.com/desktops.shtml" title="dell.com">http://linux.dell.com/desktops.shtml</a dell.com> "Dell does not officially support running Linux on Dell desktops." Yes, it seems Dell wants the positive marketing without really giving much except links to websites put together by others so that you buy their computers even if you want Linux and don't want Windows.
But this is all besides the point. This post put it quite well: <a href="http://www.linux.com/comments.pl?sid=37847&op=&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=12&pid=94739#94761" title="linux.com">http://www.linux.com/comments.pl?sid=37847&op=&th<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> eshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&tid=12&pid=947<nobr>3<wbr></nobr> 9#94761</a linux.com>
The main point is that we are not asking for anything that they don't already offer. They would be violating their contract if they don't give a refund. Who is "they?" Well, the important point in all of this is that it doesn't matter because the one that is ultimately responsible is Microsoft. The wording in their EULA is to keep their buttucks out of anti-trust troubles so I guess Dell would be making things difficult for Microsoft by not honoring the Microsoft EULA. And I would like to put Dell in the hot seat because if these two don't intend to follow through on an offer, they shouldn't be making it.
Microsoft could pull their offer at the insistence of Dell who says, "hey, Bill, we want to bundle, so we are going to need a EULA from you that doesn't allow taking back the stuff."
I can already hear the fed sirens outside Redmond Gates.