On Wednesday, 9 June 2004 01:57, Preston Crawford said:

No. It's just that that would cost more money. You mention Windows as an example of an OS that gives you this for free, but there's a reason for this, you know. For starters, it's subsidized by the hardware manufacturers. When you buy a desktop with all kinds of software pre-loaded, do you think Microsoft was responsible for that? No. Dell, Compaq, etc. made that happen. They negotiated a bulk license for WinDVD or the mp3 player or whatever so you could use it. Same with Microsoft. if they included it, they paid the royalties and they probably got a good deal because they're a monopoly.

All true, but Lindows license and resell all those codecs, why doesn't SuSE. I am not an advocate for Windows, I don't use it (except at work where I have no choice). It's regressive bloatware. I also choose not to use it because of the way Ms behaves corporately. But the latter is more a political than technical decision. My whinge is that the Linux Distros would sell lots more linux OSs into desktops at home if they offered a more turn key approach. The average joe at home doesn't want to spend days getting the basics working. Paul