oreillynet.com — Jeremiah Foster urges Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical (company behind Ubuntu) to get involved in the business of pre-installing GNU/Linux on computers hence getting rid of the "need to install" as one of the biggest remaining obstacles to increased adoption.
Mar 7, 2007 View in Crawl 4
geminitojanusMar 7, 2007
Which is exactly what it comes down to; instead of packaging the cost of the codecs into /Linux/ they should (as it would be more profitable for them anyways) package the cost into the /Hardware/ doing the playback, as they already do with DVD players. This means you'd be free to try out whatever operating system you want AND still be legally covered by licensing. Which is yet another reason why Shuttleworth should seriously think about building computers. Even if they can't do it cheaply, they can do it completely transparently, and give us an alternative.
stupidbrownerMar 7, 2007
It's not hard work that needs to be added to an OEM Linux, it's finances. That's what Shuttleworth did for Ubuntu, he funded the project which quickly became the most popular distro. This author simply feels hardware needs the same financial support to get off the ground.
jqp123Mar 7, 2007
@rmxz"... which explains the bigger hard drive for the same cost."You forget the keyboard and monitor also for the same cost. Regardless of how it is achieved, instead of a "MS tax", it would appear to be more of a "MS rebate". @geminitojanus"Buying from an all Linux manufacturer puts money in the other camp."I'd expect most people to be more concerned with putting money into their own pocket.
lilrabbit129Mar 7, 2007
"So, rather than sell hardware, I'd rather see a "100% Ubuntu" certification program for individual hardware components and assembled systems, even if Ubuntu isn't pre-installed. It's not time for them to sell hardware, but it is time for them to take responsibility for it."I whole heartedly agree. That would solve one of , IMO, Linux's biggest shortcoming. Having to learn the OS as well as fix it at the same time.
jqp123Mar 7, 2007
"Shuttleworth has the funds to create a new company which would create hardware based around Ubuntu but not directly connected to Canonical."Shuttleworth may have some money but so does Dell and HP. Can he compete with these two on hardware? If not, then such a move would appear to be more politically motivated rather than financial. I wouldn't count on Joe Public to buy more expensive hardware for political reasons.
lilrabbit129Mar 7, 2007
The theme idea is very cool. People already spend hours trying to get their linux desktops to have an all encompassing "theme". Having corporate sponsorship, that has nothing to do with computing, such as Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Honda, etc.. could be the answer to the MS Rebate.
raynevandunemMar 7, 2007
Someone once said that "to understand your own software, you must first make your own hardware".Back in the beginning of computing history, there was no GUI, no fawning over applications, no audio or graphics, none of that. Yet, they were selling computers to big businesses, and as the computers got smaller, the market for them got wider and wider.Then the GUI came along (Apple '84). Then software companies started selling killer apps, such as Photoshop, Postscript, Excel, BASIC, etc.By the 90's, the operating system became unhinged from the hardware's ROM. Suddenly, you could switch operating systems on the same hardware (on a Mac, you could switch between Mac OS, Yellow Dog, and MorphOS).Today, the operating systems have become the major showpiece platforms of the computing industry, with turf wars being fought over which OS is the best and brightest. Now the operating system pushes the limits of the hardware, and has been for the last few years.And now this? Linux, the ultra-portable wonderOS, is now seeking for a relationship between hardware and software akin to Apple's "whole widget"?Have the limits of operating systems been pushed that far that we now want to have an Ubuntu computer? One in which all the parts are fully compatible (certified by the OS vendor) with the operating system and vice-versa?Maybe we're going full circle here, I dunno.
matthekcMar 8, 2007
some random thoughts, if ubuntu makes it's own hardware eventually support for other hardware would probably suffer. the ubuntu linspire deal will allow everyone to buy their codecs soon. system 76 is a bit more expensive than dell but if you go to their section in the forum you will see great customer service and its still way cheaper than apple.
leopardsMar 8, 2007
It took me over an hour to figure out how to get the sound working on my Shuttle sb75g2 computer! Finally got lucky on a google search and found out that alsamixer which had to be started from terminal was muting a bunch of stuff! You could use your mouse on the Ubuntu desktop forever and miss this! I'm lucky that I didn't have to roll my own driver as some others have had to do! I'm not that good at linux by a long shot, and that type of a roadblock would have been the death knell for linux on my machine!! People like me getting ready to transition to Ubuntu from XP are going to be easily discouraged by non-support for our hardware! I'm one of the lucky ones, since I had sound with Knoppix and figured Ubuntu had to support the onboard AC'97 sound also, so I kept digging and got lucky!!
netjoeMar 9, 2007
I think it's more trying to find help with hardware selection. If we get some good documented volume due to driver support the business case changes for linux support from vendors and we might see more hardware support. the comments here are starting to really open my eyes to this a bit.Downloaded microcode and system software fragments are being downloaded to a number of important system components, including some ethernet chipsets, wifi chipsets, sound chips, and video cards. For a variety of reasons, it's getting harder and harder to get specifications for these components, and without those specs it's extremely difficult to write a kernel device driver. inn some cases without the downloaded code the devices don't have a useful interface for a device driver to use.In many cases it's microcode that was farmed out to a third party and the chipset designer doesn't have the license to distribute that code. Unless the business can justify the additional cost to negotiate differently, they're going to try to minimize cost. If that means the linux kernel loses, well ... the linux market isn't big enough to matter. We do need a way to prove the linux market matters.