Users who Dugg This
Sebastian Schmitt
339 Followers
NotifyNeal
10141 Followers
Noah Rooney
51 Followers
Matt Daniel
1612 Followers
infestusJul 24, 2010
Probably signed a deal to exclusively only use Microsoft products.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
Or they just realized there is no profit in it.
morpheousmartyJul 26, 2010
Yeah, I have to imagine if you can run a linux desktop you can build your own computer. I know, I know, linux has made HUGE strides in the last couple of years, but you still need the command line and a lot of things are just too unpredictable.
For example my ubuntu 10.04 no longer shows my wifi bars. I know the command line option to fix that (every time I wake the machine from sleep mode) but I can't expect anyone who bought a dell to figure that out.
tanethJul 26, 2010
Funny. I have to use the command line to fix more things in Windows than in Ubuntu. I guess this means Windows just shouldn't be on the market.
darkstar3333Jul 26, 2010
People who want to use Ubuntu typically won't buy a pre-configured pre-assembled machine, they will hit newegg or retrofit an existing computer and go from there.
dbetaJul 26, 2010
Have you ever bought Linux preloaded on a machine? It gets rid of all that command line stuff. I bought my Dell netbook with Ubuntu preloaded. Of course it was an out of date version when I got it so the first thing I did was update it, but it came preloaded with flash, codecs, and drivers for everything. A normal end user would be perfectly setup.
dafragstaJul 26, 2010
Ubuntu runs great on any computer anywhere. It might be a hard sell, but you don't need to use the command line any more on Ubuntu than you do on a Mac and they both have a UNIX derived interface which is pretty much equally difficult to use. Your grandma could install Ubuntu and start browsing the web. It is true that it usually is installed on hardware that is being repurposed, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for prebuilt Ubuntu computers, what it means is the value of that market was displaced easily by whatever deal Microsoft cut with Dell to make this worth their while.
dusanmalJul 26, 2010
There is immense institutional profit in it. Two major Universities where I worked were both about 3/4 Linux for public machines (thousands, replaced every few years). Many others are also heavily Linux invested, particularly science and engineering departments. I personally had a large cabinet full from top to bottom of unused Windows licenses from Dell... There is the "Linux problem": Dell intentionally sold identical hardware with Windows an Linux with two exceptions: less customization available for Linux and, bizarrely enough - identical configurations with Windows costing less than Linux. Making no sense not to buy Win PC and simply install your own Linux. Have they priced Win PCs appropriately higher, pre-installed Linux boxes would sell like hotcakes for these institutions where bottom dollar is an issue.
hisnameischrisJul 26, 2010
How hard is it to go to your nearest computer store and ask for a computer without the OS? I know a few stores in my area that subtract almost the full cost of the OS from the total price if do this, and then you can just load Ubuntu (or your preferred OS) yourself.
scottussJul 26, 2010
Why did Taneth get buried? He's right, I work a Helpdesk and see so many more problems with Windows in a week that I see on Linux in a year...
djjd06Jul 26, 2010
@ scottuss - Dude idk, i guess people on digg forget almost all the time to use LOGIC!!!
jakem1Jul 26, 2010
@dusanmal: Are you saying that Dell were artificially inflating the price of PCs running Linux? If not, why would it be appropriate for Windows-based machines to cost more?
I would have thought that it was obvious why it would cost Dell more to package Linux than Windows. They would need to do a lot more testing, possible driver development and there's a lot less scope to make savings through crapware. Also, with a much smaller customer base, it's harder to get a good return on the time and effort they've invested into it.
rolfJul 26, 2010
Yeah guys, I'm really going to build my own f**king notebook (/s), which you haven't noticed guys, is a huge chunk of PC sales in the meantime.
v1ncentJul 26, 2010
Linux is like soccer in the USA. Use it/play it in school and when you graduate thank them for wasting your time and not preparing you for life.
tnoyJul 26, 2010
They didn't sell enough units.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
psh, conspiracy theories are much more fun than logical ideas...
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
And they will always trot out the conspiracy theories before admitting that nobody really wants to run Linux but the geeks.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
Go ahead, geeks. Digg it down.
But when you can't gain dekstop share by GIVING AWAY YOUR PRODUCT, it's not a very good product for general use.
It's a niche, enjoy it.
4dfxJul 26, 2010
Excuse me, but the Linux market share has only been going up. You would have to be some kind of a retard to expect it to overtake Windows over night.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
tobeyJul 26, 2010
No, we certainly can't expect it to overtake Windows in that short amount of time. It's only been nearly 20 years... We need more time dammit!
ymegJul 26, 2010
What's the matter, bjornski, did you have a traumatic experience with a command line?
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
Grew up on DOS, couldn't wait to never deal with that damned thing again.
It's NOT ready for the general public. Again, enjoy your niche.
AgentGotseJul 26, 2010
@bjornski
Have you ever used Ubuntu?
I know a 12 year old kid who uses Ubuntu perfectly fine for her needs (e-mail, internet, basic office stuff). The kid is not really interested in computers, so is not a computer nerd like myself. If a 12 year old kid can use that, then how hard can it be, seriously?
parboJul 26, 2010
bjornski is convinced he is right. No amount of truth will convince him otherwise.
dontreplytomeJul 28, 2010
@AgentIdiot:
It's the apps, dumbass. People will buy a product named "Photoshop" or use something called "Microsoft Messenger" because, instinctively, they have some idea what it will be about.
GiMP? Kopete? K3B? XMMS? VLC? Not to mention sed grep ls ps vi vim yum apt wtf pos, etc.
It's the marketing. Apple/Microsoft won this war before Linux was ever around *on the desktop*, and they're still winning it.
If you fail to realize this, you're beyond stupid.
ironhideJul 26, 2010
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/07/dells_sec_settlement?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/dellscookiejar
I know it's about Intel/AMD and not MS/Linux - but if this happened, what makes you think something similar didn't occur in this case?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
Because it's stretching a lot way to create a reason for a situation which is easily explained by "there's no money in it".
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
LONG way, even. spelling fail. :P
deathstrykJul 26, 2010
just like the time when Alienware replaced all AMD processors with Intel ones.
That was soon after Dell brought them.
myztryJul 26, 2010
Would Microsoft really be game enough to go for an exclusive OS deal again?
They've already been convicted on that front before although just prohibiting the advertisement of competitors might be a lesser equivalent that they would be arrogant enough to demand.
myztryJul 27, 2010
In the Corporate world, right and wrong is literally defined by black and red - accounting style.
dig1xJul 26, 2010
You're probably inventing. Easy there, Drama Queen.
headhotJul 26, 2010
Considering Dell just paid a pile of money to the DOJ to settle a law suit that they were taking kick backs from intel to keep AMD out, I wouldn't be surprised.
boulderbumJul 26, 2010
I doubt it.
Linux fans don't like to hear this, but Linux doesn't really have mass market appeal. It's a tweaker's operating system for folks who like spending their free time researching and downloading and configuring (with a command line no less) distros and add ons.
Driver support isn't great, nor is application support (no support from world music leader iTunes, for example) and it's just harder to use than other operating systems.
I suspect that not many units were getting sold, and the ones that were got returned at a high rate from people who didn't like Linux. Hate all you want, but that's what happens:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/ubuntu-confirms-linux-netbook-returns-higher-than-anticpated
sivyrJul 26, 2010
I don't know if you actually have any experience with Ubuntu, but I had your perception of Linux until I tried it. Ubuntu holds its own both for the tweakers and for general use.
In fact, I'm on my MacBook right now, running Ubuntu 10.04 because I find it as easy to use and significantly more configurable than OSX Snow Leopard.
It took me all of a week to get used to using it as opposed to other operating systems. I've had to use the terminal once in 6 months. It does anything I ask of it and provides me with easy access to open source alternatives to software I would normally pay for instead.
Don't blow off all Linux distros as being for power users. Times are changing fast.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
boulderbumJul 26, 2010
@sivry
I think you make decent points, and I have only tried a few flavors of Linux, not Ubuntu, but when you say Ubuntu is:
"significantly more configurable than OSX Snow Leopard"
...that it actually supports what I was saying about Linux and tweakers. Some people enjoy customizing their system, but I personally don't WANT a lot of switches to flip, nor do the majority of buyers, I think. I want things focused to the features I use most.
You can rightly say that more options means more control, but you can also say that fewer options by definition yields greater simplicity, and most people like "simple".
"...Linux community. Times are changing fast."
I know this sounds weird, but that's another reason I don't like Linux. It's too much effort to keep abreast of all the latest updates and the preferred distro du jour. I hate updating software, I hate researching products, I hate troubleshooting. I just want my computer to get what I need to done with the least amount of effort, and in my experience Linux is too much work.
To each his own, though.
irisblazeJul 26, 2010
what a bunch of crap.. it doesn't have mass market appeal because of the lack of ads, not because it's hard to use, we don't like configuring, researching, etc.. with a command line? lol when was last time you used a linux distro, i am on linux mint now and yes i prefer installing stuff from terminal (it's just one command not a scary bunch of computer language just sudo apt-get install whatever) and i do this just because it's easier to do that on terminal than launching the software manager and looking for my application.. etc for windows it's even worse, you gotta download what you want, and then go through a lot of clicks until your software is installed, bet installing apps for linux would be easier for the masses than on windows, and as for driver support linux comes with much more drivers than windows, and i never really had a problem with any of my drivers, you can shove iTunes up yours, we have ubuntu one and a lot of other alternatives, not hating just get your facts straight before you talkComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sivyrJul 26, 2010
@boulderbum
"Some people enjoy customizing their system, but I personally don't WANT a lot of switches to flip, nor do the majority of buyers, I think. I want things focused to the features I use most."
I see your reasoning but I disagree here. I think it's all about how visible the majority of these options are. If the important things most people want are visible and accessible, while the more complicated stuff is kept in darker corners that most users won't access, I think that is the ideal for any computing platform. I think we can both agree that if we were to ever have one OS that everyone can use, it has to -- somewhere -- support the options that power users and tweakers require while simultaneously making the settings important to everyone easy to use. So really, I think your point is either misguided or myopic of the greater picture of OS design. We shouldn't have to build dumbed down OSes for the common denominator.
"I know this sounds weird, but that's another reason I don't like Linux."
I'm with you on this one. I'm sticking to Ubuntu and only Ubuntu until I'm given a very good reason to migrate elsewhere. There are plenty of people out there who will switch on a dime, but you really don't have to. Just because the option exists doesn't mean a given user must constantly flip-flop between distros. Ubuntu is fine for me, and surely will last me ages before something else appears that shows itself so superior that I can't help but switch.
The only point I'm making is that perpetuation this decades-old view that Linus is simply impossible to use for all but the most hardcore of users at this point in time is to show a great deal of ignorance for the modern state of Linux distros that have made great strides in user experience. It bothers me that people perpetuate this idea without having a great deal of experience with modern Linux platforms to back such statements up.
binaryclockJul 26, 2010
No, I can see this being more of a nightmare for tech support.
Person A wants to save $150. Person A orders Ubuntu. Now person A calls back and wants Windows because he can't install Smiley Nation on Ubuntu. Since the system is now past the initial 30 days of purchase, person A must now purchase Windows 7 at the full retail cost instead of the OEM $150 price.
yacksJul 26, 2010
Person A can normally walk into Fry's and buy the OEM version of Windows 7 for $110... or $190 for the Ultimate edition.. or you can just go online and buy..
http://www.frys.com/product/6028078?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
darkshroudJul 26, 2010
@yacks, most of the country does not have easy access to a Fry's. The only real option is Best Buy. So when this person is done dealing with that they're usually pretty pissed off and not interested in Linux at all anymore.
Here in Illinois we have 1 Fry's, I'm lucky that it's only 40 minutes away from me when I feel like stocking up. Meanwhile the closest Best Buy is 15min, then two more different locations at 20.
binaryclockJul 26, 2010
Fry's sells OEM copies? Is Fry's like a big box store? I don't live in the USA, but in Canada we have stores like Best Buy, Future Shop, but no Fry's. I do all of my shopping at pure component computer stores or through my wholesale suppliers, but for the general public, they wouldn't have access to OEM copies through big box stores.
rmxzJul 26, 2010
Same thing that happened in 2002:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/03/19/microsoft_killed_dell_linux_states/
rpgmakrJul 26, 2010
I've been using ubuntu and linux in general for about 4 years now and even I know that we can probably count with both hands the number of people that bought Dell systems loaded with Ubuntu.
Thanks Dell because you really tried to sell the systems and gave a lot of support to your FLOSS division. But the real life of a business is that if something isn't profitable it has to go. Linux enthusiast believe that their love for the platform somehow automatically translate in better sales numbers or that a company's behavior should reflect the strong feelings they have for the OS. News flash: that's not how the real world works. I use ubuntu and I'm glad that I can say I will still be using it for years to come, I don't need sales numbers to tell me that I'm using one hell of an OS.
atomic1fireJul 26, 2010
thats funny, I just found a dell netbook with ubuntu on it.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/business/notebooks/latitude-2110/pd.aspx?refid=latitude-2110&s=bsd&cs=04&~oid=us~en~4~latitude-2110-anav1~~
solitusneikuJul 26, 2010
simply put, Linux is only for hardcore techies, not Businesses, schools, churches, governments that typically buy Dell computers
pcghostJul 26, 2010
... actually it's found in the server rooms of many of those you listed. It may not be a widespread desktop OS, but it still rules in the server room in my opinion.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
@pcghost
And server rooms are typically setup by techies. You didn't refute his argument, you supported it.
schmichJul 26, 2010
So everyone here builds laptops themselves?? What I really liked about Dell was choosing what hardware you wanted for your laptop. Other brands you often get 3 out of 4 things you really want or have to be on the lookout for ages.
evilgourmetJul 26, 2010
The Ubuntu pre-loaded machines were under powered (ram, cpu, video, hdd, etc ), when you could buy a better machine and just wipe out the windows install.
johnnysoftwareJul 29, 2010
Dell is a Windows OEM. Windows OEMs have to sign a contract with Microsoft saying they will buy a copy of Windows for each computer they sell that does not include Windows.
So it is more expensive to buy Ubuntu computer system from Dell than a non-Microsoft aligned motherboard maker or Apple. At least as far as system costs by the maker, that is the case.
octoguyJul 25, 2010
make up your mind Dell!
dylsonJul 26, 2010
Guess this year won't be the year of linux after all....
aquafireJul 26, 2010
Nope, 2010 is the year of Apple. We'll have to wait for Linux.
darkshroudJul 26, 2010
At least Dell tried.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
Good on them. I know a lot of 'computer genii' are going to hate this. But Ubuntu is f**king terrible. People only use it to feel superior.
c0l0rsJul 25, 2010
It's also $free.99
archiesteelJul 26, 2010
Ubuntu's great. I don't use it to feel superior, I use it because I like it better than Windows or Mac OS X.
ghostwoJul 26, 2010
It's ok as an os, and I like compiz and a few other aspects; that said, both time's I tried it (fedora, kubuntu) I ended up with a corrupted file manager. The learning curve is fairly steep as a power user, and the software selection sucks (esp. considering that most of the apps are compiled for windows as well). After spending weeks trying to make it run 'more like windows' I always say f**k it and go back. The hard part is trying to repair the bootloader.
Still, if people are happy with it, and find it useful then by all means I support it. It's just not for me.
bewareofthecowJul 26, 2010
Wow man, I have no idea why people are digging you down, this has been almost exactly my experience as well.
I recently tried Ubuntu 10.4 and damn it is so close. Out of all the Ubuntu iterations I've tried, this one is vastly improved fixing a lot of the bulls**t. Here are few lame things that finally killed it for me this time:
Shell integrated extensions. It is something we take for granted in Windows where we can drag and drop just about anything anywhere. We never think twice about copy and paste but for some reason this still is an issue.
Really poor Flash performance. This isn't Ubuntu's fault, it's Adobe's. Unfortunately 90% of all decent websites use flash in some way or another.
DLNA media services. None of the apps I could find for Ubuntu worked as easily as XP+. I was able to finally somewhat make it work after editing various text files and changing permissions etc... I like to stream all my stored media through to my PS3.
Still no decent DirectX emulation. Kinda lame I know, just to play video games but still important to me.
They have made some big advancements in virtual emulation which was awesome. Using emulated file shares within your Windows XP virtual machine to access file partitions external to the VM, very cool.
I ended up using my XP VM more then the Ubuntu GUI and then had to ask myself; why am I not running XP natively?
nope586Jul 26, 2010
There's your problem, stop trying to make it run like Windows, it isn't.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
on computers where i don't have any specific need for windows software, i prefer to use some flavor of linux. has nothing to do with superiority and everything to do with necessities.
shutupflandersJul 26, 2010
Just because you don't understand it, that doesn't mean it's terrible. Ubuntu does a lot of things that Windows won't do.
kolop1Jul 26, 2010
Examples please.
xeroxenithJul 26, 2010
A personal favourite - a built-in update manager that deals with all your software, with no fuss. Everything, one click. Done.
samoutJul 26, 2010
My favorite thing is, if Ubuntu realizes you're missing a codec it's asks if you would like to download and install it (just try playing an mp3 with a version that doesn't have the support installed). You click yes and wait 10 secs and it's done. Nothing else required. But how do you do that with Windows? You open Firefox/IE/Chrome, go to Google, search "X -codec for windows", click the fist link, "oh it's a fake site that requires you to download a .exe with a trojan", try the next few links until you find it. You download it. You double-click the file, and answer Yes to a few windows and click Next. You wait. All done. A reboot may or may not be required. So much easier/simpler than in Ubuntu, huh?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
It also doesn't do a lot of things that Windows does.
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
Such as?
ferrellJul 26, 2010
Crash
xander99Jul 26, 2010
No support for MS Access / .MDB databases :(
At least, none that I know of.
I use Linux for most of the stuff I do, except for Access and a couple legacy apps we got designed in VB (newer apps are coded in C# and cross compiled from Linux -> Win32).
brenbartJul 26, 2010
That's funny, I typed .mdb into Ubuntu 10.04's software center and came up with 18 hits for software related to Microsoft Access.
It is sometimes difficult to get things to work automatically in Ubuntu (or any Linux distro) like it does in Windows but that has to do with Microsoft's domination of all things and the fact that most manufacturers don't design their software/hardware to be particularly flexible. What's even more of a problem is that they don't provide documentation of how their API's/Interfaces/devices work.
For instance, I own a Sansa View mp3 player which uses an MTP file system/interface. MTP stands for Microsoft Transfer Protocol and was designed to work primarily with Windows Media Player. I've yet to find an Open Source software utility that works well with this device. Is that the fault of Linux? No it's because MTP sucks big-time and that Microsoft felt the need to develop their own proprietary method for interfacing with devices rather than using established and standardized protocols.
Now you might say why don't you just upgrade to a device from the present rather than an old crusty Sansa View? The answer is DRM. I can't download audio books from my favorite source (the library) unless the device can cooperate with the DRM licensing which allows the library this bizarre fiction that you are "checking out" this digital download for either a 7 or 14 day period. While the Sansa View will accept the licensing it blithely ignores the fact that it's supposed to deny me access to an audio book I downloaded 2 weeks and 1 day ago. Were I to get some sort of more modern device then it would impose all sorts of restrictions on me.
To sum up, I use Ubuntu/Linux/Open Source software because it gives me flexibility *and* the peace of mind that comes from doing my best to not use cripple-ware designed to support outdated business models. (...and I'm a geek that likes playing with computers.)
nope586Jul 26, 2010
If you use MS Access for anything but a quick and dirty database you have failed. On *nix I can quickly do up a PHP/MySQL db program that runs circles around access, is far more fixable and can be hosted locally and shared easily.
kent1146Jul 26, 2010
Play games.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Decent games? Decent commercial software w/ support? I have 2 linux boxes for php/mysql/ruby on rails/etc type usage, but I wouldn't sacrifice a perfectly good desktop for linux. Sorry. You can Wine all you want.
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
@kent1146 & @tweedius
Alright. There are more and better games made for Windows, but that is not the fault of Linux. Those same games could be ported to Linux.
You are talking applications -- not the OS. There are many Linux applications that out-do their Windows counterparts.
@tweedius Your point have nothing to do with which OS has a better "Desktop." And what "commercial software" is available to Windows that out-does the Linux counterparts?
Furthermore, I can think of a lot of things that Linux *as an OS* can do a lot better than Windows.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kent1146Jul 26, 2010
"You are talking applications -- not the OS."
Complementary Goods - noun; Material or good whose use is interrelated with the use of an associated or paired good such that a demand for one generates demand for the other.
A Ferrari F355 is a spectacular car. You can talk all day about what a beautiful piece of engineering the F355 is, or what a stroke of genius of manufacturing and design that car is. But if there isn't enough trunk space for me to carry my groceries home, then then the car is f**king useless to me.
Nobody is saying that the Linux operating system is inferior. It's a wonderful operating system. But if it can't run the applications I want to run, then it is f**king useless to me.
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
The thing about Linux is that it is actually both a Ferrari and a Camry... and everything in between. It isn't one thing, like Windows.
It runs on the fastest supercomputers in existence, but it can also be booted with a windowed GUI from USB zip drive, with only an 11Mb footprint. There are zillions of other very useful permutations of Linux, that Windows will never be able to match, because it is a closed, proprietary OS.
Okay. You like to play games. I don't. But I like to run high-end NLEs (both 3D and 2D): http://www.ifxsoftware.com/ant3d
http://www.ifxsoftware.com/products/piranha
Windows doesn't have anything that compares to that, so "it is f**king useless to me."
You see? When you talk available applications, it works both ways. Windows is no better than Linux, in that regard.
There are more examples.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kent1146Jul 26, 2010
I never claimed that Windows was a better OS than Linux (whereas you did try and claim the opposite). I only claimed that Windows is a better *FOR MY PERSONAL NEEDS* because it does what I need it to do better than Linux.
In your last post, you say that Linux is better for *YOUR* personal needs because it does things better than Windows. Ok, fine. Now you are starting to make some f**king sense.
That was a far departure from your post earlier, where you got tried to "attack" the comments made by
me and tweedius by:
1) defending Linux on the merits that it's the developers' fault for not developing games for Linux, or not porting games to Linux.
2) that the lack of applications on Linux does not mean that Linux is in an inferior OS.
3) challenging tweedius to name applications that run on Windows, that are superior to the counterparts that run on Linux
4) claiming that there are many things that Linux as an OS can do better than Windows.
Just because someone likes Windows, doesn't mean they hate Linux. And even if someone does hate Linux, why the f**k do you care? If it's really as great as you think it is, then it doesn't need you standing up for it.
The best possible thing you can do for your beloved OS is to use the attitude in your last post - that it works for you because you care about X,Y,Z, and Linux does X,Y,Z better than any other OS out there. People don't need to share your viewpoint to understand and respect your viewpoint. And they are more likely to want to understand your viewpoint if you present it in a rational manner.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
'Alright. There are more and better games made for Windows, but that is not the fault of Linux. Those same games could be ported to Linux.'
Yes, but they aren't......and I don't see how that is really anyone's fault, but saying 'that's not the fault of linux' is f**king stupid.
I respect liunx enormously, but being that like 99.9% of the population I have a normal computer rather than a supercomputer or a 9 year old rig with 11mb of ram, and like 99% of computer owners I spend more time playing games than editing 3D video; I'll stick with windows
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
@kent1146
***I never claimed that Windows was a better OS than Linux.***
I never asserted that you claimed Windows was better than Linux. I merely made a statement that Windows is no better than Linux.
***In your last post, you say that Linux is better for *YOUR* personal needs because it does things better than Windows. Ok, fine. Now you are starting to make some f**king sense.***
Please list the statements in my previous post that don't make sense or are false.
***That was a far departure from your post earlier, where you got defensive and tried to "attack" the comments made by
me and tweedius by:
1) defending Linux on the merits that it's the developers' fault for not developing games for Linux, or not porting games to Linux.
2) that the lack of applications on Linux does not mean that Linux is in an inferior OS.
3) challenging tweedius to name applications that run on Windows, that are superior to the counterparts that run on Linux
4) claiming that there are many things that Linux as an OS can do better than Windows.***
Oh, yeah... those four points are brutal attacks -- especially the one in which I am *defending* Linux. A real bloodbath.
***Just because someone likes Windows, doesn't mean they hate Linux. And even if someone does hate Linux, why the f**k do you care? If it's really as great as you think it is, then it doesn't need you standing up for it.***
I care about the truth. I stand up for facts.
***The best possible thing you can do for your beloved OS is to use the attitude in your last post.... And they are more likely to want to understand your viewpoint if you present it in a rational manner.***
Gee. Thanks for the worldly advice. You are clearly the more rational poster. Again, exactly which of my statements did not make sense?
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ymegJul 26, 2010
Ubuntu gives Linux a bad name.
srs2000Jul 26, 2010
Try the newest Ubuntu.
It's much better than the previous version from a look/feel standpoint.
I don't really see any problem with people using it on cheap low end laptops. It's pretty easy to use. Most people who buy those tend to just use them for the internet anyway.
eanbowmanJul 26, 2010
The decision to make Nouveau default just about made me switch permanently to something else. I was able to get it working well using the advanced installer though.
It doesn't jive with my BFG 9600 very well.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
You've never used Ubuntu have you?
ghostwoJul 26, 2010
A good read on the subject:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/five-crucial-things-the-linux-community-doesnt-understand-about-the-average-computer-user/420
overdrivenJul 26, 2010
I see you're being buried, but you're right...Ubuntu is SEVERELY lacking. The nerds around here will curse you for saying it. I know computers. I can make Ubuntu work, but it's such a hassle unless you are using it for simple things like word processing and internet browsing that it's not even worth it. Having to use the console for nearly everything is so archaic. They won't do away with it though because deep down they want Linux to remain an "elite" operating system. That way of thinking is going to make them a thing of the past very quickly. They actually have a shot at it, but they need to get their s**t together and get rid of the people who work there and refuse to think progressively.
s0nicfreakJul 26, 2010
When I realized how easy Ubuntu is to use nowadays, I started installing it on the computers of people that don't pay me for tech support (I'm the family/friend that everyone goes to when they have a computer problem). I have not had to fix a problem (on the machines I installed it on) since installing it.
Wine plays all the games that anyone buying a pre-built computer is going to want to play.
geekvolcanoJul 25, 2010
You don't get paid to give out things for free.
smotpokerJul 25, 2010
You don't get paid by removing options that many people want, either.
asmodeus04Jul 26, 2010
Apprently no one wanted it, hence they aren't selling it.
Economics is fun.
smotpokerJul 26, 2010
"Apprently" no one wanted *or* someone gave them a bigger incentive to get rid of it (or someone with the authority to make that call was an utter moron).
Economics is anything BUT fun. Far too often it is just greed and ignorance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Yeah, not too popular with the "I am a PC" (and don't understand an analogy) crowd.
Besides, Ubuntu screams on 5 year old hardware, whereas Windows 7 needs current generation of hardware to provide decent performance. Guess Dell didn't want people to learn this...
'nuff said.
darkshroudJul 26, 2010
@drfierce, Win7 works just fine on older hardware. I have it running on two different P4s with no issue. Both of which have less than 2GB of memory.
entropyfanJul 26, 2010
Nothing is free. Ubuntu comes (at least for Dell) with significant support costs, be it certifying all the hardware they sell or answering the phone for customers.
It looks like the numbers just were not in Ubuntu's favor. It was a business decision, and the cost of running a company in the for-profit world
4dfxJul 26, 2010
Wait, how is this worse than having to buy Windows from Microsoft first before you can sell it?
docholiday22Jul 26, 2010
For a business; Dell will support their hardware and shift calls over to Microsoft for software support. - Windows Server platforms come to mind. For Leopard Server by Apple - Apple provide the support. Where Linux has always been concerned there is no central authority, nobody to take the rap when things c**k-up so Dell took on more than it could chew.
greevarJul 26, 2010
@Doc
That's false. Ubuntu does, in fact, have technical support for their particular distribution of Linux. Blaming it on a lack of technical support is an old excuse that no longer has any merit.
rchargelJul 26, 2010
Dell doesn't give it away. Dell charges you the same amount for Windows or Ubuntu for their laptops. But with Windows, they have to pay a license fee to microsoft. There is no such (or a much lower) fee for Ubuntu. That means they make a higher profit with Ubuntu. Plus, they don't even provide first level support for Ubuntu, and instead rely exclusively on Canonical.
asmodeus04Jul 26, 2010
Which is why they're expanding their selection...
...oh wait.
entropyfanJul 26, 2010
Microsoft supports Windows (for many common problems) for free. And the amount of free Windows help you can run across in the people you know (or the people your friends know) is staggering.
It is an economy of scale. Until that changes, paying the licensing fee is simply cheaper.
brenbartJul 26, 2010
The fact that Dell would just be pocketing the $100 or so that the windows license costs would prevent me from purchasing a preloaded Ubuntu machine. Frankly it's mindlessly easy to load Ubuntu and if I pay the same amount for a windows box then I actually have a Winders license for those applications that just won't work right on anything but Windows.
From a home user perspective the licensing cost is not all that much of a hassle. Most computer manufacturers build it into the price and consumers don't actually realize they are paying it. For businesses, however, the cost of Windows and all other Microsoft software is insanely expensive... and yet, I've been unable to convince management to go with a non-windows solution for any but the most trivial application. They have many excuses... How are we going to support it? (Pay a freakin vendor like you do for Microsoft!!! Except it's generally cheaper than MS support which we've never used in the three years I've worked there! Wait a minute! Who is this "we" in supporting applications? We is me! I'm going to support it!) Sorry, touched a nerve.
Ultimately though... I don't care about preloaded Linux distros on a dell machine.
rchargelJul 26, 2010
@brenbart
Which is exactly what I always did. I bought a Windows XP laptop from dell, and installed Linux on that. Then I had the Windows disk to run XP in virtualbox if for when I wanted to play Diablo 2.
As for companies with Windows and non-Windows. My company (about 14,000 employees) gives every engineer two boxes. One is a quad core development desktop running Ubuntu with 12 GB of memory and a 10,000 RPM hard drive. The other is a cheap laptop with 1 GB of running Windows XP. The purpose of the laptop is to A) use outlook, and B) use VNC to log into your development box if you're working from home. All of our servers run CentOS or RHEL.
At my last job, all of our servers were Oracle's RHEL distro and every desktop at the company was either a Mac, for upper managers, or Ubuntu for all other employees.
My brother owns an architectural firm, and they are exclusively on Mac.
Businesses are slowly waking up to the fact that non-Windows operating systems are just cheaper. My last company found that when we completely abandoned Windows (we had one windows box at the company for the consumer products team to test with), we saved about $20 million per year in downtime and support costs (that was our time taken away from our IT department). And that was a small company. My new company is much larger, but we are still running Ubuntu in a pilot phase for our Philly office only.
killerbearsJul 26, 2010
I was pretty sure that they Ubuntu ones were cheaper to the end user, but I could be wrong. I don't think they could get away with charging the same.
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
Uh... yeah, If I buy a machine with a free OS pre-installed you most certainly do. Think before you post.
freeridstyleeJul 25, 2010
2010 Year of the Linux!
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
LOL
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Nobody using Linux professionally really cares about the Desktop. Linux already runs pretty much everything you use anymore anyways.
bonez56Jul 26, 2010
+1
I use Ubuntu exclusively for all my requirements at home. Unfortunately my employer is a Microsoft Gold partner so I do use Windows 7 at work.
I don't hate either OS, but personally I feel more comfortable using Linux at home.
kephasptJul 26, 2010
Yeah, but is pretty annoying to pay a M$ tax for each new laptop....
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Haha, that sounds familiar.
darthjureJul 26, 2010
2011 Year of the Linux!
czarcasmJul 26, 2010
Yep.Android FTW.
IllBeBackJul 26, 2010
Is that like presidents doing searches using The Google?
bicepJul 25, 2010
Title should say, Dell page not found on UK site.. I'm in the U.S., and http://dell.com/ubuntu still takes me to the page where I can select any of the 4 Ubuntu preloaded models available.
jadeneternalJul 26, 2010
I only see a single netbook on that page.
pgm_01Jul 26, 2010
That has been their US offering for a while now. No video card option, no wireless N, no fingerprint reader and no webcam. That is why I have been leaning toward buying from System76 who has more flexibility in configuring, but their more powerful machines don't have a larger battery option so the battery life is mediocre.
mhugginsJul 26, 2010
@pgm_01 - dugg for the truth about system76's less than mediocre batteries. I owned my computer for under 3 months, and the battery couldn't keep the laptop running for longer than an hour.
antdudeJul 26, 2010
US' site might be removed too. :( Are Dell computers with Ubuntu even popular?
bicepJul 25, 2010
Time to go to one of the sites on this blog to buy Linux preloaded instead: http://www.berkeleylug.com/?p=168
bicepJul 25, 2010
Also, don't condemn Dell all the way... they are a silver sponsor of Linux:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members
ipwnn00bsJul 26, 2010
That doesn't say much so is Adobe lol
ng007Jul 26, 2010
Adobe develops for linux, doesn't it? Not to mention, they give out all their PDF formats for free (under some conditions which I don't recall).
ipwnn00bsJul 26, 2010
Adobe flash is the biggest cluster f**k in Linux. Adobe doesn't give two s**t's about Linux.
kornstalxJul 26, 2010
Thanks for that link. I was curious what defined the different sponsor levels so I dugg around a bit and found this (right sidebar):
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/lp/page/corporate
Platinum sponsors donated half a million USD? Wow.
C'mon AMD, your paltry 100,000 is making Intel look too good.
kornstalxJul 26, 2010
Thanks for that link. I was curious what defined the different sponsor levels so I dugg around a bit and found this (right sidebar):
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/lp/page/corporate
Platinum sponsors donated half a million USD? Wow.
And come on AMD; your paltry 100,000 is making Intel look too good.
aitironbirdJul 26, 2010
hmm I find it weird that red hat is a silver member...
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
It takes an hour to download Ubuntu from the net and another to load it up, 10.04 sucks anyways so not a big loss.
archiesteelJul 26, 2010
10.04 sucks? I like it...what's sucky about it?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Well, it's just personal preference more than anything. I prefer unmodified KDE and Gnome rather than the heavily modified versions that ship with most distro's now. If I were going to use Ubuntu, I'd download the server edition and add in Gnome myself.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
It takes you an hour to download 700MB? It takes you an hour to install Ubuntu? Either you're hanging out in 1991 with a 56k modem and a 486DX or you're doing something wrong.
wassamattaJul 26, 2010
Takes minutes to install as a VM.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
actually it's a 486SX and I'm using a 14.4 modem. Who really needs floating point anyways?
venom8599Jul 26, 2010
On a 1.5Mbps connection (which is still quite common in most of the US) it would take approx. 62 minutes to download assuming you're maxing out the connection the whole time. Installation time would depend upon the hardware and circumstances of the install, but an hour does seem to be a rather high estimate with anything recently modern.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
For 10.04, it takes 15 minutes to download, 15 minutes to install (and that's with OpenOffice installed to boot). Installs every device driver without fail and provides you networking seconds after running it for the first time.
If you think Ubuntu 10.04 sucks, you better not try Windows 7...
overdrivenJul 26, 2010
I've used both extensively. Win 7 buries Ubuntu, then digs it up, burns it's corpse and pisses on the ashes.
mhuntJul 26, 2010
I can't say anything about Ubuntu. I have installed every version of Kubuntu since Breezy Badger (5.10). They've all handled my devices pretty well, but none of them have handled my dual monitor setup even with a LOT of work. The same hardware has worked out of the box for Windows XP, Server 2003, Vista Ultimate, and 7 Ultimate. (I currently have a tri-boot system with XP, 7 Ultimate, and Kubuntu 10.04. Unfortunately, due to a strange work requirement, I spend most of my time in XP, although given a choice, I'd be in Win7 100% of the time.)
atomic1fireJul 26, 2010
you know you could just do XP mode in ultimate right?
or is the hardware not supportive, or are the programs graphics heavy?
Closed AccountAug 9, 2010
"I've used both extensively. Win 7 buries Ubuntu, then digs it up, burns it's corpse and pisses on the ashes."
So that's why I get decent performance out of Windows 7 on my Quad core machine, I must not have enabled this mode.
Closed AccountJul 25, 2010
Buy the Dell, reformat the drive and load it yourself.
thorpeJul 25, 2010
No. The solution is DON'T buy the Dell. /end
shutupflandersJul 26, 2010
You're missing the point. The cost of a Windows license is rolled into the price. So they're forcing people to pay for something they don't want.
bltodayJul 26, 2010
True, the cost of the Windows license is in there, but so is the payment from Crapware makers. MyWaySearch still shows up on some brand new Dell and of course the free 90-day trial of Norton or McAfee. Overall, it's almost a wash $50 for Win7 Home license (I'm guessing here) and $60 (quoted additional cost from a Dell exec that would be required for a crapware-free computer). Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mattbdJul 26, 2010
No, actually you can get a refund on a bundled copy of Windows. Plenty of people have done it.
hiltonizerJul 26, 2010
@shutupflanders: I believe the crapware they pre-load the systems with on windows machines makes installing windows a cost reduction area rather than an additional input cost. Though, I agree as Microsoft still gets a cut and we have to wipe the hard drive either way.
antdudeJul 26, 2010
And send me software discs and their keys! ;)
section1Jul 25, 2010
my local Walgreen's no longer carries "sweet breath" I will have to look elsewhere . . .
nullcodesJul 25, 2010
I think it's because nobody wanted them. Sorry.
ipwnn00bsJul 26, 2010
As much as I love Linux, I agree with you. Most people that use Linux would never buy a Dell lol
vegxJul 26, 2010
I don't know. I bought a Dell laptop for that very purpose (discount through work seriously affected my choice).
It's been very reliable.
ipwnn00bsJul 26, 2010
You bought it because you got a discount. That's different.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Agreed. I'd buy a thinkpad and put OpenSuse on it if I wanted to run a 'nix distro
dig1xJul 26, 2010
The best hope that linux-on-the-desktop has is the enterprise. If they dont want it, no one does.
nitrojunky24Jul 26, 2010
agreed Linux is still a pretty "nerdy" concept to most people it just doesn't have the mass appeal of windows or mac and most people who want to have linux on there system need or want to dual boot
atomic1fireJul 26, 2010
actually it depends on what kind of "linux"
Android is pretty popular as a cell OS,
Maemo can be found in some phones.
Some gadget's don't nessesarly state linux, but like tom-tom, might carry the kernal,
Tivo as far as I know is linux based.
even though it's not as popular as a desktop OS, that doesn't mean no one uses it.
Linux works best if no one knows they are using it, in my opinion.
it's all about the hardware and what modifications are made,
Android works because everyone cares about apps now, and google has the clout to make a market place.
Google chrome OS might be successful just on the Google part, and it's going to be Linux based anyway.
My point is that linux does not need to advertise itself, it just needs to be a reliable part of the background.
greggermJul 26, 2010
If they ain't sellin', they ain't sellin'....
bobon123Jul 26, 2010
Nobody wanted them because of the pricing strategy. If an Ubuntu system costs as much as a Win7 system, of course I'd buy a Win7 system and I'd just install Ubuntu on it, since it's free.
When there is in the Dell website a page to help the consumer chose between Win7 and Ubuntu
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/windows_or_ubuntu?c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&l=en&s=dhs
and in the right corner there is written "Dell recommends Windows 7", there isn't to be amazed they weren't selling a lot.
The point being, Dell has a contract with Microsoft, to buy stock amounts of Win7. 90% of people buy Dell with Win7, a contract with MS for 2€ per copy of further discount means around 20% more profit for Dell. It's very easy in this case to convince them to rise the prices for an Ubuntu machine. Of course this is a market distortion.
tekdemonJul 26, 2010
It's probably more that Ubuntu costs money to support when people call up confused why they can't get whatever software (aka windows software) to install, etc. And honestly a lot of the time Linux updates screw up support for one piece of hardware or another so supporting these machines must be a huge nightmare. Even installing a lot of linux software involves complex multi-hour procedures (i.e. software not in a repository already)
frostekJul 26, 2010
I can see your point with people trying to install Windows programs on Linux since they don't know better, but "honestly a lot of the time Linux updates screw up support for one piece of hardware or another"?
Seriously? I have *never* observed this on any of my machines after *years* of exclusive Linux use.
gerbil_juiceJul 26, 2010
I'm one of the few that did, I guess. I'm on an Inspiron E1505 I bought for college when Ubuntu first became an option.
zorokoJul 26, 2010
I am too. I bought it right when they started releasing them with ubuntu.... summer of 05 i think? I still have the laptop (writing this on it now) and use it everyday. I have never had any problems with it... not a single one.
I wanted to buy it preloaded with ubuntu so that I was guaranteed that all the devices would be supported, and they are. Everything has been... well, flawless. Thanks to ubuntu and dell supporting it.
dbetaJul 26, 2010
Many business that move to Linux for security or constancy reasons don't want to build their own computers. They want computers pre-built with service contracts.
devophlJul 26, 2010
I totally agree. I would suspect that 95% of Dell's Linux sales were servers with an enterprise Linux such as Red Hat or SuSE.
My suspicion is that there weren't many desktop Linux sales. Probably not enough to keep it going. If there is one thing I've noticed about Dell is that they tend to put leading edge hardware into their desktop and laptop systems. Very rarely have I had an off-the-shelf Dell system install Linux without some kind of a driver issue. Eventually it's supported, often in the next major release of something like Fedora or Ubuntu but I have to either wait or work with a kludged system for 6 months. I suspect Dell had the same issues. Either wait 6 months for Dell's hardware to be supported or only offer older hardware with Ubuntu on it. So I'm not surprised that Dell might drop Ubuntu from desktop/laptop systems.
BTW, I haven't had these issues with HP and IBM. My suspicion is that they get hardware vendors who support Linux from the beginning.
travelsonicJul 26, 2010
Not enough != none whatsoever though.
[And why the f**k do people need to apologize for their opinions? f**king stop it]
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
sorry
taiboJul 26, 2010
From the view of a business, not selling enough to cover costs is pretty much the same as selling none at all.
tntbassJul 26, 2010
Could be more due to how difficult it was to customize a Dell Ubuntu system.
About 6 months ago I got a Dell Mini 10v with Ubuntu on it, but I had to go to my company Dell representative to finally get a configuration I wanted. I ended up with 2 GB RAM, a 16 GB SSD, and plenty of other bells and whistles that I could not configure myself.
It also took my rep three days of working within his system to give me the configuration I wanted.
getbrownJul 25, 2010
Most GNU/Linux users would never patronise a company like Dell.
We like to do RESEARCH before building/buying a new system.
nimda11Jul 26, 2010
"Most GNU/Linux users would never patronise a company"
there I fixed it.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
Yes, we linux users just download and compile all the computer parts we need.
nimda11Jul 26, 2010
Provided they aren't from a company "like Dell". Evil corporations, makin money, puttin people to work >Fist Shake<
outpastplutoJul 26, 2010
Dell simply didn't have very interesting consumer Linux options.
Sure, they have some nice options if you want to run an Oracle server. Otherwise, you're just fending for yourself shopping models that don't come with Linux to begin with. I can go to HP for that. Or I could just go to a proper Linux vendor.
Someone aware enough to want something other than the shovel-ware that comes with a normal Dell is probably going to want something more interesting than what Dell is offering.
mattbdJul 26, 2010
I do. Their hardware's pretty good actually, and the price is reasonable. I have three Dells that all run some flavour of Linux - an old Inspiron from 2004 that runs Slackware, a Studio 15 that dual-boots Windows 7 and Ubuntu, and a Mini Inspiron that dual-boots Windows XP and Ubuntu Netbook Edition. Never had any hardware problems with any of them, ever, and they're all extremely reliable machines.
pfknineninesJul 25, 2010
I don't know why people would buy a system from Dell with Ubuntu loaded... When you look at the options, it's usually about the exact same price with Windows, and then you can just get Ubuntu for free.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
I'm guessing because they also support it.
StrutThatAssJul 26, 2010
Or you can buy Ubuntu to encourage Linux developement, then download Windows for free to double f**k Microsoft.
moderndaydarwinJul 26, 2010
So what's Microsoft ever done to you, or is hating it just the flavor of the day?
dbetaJul 26, 2010
What has Microsoft ever done to me? How about abused their monopoly forcing out all competition then stagnating the whole PC market for 7 years. How about forcing a proprietary document format down my throat that was shotty at best and abusing an existing monopoly in the OS market to creating a new one in the office productivity application market?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mlw4428Jul 26, 2010
@DBeta
MS didn't force you to use their OS. If you chose to run apps that are only compatible with Windows, then that's YOUR choice. This goes for the same on their document format. If you couldn't convince your boss(es) or whatever then YOU failed.
rocroJul 26, 2010
N00bz
atomic1fireJul 26, 2010
part of the problem with a multiple OS market place is design,
Microsoft works because everyone knows microsoft,
The second you start adding multiple operating systems, on different competing computers, people get confused, or don't like the change.
You can do what I call commodity dual boots, where the other OS does a specific function, like dvd player, or easy internet access, but the second you start trying to manufactor a computer with a different OS, and sell it retail, it might not be as successful, especially if someone buys microsoft office and expects it to just work.
Linux development is already encouraged by large companies, and Ubuntu is just a flavor of linux.
Like I already said, Google uses linux a lot, and most major web companies use linux servers, I think even pixar uses linux for it's rendering.
Linux is popular where it's too expensive to buy a windows license for every computer, and you can run it with low overhead, because you can pretty much just set it up to your specific needs.
sanchomandovalJul 26, 2010
I guess, in theory, it's an easier way to get Linux so people who want Linux could just get a box running Linux without the hassle. But the problem is, if you want Linux you probably have the technical skills to build your own PC and just go down that route anyway... there's not really a big overlap of people who need a ready-to-go computer *and* who want it to run Linux. Excepting laptops of course.
clippclopJul 26, 2010
They have programs pre-loaded in to windows machines, subsidizing the the price of the machine, which allows them to offer it to you cheaper. Going with linux also rids you of the subsidy benefit you get with windows. That's why they cost the same.
ivanmarshJul 26, 2010
The exact same price == $200+ less apparently. I bought my last Dell laptop with Ubuntu installed... it most certainly did not cost the same as the same machine with Windows installed. You'd have to be a complete moron to believe that it would.
bardleyJul 25, 2010
Oh the humanity
travelsonicJul 26, 2010
...
Do you even read the s**t you spew to make sure it makes sense?
overdrivenJul 26, 2010
If you're not brain dead, you're damn close to it.
azzk1krJul 26, 2010
The guys above me don't know how a babby is formed.
factorof13Jul 25, 2010
They probably weren't selling.
inc595Jul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
azathothhJul 26, 2010
offer support to every machine => big costs for the effort of supporting all that hardware in Linux => no profit
simple as that. That's why Win 7 gets releaase first to OEM so that they can support it well. Ubuntu changes every 6 months => big headache.
inc595Jul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
burkhartmjJul 26, 2010
Or go with Windows, which allows for considerable amounts of adware to offset it's cost, and is supported for upwards of a decade and a half.
And people actually want it.
There's very little reason for a company like Dell to preload Ubuntu. Most people don't want it and those that do are smart enough to put it on themselves.
chiptrickyJul 26, 2010
I used to work for the Dell office in Nashville, TN. Linux systems were really bad about returns. People were willing to try over windows, but didn't take to the change.
redaphidJul 25, 2010
THIS IS TRULY THE YEAR OF THE LINUX DESKTOP.
morpheousmartyJul 26, 2010
f**k the linux desktop, this is the year of the linux phone. Android FTW!
samoutJul 26, 2010
Maemo is better, Nokia N900 FTW.
stickyheadJul 26, 2010
You're kidding, right?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Ya Linux desktop is having problems. Im a linux sysadmin, but truthfully for a linux desktop to become widespread i think some company is going to have to make a profit selling a Linux Desktop for it to become a reality. Its just how things are. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hpmnickJul 26, 2010
Not sure why you are being dug down. In all honesty, Linux as a desktop doesn't have a future IMO. Software support is the key, and its the same reason why we still use x86, windows, etc. Lets face it, Linux will probably never have full desktop software support.
frequentflyerJul 26, 2010
FREEBSD IS DEAD
jordanlgtaJul 25, 2010
Maybe it's because Ubuntu is something that no one outside of digg has ever heard of...
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
Yeah, no one's heard of Ubuntu on Slashdot and OSNews.
asmodeus04Jul 26, 2010
Yes because Slashdot is pure mainstream, right there.
Nail on the head.
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
You might want to have your sarcasm sensors checked.
sabinJul 26, 2010
Really, that was a terrible attempt at sarcasm.
scottussJul 26, 2010
It was good sarcasm from both of you, actually. And you both have a valid point.
crackerjohnJul 26, 2010
You are a idiot ..plenty of my customers ask me to move them to linux { no fake alert/scam ware viruses }and they have never heard of digg or slashdot.
jordanlgtaJul 26, 2010
Wow, I'm surprised I got dugg up 14 times (as of 7/26/2010 at 10:45AM Eastern). Bravo digg for impressing me :)
s0nicfreakJul 26, 2010
But Sheldon said it on the Big Bang Theory!
denislemireJul 25, 2010
I don't really care if I can buy a laptop with Ubuntu or not... The important thing was being able to buy a computer without paying Microsoft for a mediocre OS I don't I intend to use. I can understand the majority want Windows, but how hard is it to sell a computer with an empty hard drive?
gildudeJul 26, 2010
I don't think Dell sells a mediocre OS anymore. Consumers haven't been able to get Windows XP for quite some time. Windows 7 is hardly "mediocre" - it is a whole lot better than mediocre.
denislemireJul 26, 2010
Listing all the reasons its mediocre for my uses would take far too long. For your uses it may be a fantastic OS.
My irritation comes from Ballmer spouting off his continuous "it's the best selling OS in history!" propaganda, while even the users that want nothing to do with the OS have no choice or option to buy the hardware they want without getting a Windows 7 license rammed down their throat. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
bewareofthecowJul 26, 2010
Windows XP raw graphic performance STILL > Windows 7 raw graphic performance. This is important for many people.
strangehumorJul 26, 2010
I prefer using Linux for a number of reasons. Doesn't matter if you love Windows 7 and think it's the best OS of all time, I'm not happy about being forced to purchase a product I don't want and very rarely use.
Luckily I haven't bought Windows in almost 10 years. Bought my Asus laptop with no OS installed and built my desktop.
cmostJul 26, 2010
The problem was that the Ubuntu loaded Dell was only a few dollars cheaper in most cases than the same PC with Windows. They often had inferior hardware specs too. :-\
ferrellJul 26, 2010
Dell couldn't install the same crapware that they do on the Windows installs. The companies that have their crapware installed pay a fee for each laptop. This offsets the cost of windows installs with a subsidy to a certain extent.
tekdemonJul 26, 2010
They have to price them to account for support costs and return costs. If a lot more people return Linux machines (after realizing that they'd rather have Windows) Dell has to raise the up front cost of the machines. Similarly if they get more support phone calls that also adds to the cost of the product.
Which means people who actually knew how to use Linux were better off just buying the Windows boxes and dual-booting the latest distro by installing it themselves...which takes like what, 20 minutes?
hipmanJul 26, 2010
Yeah linux is such a totally superior OS.
hipmanJul 26, 2010
You answered your own question.You're in the minority.
dig1xJul 26, 2010
"paying Microsoft for a mediocre OS"
Bwhahaha. Right. That's why Dell -- the world's largest seller of Computers -- just stopped selling linxu, because Windows is "medicore".
You're living in a dream world.
danieltttJul 26, 2010
bingo
denislemireJul 26, 2010
Likewise, back in the real world where you live, Dell and other computer vendors bundle Norton, Mcafee and a whole pile of other crapware because it was carefully hand selected to provide the user with the best possible value, right?
Manufacturers bundle whatever crap will sell or whatever they can get subsidies on to lower their unit price in the cutthroat market that is commodity PCs. The fact that Windows sells at all has far more to do with the inertia of a huge installed base. I don't think it would do so hot in should the playing field be perfectly level.
In the mean time, if it works for you, by all means use it and enjoy it. Those of us that think it isn't worth the media it ships on will continue to replace it with what works for us. I'm only frustrated that it continues to be bundled by force to the vast majority of computers.
I'd be perfectly happy with a checkbox that said "ship me a computer with a blank hard drive, I know what I'm doing and you don't have to support it, please pocket the money that you would have sent Microsoft on my behalf" or something along those lines. :)
brenbartJul 26, 2010
You're kinder than me... I'd rather they give me half the money for the unused Winders license and give Canonical the other half... Or me all of it... Or Canonical all of it... Or even Dell keeps part of it and gives the rest back to me or supporting Ubuntu.
I would love to be able to check that "Just a blank hard drive" box though...
sikedsykoJul 26, 2010
lol I think you'll find the majority of people who want a blank slate to work with, don't buy overpriced s**t from dell.
maeon3Jul 25, 2010
I bought one of Dell's Inspiron 530's with some obscure flavor of linux pre installed, I changed it to fedora and I am very satisfied with it. It was cheaper because I didn't have to pay Microsoft.
You can still get it here:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/linux_3x?c=us&l=en&cs=19
If your a true techno geek, get around the microsoft tax by building your own computer ground up, here are instructions for that:
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/how_build_awesome_pc_647
slvrbullet87Jul 26, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
solkreJul 26, 2010
You can buy laptops that allow some customization, but you pay more for them.
nationalistJul 26, 2010
you CAN build it on your own. it's just a PITA in terms of finding any of the products needed to make the thing work
acidtonicAug 11, 2010
My buddy built an Asus Barebook.
It was simple, he got a fast machine, and it lasted him years. He literally wore the finish off under the keypad until it was bright white plastic.
aikomikoJul 25, 2010
The CEO of Dell obviously knows what Bill gates Taint tastes like.
My 68 year old mother uses Ubuntu.
beigemoreJul 26, 2010
My 68 year old mother uses Windows.
She likes to purchase software at her local retailers.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
Burn!
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
My 85 year old mom installed and uses Mepis Linux.
bjornskiJul 26, 2010
So? She's one of .001% Cool to have a smart grandma.
tupperbacharachJul 26, 2010
@bjornski
***Anecdotes don't move product.***
So what? Linux has nothing to do with "moving product."
johnomazzJul 26, 2010
Yes, I've installed Ubuntu on many people's machines. Both desktop and laptop. I also had to hold their hands while they learned how to use it. To me, its easy, but to 99% of users out there, its not. What got them to try it was the price tag....free. They lost their Windows CD or their hard drive died and couldn't run the recovery software. Dell won't help them because its out of warranty. They dont' want to spend money on an old machine but don't' want a new computer either. Once you show them how to do exactly what they want it for, they're happy. Then again, there are others that after you explain everything, they still go out and buy McAfee and ask you to install it on Ubuntu so they don't get a virus. Some people are just morons.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
My 68 year old mother uses diapers. What's your point?
aikomikoJul 29, 2010
Does the brand of diaper your mom use get misrepresented as being for advanced poopers only? Did the store put up a sign saying "only for Advanced poopers interested in Open source pooping"?
Come on man, your comment makes no sense. Your better than that, believe in yourself. Now think about it and try again.
jjamminjonJul 25, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
robharperJul 25, 2010
We can all bitch and moan about this, but did any of us actually BUY a dell linux machine?
archiesteelJul 26, 2010
I did.
muffinmonkJul 26, 2010
BWAHAHAHAHA
johnomazzJul 26, 2010
HAHA...I'm not moaning at all. I would actually prefer dell to sell machines with no OS as an option. And I prefer to build my own desktops. I would only buy a dell if I wanted a laptop.
darkstar3333Jul 26, 2010
The business laptops have that option.
outpastplutoJul 26, 2010
> We can all bitch and moan at Dell, but did any one here actually BUY one of these?
Nope.
Although I bought 3 ION nettops and 2 Quad Core towers with 5 hot swap SATA bays each.
Might have been interested in a studio hybrid if they weren't ATI based.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
gerbil_juiceJul 26, 2010
Me.
dbetaJul 26, 2010
I bought a Dell netbook preloaded with Ubuntu. It was $20 cheaper than the exact same model with Windows. Not too shabby. I had few other options for an Ubuntu netbook at the time. I could have gone with System76's Ubuntu netbook but it was $100 more and the exact same specs.
dontreplytomeJul 28, 2010
f**k me, you bought it because of a lousy $20 price difference?
Linux users are soooo cheap.
ethana2Jul 26, 2010
I'm the Team Contact of Ubuntu Nebraska. I bought two-- an Inspiron 14n and an Inspiron 1525n. Dell's incompetence belies the power of our platform, and if I could go back and change it, I'd buy System76 instead.
They only offered Ubuntu because it's what we wanted and we went on Dell Ideastorm and said so. They did it to shut us up. They never knew what they were doing and they never really tried. The most machines they ever offered was like 6. I'm a paying customer, being treated like some beggar pisses me off.
Good riddance, Dell.
hughvJul 26, 2010
Yes!
My Dell Mini is running Netbook remix because Dell crippled their version of Ubuntu so OS updates weren't available.
I heard that they had so many returns that it didn't pay to offer Ubuntu.
luciferactualJul 26, 2010
I did
paulsmith288Jul 26, 2010
I did. Was looking to buy another last week for my new job :(
tk0680Jul 26, 2010
Nope. I bought one more to my taste hardware-wise, then put Ubuntu on it myself due to not being a f**king moron.
tehrabJul 25, 2010
Linux will never be on the desktop beyond what it is already. The desktop is dying and with it, the dream of Linux as a mainstream desktop OS.
Had it not been for Google wisely abstracting the CLI entirely into a useable GUI in Android, Linux would have had no hope on smartphones either.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iignotusJul 26, 2010
Clearly you're not really sure how computers work.
johnomazzJul 26, 2010
Yes, because I can run Quickbooks on my iPhone. You can write your thesis on an iPad. Take Jobs dick out of your mouth and realize that just because he says something...that also happens to be in his own best interest to sell his products...doesn't mean its true.
elamoJul 26, 2010
I appreciate your offensive insult against Steve Jobs but I have to disagree with your first two statements. Both those things are possible, though admittedly more difficult/awkward, but it will soon be very much a reality. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
scottussJul 26, 2010
It's possible until the App to do it gets pulled from the App store for infringing on the Holy Will of the Great Apple Overlord.
tehprophetJul 26, 2010
Whats's the point? Anyone that knows enough about computers to actually chose to use linux as their main OS would probably prefer to build a computer themselves anyway, or just reformat and install it from a CD.
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
Not not really. Building a machine takes time and effort. Time and effort i dont want to invest. Thats one of the reason i actually purchase Macs instead of making a Hackintosh, id rather pay for the convenience of having it work out of the box. Time is money man.
cyborg31Jul 26, 2010
And that's why you're using a Mac.
The people interested in using Linux would also be the type interested in spending the time and effort building a computer.
You didn't actually refute his point. You just proved it.
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
No youre incorrectly assuming than linux users are hobbyists or simply trying to save $$$. Im a professional user. The reason i use OSX is that i can run commercial software (read Adobe) and still have access to all the unix tools i need without using some bastardization like Cygwin. I also use Linux, my file server runs Debian, and ive got another 2 other Ubuntu workstations as well. The bottomline is i use these machines in my work. I dont want waste time (ie. money) building them, i want to make money using them.
diggerlaterJul 26, 2010
I am admittedly an advanced computer user, and I run Ubuntu at home. My boss forces me to work on a Snow Leopard system at work, and it drives me absolutely f**king nuts. It's like they took a linux distro and made it intentionally confusing and difficult to use. The absolute only reason I could ever see to run OSX is for Microsoft Office, but even that is being completely crippled by the introduction of Applescript for macros.
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
To each his own i guess. I actually prefer OS X over Linux. I think the OS X GUI is better than KDE or GNOME personally. When it comes to system services and what not though i agree if youre used to how Linux works OS X can be f**king confusing.
diggerlaterJul 26, 2010
Here's just an example of why I don't like OSX. Where is the button to go "up a directory" in the Finder? There is none. What happens if you select a file and then hit the "delete" key? Nothing happens. Looking for a file? Too bad you can't sort directories by file extension, and the finder results don't list which directory any of the files are in or put them in any type of order. It's literally like they said "Hey, which functionalities can we REMOVE from linux?"
diggerlaterJul 26, 2010
OK just to beg the point... The global menu bar. I understand many users like it. I do not. Part of the reason is because my boss gave me a beautiful oversized monitor which means every time I need to use a menu item, I must scroll across a vast space, meaning I have to move the mouse a lot more to interface with that system. Literally tens of thousands of people have asked for the *option* to use local menu bars, a request which Apple has flatly ignored. Apple seems to LOVE sandboxing people so that only specific software can be run on their machines, which I have a SERIOUS problem with.
/rant
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
"Where is the button to go "up a directory" in the Finder?"
Right click on a finder window title bar. Choose customize. Drag the "Path" button on the finder window. This will allow you not only to go up one level but go up to any directory within the path of the current folder youre in.
"What happens if you select a file and then hit the "delete" key? Nothing happens."
CMD+delete
"Too bad you can't sort directories by file extension, and the finder results don't list which directory any of the files are in"
It does one at a time... select the file. The bottom pane of the finder window will then show a graphic representation of the path to the file.
This is admittedly not as good as in linux, but i never use search from the GUI anyhow - mdfind or find from the CLI is my personal preference. Normally though, i dont need to find anything because i have rather strict habits about where my files are going - but thats me and im anal retentive in that respect :-)
I cant really say much about the global menu thing...
diggerlaterJul 26, 2010
And why do the "home" and "end" keys not work???!!! Why on EARTH would you make those buttons work in a non-standard way out of the box? Did they have a meeting that went like this?:
Appleguy 1: Hey what should we have the computer do when you press "end"? Go to the end of the line?
Appleguy 2: Nah, lets make it jump ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE FILE! People will love that.
Appleguy 1: How about the "home" button? Beginning of the file?
Appleguy 2: Nah, we'll just have it do nothing at all. People don't really use that button.
pcghostJul 26, 2010
I run OS X on my Macbook Pro, and while it is a great laptop and an all right OS, Finder is the single biggest steaming pile of dog s**t software I have used since Real Player. Can someone recommend a decent replacement file manager for OS X?
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
"Too bad you can't sort directories by file extension, and the finder results don't list which directory any of the files are in"
Actually this annoys me to. Whats evev more annoying is that the sequences for this are not only different, but they are different in different apps. For instance in terminal its shift+end/shift+home but thats only in terminal, not system wide.
tekdemonJul 26, 2010
That's just the problem-the people technically savvy enough to deal with linux often build their own computers, but moreover they usually install Linux themselves so even for Linux users it often makes more sense just to buy the version of the computer with Windows on it so you can dual-boot, especially since retail copies of Windows are a lot more money than the licensing Dell gets.
And Dell probably has a lot more support costs with the Ubuntu machines that makes it impossible to sell for much cheaper than the Windows machines anyway.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sanriver12Jul 26, 2010
do you build your own laptops too?
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Really? You build your own laptop/netbooks? Cool story bro.
shinkouJul 26, 2010
I had been looking for a Ubuntu preloaded netbook here in Japan when they first made them available in the states. However, after months of research, I figured out they just don't have it here. So what did I do? I just skipped the whole netbook boom. That said, if they had what I wanted, I wouldn't have saved my spare money for a round trip during my vacation. We, consumers, should have the power to choose.
diggerlaterJul 26, 2010
I have an HP mini. It runs Ubuntu 9.10 like a charm.
cmostJul 26, 2010
When will people get that Dell's offerings of a few token laptops pre-loaded with Ubuntu was little more than a cheap publicity stunt and a way to rattle Microsoft's nerves. This stunt probably netted Dell a pretty nice OEM licensing deal for Windows and Office. Dell was never serious about actually promoting Linux or even Ubuntu. For the very few Geeks who were willing to jump through all the hoops to first locate and then try to purchase one of these machines, most were shocked to find that they had inferior hardware than their Windows bearing counterparts and were only a few dollars cheaper to boot. Linux enthusiasts may as well give up on seeing Linux go mainstream as a real alternative to Windows on OEM hardware. As long as Microsoft exists to make back room deals and thwart every effort of FOSS to succeed it's a lost battle. Geeks need to soldier on and do what they've always done: purchase the hardware they want and then sit back in smug satisfaction while gparted banishes Windows from the hard disk with the click of a mouse. Then laugh, when their Windows using friends waste yet another weekend restoring their systems after the latest round of malware infestation.
admiralwoofJul 26, 2010
I'm sorry, but you're point seems to have gotten lost in your little essay there.
nja89Jul 26, 2010
If you're such 'true geek', why would you buy a computer with windows pre-loaded and then install linux? It's considerably cheaper to build your own PC, regardless of the OS you intend to install.
cmostJul 26, 2010
Umm, I never said I don't build my own PCs. I've been building my own rigs since I gave up Commodore Amigas back in the early nineties. And why do you care how much I write?
outpastplutoJul 26, 2010
> If you're such 'true geek', why would you buy a computer with windows
> pre-loaded and then install linux? It's considerably cheaper to build your
> own PC, regardless of the OS you intend to install.
No it isn't. It's only cheaper if there is something that you want that's out of the ordinary like a whole mess of hot swap drive bays. Then you can spend $800 instead of $1800. Otherwise, the advantages of building your own box are minimal at best.
You buy a box because you like the hardware and the price.
At one time, Apple had the price to beat on powerful low profile machines. So I have an old mini running Ubuntu serving as a PVR.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
m477h3wtJul 26, 2010
I agree cmost. I brought a Dell laptop with Ubuntu on. It was about 10 layers into the site and very well hidden. Ah well, wont be buying another Dell again.
thebiochemistJul 26, 2010
Debian > Ubuntu
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
return true;
admiralwoofJul 26, 2010
Agreed
iignotusJul 26, 2010
Debian = Ubuntu, get lost wanker.
ymegJul 26, 2010
Except worse.
dawnraid101Jul 26, 2010
0
clippclopJul 26, 2010
Portage > Synaptics
scottussJul 26, 2010
Depends on the context of the installation, and it's purpose
whodoneitJul 26, 2010
How many people who actually want Ubuntu as their OS would pre-buy it loaded. These are the types of people who like to mess with their computers and most like just build their own to begin with.
I couldn't see my good buddy who loves Ubuntu buying a Dell pre-loaded with it. Doesn't make sense.
archiesteelJul 26, 2010
I bought the Mini 10 with Ubuntu preloaded, then changed it to another (more recent) version of Ubuntu. The cool thing isn't that Ubuntu was already installed, but rather that the hardware was all chosen to work well with Ubuntu.
hipmanJul 26, 2010
So I guess he was wrong then.
flyingcavemanJul 26, 2010
I build my own. I might buy a laptop with Ubuntu pre-installed as its hard to find good deals on barebones laptops. But my current computers do everything I need. I don't need to throw away and buy a new computer every year when it gets slow. When my hardware finally dies I might buy new, but I'll probably buy a used computer off craigslist and it will be way screaming fast for what I need it for.
keithmarlowJul 26, 2010
Ubuntu is certainly one of the better distro's. I also have managed to squeeze Puppy Linux onto a 10 year old Vaio Picturebook; so you can bring what would otherwise be a stylish bookend back to life.
strangehumorJul 26, 2010
Laptops.
x86bsdJul 26, 2010
Linux is dying.
johnomazzJul 26, 2010
No, Linux just isn't mainstream enough to be sold...mainstream. People that buy Dell machines are usually computer illiterate. Not computer dumb, but they do their simple tasks over and over and any change freaks them out. My wife is a great example. She knows how to use a computer just fine. She does her day to day work on a computer, uses new software packages/web admin kits at work and all that good stuff. However, as soon as something doesn't work right, she calls me and if I tell her no, she calls her work's IT dept. If at home her netbook does something weird, I'm the one that has to fix it or it just sits there. When I boot my desktop into linux to do something or just don't feel like using Win7 at the moment, she won't use it. She says its hard and wont' even try. She is also above the average computer user too. Imagine if they looked at Linux for the first time. They would freak out too, and they do. The fact is that Dell was losing money selling a line of machines with Ubuntu on it by default. They had to staff Ubuntu techs and all that jazz and it wasn't fiscally sound.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
A statement based on....?
4dfxJul 26, 2010
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
scottussJul 26, 2010
Um, no it isn't. I bet at least one device in your household runs Linux and you probably just don't know it. Desktop Linux isn't taking off as well as it should, but Linux generally.. hell, that's another ball game.
scottussJul 26, 2010
Buried for the truth. Nice.
mattbdJul 26, 2010
Not to mention the fact that Linux has a pretty strong showing on the server.
path411Jul 26, 2010
Dude you are pretty dumb if you are getting a Dell.
protodonJul 26, 2010
Linux is the alternative to the alternative(apple) and it will always be that way.
travelsonicJul 26, 2010
"...and it will always be that way. "
Oh, I didn't know you could predict the future.
scottussJul 26, 2010
Not necessarily a bad thing. I greatly dislike Windows, I possibly dislike OS X even more, so I find refuge in Linux. A lot of people will be that, you know?
youreanidiottJul 26, 2010
My father was a Dell and a fiend. And one night, one night drops Ubuntu crazier than usual. Mommy post on digg to defend her self. He doesn't like that, no not one bit.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
raydeenJul 26, 2010
Next your gonna ask how babby is formed aren't ya?
stickyheadJul 26, 2010
What?
s0nicfreakJul 26, 2010
Intriguing story, I would like to read more
yage2006Jul 26, 2010
It's sad but its simple business decision. They do not sell well so it makes perfect sense.
philbertJul 26, 2010
LOL
fyberopticJul 26, 2010
Average people don't want Linux, they want the OS everyone else uses and all their programs and games need. Linux geeks aren't going to be buying a Dell in the first place, they're going to build a better machine for cheaper. So it's kind of a waste of Dell's time and money to even be listing these things, and I don't blame them.
johnnysoftwareJul 29, 2010
I think more people have switched to Mac than Linux for home use in the past year or two for the reason you mentioned. I spoke with a lot of people in 2010 that got hacked while running Windows. The reason you see strong interest in Linux is because it is seen as a "safe computer" that you can do your banking/shopping and other online activities with, leaving Windows for offline work or standalone games. Experts are recommending this strategy and hacking victims are acquiring Macs & Linux systems to use in just this way.
The "keep Windows around as a [in]security blanket" approach seems to be catching on. It is an alternative to kicking Windows to the curb or jumping into another OS feet first without Windows around to fall back on if you need to do something you forgot about while you are finding your legs on the new OS.
jdmulloyJul 26, 2010
Last year when I bought my Latitude E6400 I had to get it with Windows, even though I ended up installing Linux on it. Unfortunately they only offered crappy Laptops with Ubuntu. They should just let you choose Linux or no OS on ANY computer. They can put up a big warning if they want to protect the idiots, but I should not have to pay the Windows tax. Sure I can get around it by building my own desktop, but I can't build my own laptop. I'm happy with the Laptop but I hate that I had to pay the Windows Tax. I ended up getting Vista Basic, which is a complete piece of crap, now I wish I paid a little bit more to get XP Pro. I rarely boot Windows anyway, and usually I just use XP in a VM.
pcghostJul 26, 2010
I just got rid of my e6400. It was the reason we stopped buying Dell laptops. Were the two we bought just lemons, or does yours suck as bad as ours? Heat issues, lock-ups, poor battery life, cheap flimsy plastic shell?
johnomazzJul 26, 2010
Its not like you can't put Ubuntu on it anyways. Its readily available. Frankly, I would rather have the option to have no OS on the machine. That would cut the price of it since there is no OS license fee.
nicko68Jul 26, 2010
Can't you reject Windows' EULA and get your money back somehow?
mattbdJul 26, 2010
Yes, plenty of people have done that in the past.
johnnysoftwareJul 29, 2010
Yeah, $5 or the price of the distribution media. You are not going to get the full cost back, nor even be told how much it added to the full cost of your computer most likely. From what articles say, it adds $20 or more to the OEMs' cost - less than $100, I think. Of course, anything in their cost will be marked up, and Microsoft will not refund that markup.
Microsoft requires any motherboard or computer maker selling OEM versions of Windows to pay for it for EVERY motherboard and computer they sell. Microsoft used the fact that some companies pirated their OEM version and gave it away on some systems as an excuse to put this requirement in Windows OEM contracts.
Going with vendors, small ones or big ones like Apple, that do not have such an OEM license is the way to go if you want to skip the Windows fee and its surcharges for a non-Windows computer.
kromelJul 26, 2010
A Linux user wouldn't buy Dell computers anyways.
mattbdJul 26, 2010
I do - I have three Dells, all running Linux (one even runs Slackware).
kromelJul 26, 2010
damn it, man! Not in front of the Digg crowd!
raiderduckJul 26, 2010
As someone who has used Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS and (back in the day) Fedora Core, I've noticed several problems with Linux that can make it unsuitable for the lay user:
1) Linux still has not mastered the installer icon that an simply be double-clicked to install a program. If a program is in the repository, great! If not, it takes a convoluted RPM command to install anything, which brings me to the second problem:
2) While the graphical shell is very appealing, most configuration changes require command-line jockeying. The people in Linux forums are generally very polite and helpful, but as soon as they start saying, "You need to type this 40-character command into the prompt, and follow it up with two even more convoluted ones" most laypeople will mentally check out.
3) Lack of App support: Not really Linux's fault, but anything that doesn't let you install MS Office or run games you can buy at Wal-Mart or Best Buy is going to have unsatisfied customers. (I know that Open Office is a nice program, but it's not MS Office, and that's what people use at work, so it's what they know.)
outpastplutoJul 26, 2010
> 1) Linux still has not mastered the installer icon that an simply be double-clicked to
> install a program. If a program is in the repository, great! If not, it takes a convoluted
> RPM command to install anything, which brings me to the second problem:
What? Whatever RPM based distribution that you're running can't associate a program with the RPM file extension? The ATARI ST could do this in 1985. Are you seriously trying to claim that Linux can't or doesn't do this in 2010?
There are Linux programs from 1998 that have shiny happy installers.
Package files can also be installed with the desktop GUI just like a corresponding type Windows file can.
Plus programs don't need to be "installed". They can reside in an OpenStep (that's Mac to you) style program folder or just be a single statically linked executable floating around on it's own.
People equating word processing with Brand X is another problem entirely.
raiderduckJul 26, 2010
And if there's a way to double-click an RPM file and have it install, no one's every told me about. Every time (and I mean EVERY) I look up how to install an RPM for whatever-the-hell, I always end up seeing "Open a terminal and type in 'rpm -uVH blah blah blah,' then wait for it to install." I have never ONCE read, "Just double-click on an RPM and follow the directions." So, either Linux online documentation is *seriously* lacking, or RPM's aren't quite that simple to install.
frostekJul 26, 2010
Or for Debian-based linuxes, just double click on a .deb file, and it'll install quite happily.
dbetaJul 26, 2010
I think you have a seriously outdated view of Linux. .deb and .rpm packages can both be installed by double-clicking on them, then in the box that pops up clicking "install". Bam, done. Installed. No f**king "Wizard" to click through 23 pages of pointless stuff. Very similar to the way installing things on OSX works.
As for the CLI stuff, if you have a computer with Ubuntu preinstalled all your hardware is going to work already. That means no need for any CLI stuff. Everything from adding repos to the package manager to configuring startup applications can be done graphically. A lot of sites will opt to give CLI instructions because what will take 20 clicks graphically can be done in 1 line from the CLI often times, so it is just much easier that way.
raiderduckJul 26, 2010
I wish I did have a "seriously outdated view" of Linux, but I'm running the latest UNE (Ubuntu Netbook Edition) on my Acer netbook, and if you want to install a program, it's pretty much gotta be in the repository.
As for the command-line stuff: The previous version of Ubuntu didn't configure the wireless NIC correctly. How did I end up having to configure it? The command line.
dbetaJul 26, 2010
Your Acer netbook probably didn't come with Ubuntu on it. We are talking about computers with preinstalled Ubuntu on them so you don't have to worry about the driver issues.
As for the repo thing. No, all you need is a deb package. The good software vendors will offer a .deb file that will automatically add itself to the repos. See Google's Chrome for a great example.
krc1Jul 26, 2010
"...type this 40-character command into the prompt..."
Copy+paste works just fine in a terminal.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
Man you're not getting, average people will not do it. I guess you dont work with non-techy end users because they dont type any commands even if its "cd"
Point and click, thats what people want, end-users want to do their job not futz with commands.
gurumeditJul 26, 2010
"Man you're not getting, average people will not do it. I guess you dont work with non-techy end users because they dont type any commands even if its "cd"
Point and click, thats what people want, end-users want to do their job not futz with commands. "
What's so difficult with typing commands? People text with cryptic messages to their friends all the time so you would think they wouldn't be bothered by something trivial like this. I've given instructions many times with many command line arguments to enter especially with email correspondences. No one ever complains and believe me, the ones I usually end up working on computer problems with like to complain bitterly about everything. I think average people are more accepting of something like this then you realize.
scottussJul 26, 2010
Whether or not typing commands etc is archaic is hardly the point. It seems to me that it's acceptable to do this in Command Prompt on Windows or edit the registry or faff around in System Configuration or whatever to get something fixed, but to COPY AND PASTE a line into a Terminal on Linux... that's too difficult!
Textual commands exist on most operating systems, it's the difficulty and willingness to use them that seems to vary.
Closed AccountJul 26, 2010
you have NO IDEA how many end-users panic with simple things such as copy and paste ... much less thinking about doing that on their own.
nicko68Jul 26, 2010
"What's so difficult with typing commands? People text with cryptic messages to their friends all the time so you would think they wouldn't be bothered by something trivial like this."
I think you've come up with the answer! Instead of commands like "cp", "vi" they should be k0py, 3d1t, etc
gurumeditJul 26, 2010
"While the graphical shell is very appealing, most configuration changes require command-line jockeying. The people in Linux forums are generally very polite and helpful, but as soon as they start saying, "You need to type this 40-character command into the prompt, and follow it up with two even more convoluted ones" most laypeople will mentally check out."
Are you crazy?!? That's a godsend. Look at it this way. If a person is having a problem with something in linux I can instruct them to open a terminal, copy/paste the line into the terminal and at least I know the change to some config file is done and working.
With Windows I am having to babysit people on the phone as I train in vain to lead them through clicking actions. And since it is not always possible to have remote sessions with people because of various reasons, this is a lot of my time every day having conversations like this:
"Do you see the menu bar at the top of the window at says File, Edit, View and so on? I want you to bring the mouse over File and click on it to open the menu. When you do that...."
"I don't see no menu bar?!?"
"Yes, it's right there on the screen in front of you towards the top of the window..."
"There's nothing there!"
And so on. Eventually after driving across the city and walking into the room of whomever with their computer, what do I find? The window with the words exactly as I described.
Seriously, Windows would really benefit from more command line jockeying. So what if they "check out mentally". The stuff works and it's not them memorizing some archaic code, and it really is a huge benefit to me.
raiderduckJul 26, 2010
And most home users don't have a reliable tech guy (such as yourself) to call. If they look anything up online, they want to be told, "Go to this menu, click on this, check this box, click OK, and reboot." They don't want to hear from big long indecipherable command-line inputs.
Are people making a mountain out of a molehill? Probably. But they do not want to deal with command lines, and any OS that has them do so in 2010 will not succeed on a widespread basis.
dilbertJul 26, 2010
That's one more thing Linux has an advantage over Windows: no reboot after making a change or after an update except after updating the kernel and only when you want to implement that kernel.
gurumeditJul 26, 2010
"That's one more thing Linux has an advantage over Windows: no reboot after making a change or after an update except after updating the kernel and only when you want to implement that kernel."
There's a way of swapping out a running kernel nowadays and bringing the new one into operation without shutting down. Great for mission critical systems that require constant uptime I would imagine.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/ksplice-automates-hot-patching-linux-kernel-with-no-reboot-needed/2333
irisblazeJul 26, 2010
well get ubuntu i just double click my .deb files
esc27Jul 26, 2010
Then there are the compatibility problems between distros. Try installing a deb on an RPM based distro (or visa versa.) It takes hours to sort out all the lib problems just to find out flash still doesn't work. Source is worse. With source you have the same problems with differing libraries and you have to make random edits to the header files as suggested by obscure forums online.
caughtthinkingJul 26, 2010
Actually it's like 1% of pigeons, so 10000.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
Here's what I don't get: Most people buying a Dell are not going to be doing anything crazy. They'll making be surfing teh webz, throwing an E-Mail out there and maybe using a word processor, spreadsheet or some other office program. This is not difficult to do with Ubuntu. I'd say it's about as difficult to do in Ubuntu as it is in Windows. Dell advising that only open source programmers should consider Ubuntu? wtf? I am smelling some severe bulls**t.
scott2Jul 26, 2010
You can kid yourself all you want, but for users who don't understand Linux and what it is and have any prior exposure to Windows, Linux is not intuitive or easy to use.
marx2kJul 26, 2010
Because double-clicking an icon on the desktop is like speaking another language.
rpapi100Jul 26, 2010
@marx2k : Windows, although flawed, is a much more mature platform than linux for newbies. Linux can work for newbies but not every kind. low-need newbs like the elderly and children can use Linux as easily as Windows. Teens and adults newbs are a different story since they have higher needs notably in terms of office suites (MS Office is BY FAR a superior product to OpenO or cloud solutions) or Gaming (like those that you can buy on steam).
Finally as for power-users, I would even go so far as to argue that not all of them can be satisfied by Linux but I'll refrain from going beyond the scope of your initial question.
memperJul 26, 2010
The glass Ubuntu logo looks an ashtray.
4dfxJul 26, 2010
This doesn't mean they will never be selling them again though. Just saying.
dig1xJul 26, 2010
2011! Year of the Linxu!
buzzfriendlyJul 26, 2010
Wrong! Maybe in the UK or something but if you want a Dell with Ubuntu its right in front of your face. This is why we use sudo in Ubuntu folks.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/business/notebooks/vostro-v13/pd.aspx?refid=vostro-v13&s=bsd&cs=04&~oid=us~en~4~laptop-vostro-v13-anav1~~
doshindudeJul 26, 2010
1. Buy a Dell (either with or without Windows preinstalled, you can buy them just without an OS you know)
2. download Ubuntu
3. Install Ubuntu
4. ???
5. Non-profit!
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
I probbly have no right to complain since I generally only purchase Macs when it comes to new hardware. That said its still annoying because if i were to want a new PC id have to pay for Windows - thus increasing MS's profits and stats. And that would be fine with me if i had any intention of using Windows, but im just going to wipe it and throw Ubuntu or FreeBSD on it. So in my mind its more about skewing the market than anything else. This skew is probably small, but still its skewed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
stickyheadJul 26, 2010
Why would you have to pay for Windows if you build your own PC?
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
I dont want to build my own computer... thats too much time and effort. I want to buy hardware, install the OS myself or have it pre-installed and be done with it.
kolop1Jul 26, 2010
You mean like people who bu a Mac pay Apple for their O/S?
prodigitalsonJul 26, 2010
Well if you dont want to use OS X why the f**k would you buy an Apple machine? I dont have a problem paying for software im going to use. I have a problem with paying for software i have no intention of using.
pcghostJul 26, 2010
"Well if you dont want to use OS X why the f**k would you buy an Apple machine? I dont have a problem paying for software im going to use. I have a problem with paying for software i have no intention of using."
I agree with the sentiment but even if I did decide to switch my host OS over to Linux (which I may), the MacBook Pro is a sweet machine hardware-wise. Fusion and CS5 are the only reason I use OS X as my host OS.