Hints Point That Dell Will Be Pre-installing Ubuntu Soon!

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

I've been waiting for Linux to overtake Microsoft for the last 8 years...hasn't happened yet and isn't going to anytime soon. I'll go another step further and say it's not going to happen. Liniux killed Unix in the server room. Any hope of Linux making a big dent in the mainstrem commical/end user's life was headed off at the pass by a little company called Apple.
I know far more people that switched from Linux to MacOSX a number of years ago (me...well in my case it was BSD to MacOSX, but still), and havn't looked back. It still goes back to that little point that OSX's Unix based core is friendly enough to run just about any OSS software outthere that Linux users have and has commercial outfits like Adobe and Intuite (quicken/quickbooks) which makes it attractive to small business owners like me that are willing to pay a premium upfront not to have the other issues associated with Windows.

Granted I am in the video production world and use Final Cut Studio...so it's not like I have a lot of platform choice there.

Dell has long been locked into the Microsoft licensing hell. They were rather late into the Linux server market. I don't think it's hurt them all that much, but still they were one of the last major vendors to support it after IBM basically dumped AIX for Linux and clearly took an early lead.

Then there was the marriage to Intel. It's only been in the last year (maybe two) that Dell began offering computers with AMD chips. I'm more of an Intel man myself, so that never bothered me, but still I heard so many people say: "I would buy Dell if..."

First it was Linux...then it was, "Well I'd buy a dell with linux if it ran on AMD". I'm wondering what the excuse will be now?

I've dealt with Dells a lot over the year and they generally build a good computer. But I've also had some issues with them. For instance I was working earlier this year with a Medical supply company. They were upgrading their systems and the software they were considering ran on XP, it was not yet Vista compatiable. The company had to wait until March to buy the system and then the only thing they could get from dell for the workstations was Vista. Maybe we could have gotten a couple boxes with Linux installed then walked over to Best Buy and get a couple XP Pro boxes. Still, though, that would have been more expensive than going with the local company that built the systems from scratch. (Not my first choice, but small business to small business transaction...my client's wouldn't listen to me...but everything worked out so far)

At my school, the adoption rate shows that Apple isn't winning by too much. The full adoption rate shows that there are 2 more laptops run MacOS X than the numbers that run Linux. These users are usually not technically oriented. So, I guess I wonder how it'll turn out.

From using my high school as the basis of my studies (approximately 300 people), at least half of the population has a laptop and about 20% - 25% of those are Macs compared to the previous school year of about less than 15%. Of those Macs, 60% are PPC based while the rest are Intel based.

This study is of course unscientific as I just count the amount of Apple laptops to the laptops I've counted while walking through the hallways.

xboxrulz

[Vyoma 0]

Is linux any good?! how the hell do you get it i want to try it.
and whats all the negativity towards microsoft and VISTA. I love VISTA!!! i have it and have no probs with it except some of the programs not working on it but not all programs run on Linux right?

well anyway how do i get it?

How to get Linux? Well, WeaponX seemed to have answered it well.

Now, for the second question. The negativity towards microsoft and Vista. Well, here is my opinion.
Microsoft products is not free and Linux is free. Free in what terms - you may ask? I am not worried actually about the cost of software, and hence, it does not make much of a difference if the 'free' is taken in the meaning as in 'free beer'. The real 'free' that I would prefer would be in terms of 'freedom'.

Here is a case. Say, last month, I bought some music - Best of Me album by Bryan Adams. I shelled out $10+ because I do not want to steal someones hardwork. I paid for it and now I would like to use the music anyway I want. I may want to load it to my music player. I may want to listen to it in my car (no, I do not have one - this is just an illustration). But, having Vista limits me from doing that and it does that under the facade of 'protecting intellectual property'. That is totally absurd. The DRM is one of the main barriers why I have 'negativity' towards Microsoft.

Another issue: What about all the different versions of document format they keep bringing out. It forces me to keep upgrading to their newer versions even when I do not need all the new features. It does not let me stick with the version I have, and constantly want to suck on my hard earnings.

The solution? Shift to a Open Source alternative. I do not mind paying someone for coding something. But it is when they force me to do business only with them, and force me to continously spend my money on them, that is when I start having negative feelings. But in case of Open Source, I need not worry about that. I have the source code with me, and in theory (and practice) I can always go to someone else with the same code and have it modified and upgraded. I have the choice. I am free to take any choice.

We may speak further on this, but I believe that will be a topic that would be justified by its own thread.

[Vue 0]

I personally wouldn't think that this would be a good thing. I mean, wouldn't that mean that Dell would be saving money and making more profits by not installing Windows and substituting for Ubuntu (which is for free)? (Damn that question had too many clauses.) Would software that were originally designed for Windows (e.g. Photoshop) still work on Ubuntu? Unless of course they're going to make the PC dirt cheap then it's okay.

[.:Brian:. 0]

Well I think that this is a good move.... I mean it'll add more variety to PCs if it actually happens. Although I think we are getting a little ahead of it here, they haven't even announced it....Also, about programs that were designed to run in windows, like photoshop running in ubuntu, that depends....some of them will run with something called wine, others will not.

[FirefoxRocks 0]

I think that the public will need to be informed about using Linux first before such a move goes. This is because Linux is not that user-friendly if you are used to working with Windows. I mean, it looks like MS-DOS, because it is text-based.But it is a step in the right direction. And also, more programs are becoming Linux-compatible, therefore it shouldn't be too much of a problem. One thing is, Internet Explorer usage will start to decline

[yordan 10]

I mean, it looks like MS-DOS, because it is text-based.

Not so obviously. Experienced users talk to Linux machines using ssh, which look and feels is ms/dos-like. However, 1) First of all, Linux is somewhere a kind of Unix, and Unix was here far before ms-dos appeared. We could even say that ms-dos uses unix-like command lines syntax (cd, mkdir, etc...), and that Windows somehow copied X-Windows and Mac-Os look and feel.
2) Most of non-experienced users use the graphical interface of the today's up-to-date Linux distros. A lot of people even don't know that they can access the command-line screen without entering the graphical display : when they want to perform an action in command-line mode, they first open the graphical display, and inside the graphical desktop they open a non-graphical text command-line window !
So, for a very beginner, entering the Linux graphical screen or entering the Crosoft XP or Vista screen is not a very different approach.
And, if you are a real newbie, and you start really from nothing, learning that you have to click on the "IE6" icon or on the "FireFox" icon is a rather similar approach, same difficulty on both side.
And, in case of trouble, seen a Linux "panic trap" or a Crosoft Bluescreean is identically disappointing.
Regards
Yordan
--------------------
[EDIT]
I also have an opinion concerning the "free or not free" question, which should probably be the full subject of a different topic.
I just had trouble with drivers on a Linux distro : a disk named "sdb", turning to be "sdc" or "sdd" after reboot. Then, no chance to have automatic mount of the filesystems, apparent lost of data, etc...
On a microsoft system, you have support, Crosoft has to fix the bug (if it's a bug) or teach you how to hande this. On a free Linux system, it's your problem, you can only ask your friends or forum-mates to help you, which needs time, which is sometimes very costly if you are a commercial site...
That's why, some companies say "I stay with Crosoft because there is a support", or they say "OK, I want to buy a computer with a free Linux OS, but can you guarantee that there will never be a bug, or can you garantee that I will never have a system halt because of an unsupported feature ?" And of course the ansewer is "No, in case of trouble I can google and see if somebody else had the same problem and posted how to solve it".
For instance, I know that HP customer service supports they customers when they have problem with MS-Windows. How will Dell support the customer buyin an USB flashdisk and being unable to use it ?
Edited May 13, 2007 by yordan (see edit history)

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Not so obviously. Experienced users talk to Linux machines using ssh, which look and feels is ms/dos-like. However, 1) First of all, Linux is somewhere a kind of Unix, and Unix was here far before ms-dos appeared. We could even say that ms-dos uses unix-like command lines syntax (cd, mkdir, etc...), and that Windows somehow copied X-Windows and Mac-Os look and feel.
2) Most of non-experienced users use the graphical interface of the today's up-to-date Linux distros. A lot of people even don't know that they can access the command-line screen without entering the graphical display : when they want to perform an action in command-line mode, they first open the graphical display, and inside the graphical desktop they open a non-graphical text command-line window !
So, for a very beginner, entering the Linux graphical screen or entering the Crosoft XP or Vista screen is not a very different approach.
And, if you are a real newbie, and you start really from nothing, learning that you have to click on the "IE6" icon or on the "FireFox" icon is a rather similar approach, same difficulty on both side.
And, in case of trouble, seen a Linux "panic trap" or a Crosoft Bluescreean is identically disappointing.
Regards
Yordan
--------------------
[EDIT]
I also have an opinion concerning the "free or not free" question, which should probably be the full subject of a different topic.
I just had trouble with drivers on a Linux distro : a disk named "sdb", turning to be "sdc" or "sdd" after reboot. Then, no chance to have automatic mount of the filesystems, apparent lost of data, etc...
On a microsoft system, you have support, Crosoft has to fix the bug (if it's a bug) or teach you how to hande this. On a free Linux system, it's your problem, you can only ask your friends or forum-mates to help you, which needs time, which is sometimes very costly if you are a commercial site...
That's why, some companies say "I stay with Crosoft because there is a support", or they say "OK, I want to buy a computer with a free Linux OS, but can you guarantee that there will never be a bug, or can you garantee that I will never have a system halt because of an unsupported feature ?" And of course the ansewer is "No, in case of trouble I can google and see if somebody else had the same problem and posted how to solve it".
For instance, I know that HP customer service supports they customers when they have problem with MS-Windows. How will Dell support the customer buyin an USB flashdisk and being unable to use it ?

That's true, Apple and Microsoft has always oriented computer users to GUIs. However, I do understand that GUIs are very important. I use it all the time. However, for something fast and simple like checking the system specifications, system uptime, and editing small configuration files, it's much faster in the command line than using the GUI.

However, the people at X.Org need to make the X server smaller and faster to load. X on Linux can be very clunky on older machines. Good news is that it's not as clunky as Vista.

As for support, that's where companies charge you money for. That's the only way they can earn money from you. I bet that Dell will sell it to you for cheap, give you like a 1 year free support, then after that you must pay them for support, just like what Apple does.

xboxrulz

[nightfox1405241487 0]

Wow... after skimming this topic after coming back from my NYC trip, I feel I need to make some points.

1. Linux/Windows/Mac - Ok, lets clear some of this up. This topic is NOT to bash other OSes which is going on. Whether you like to tinker around on your system (Linux), hope that everything works and nothing crashes (Windows) or like the stability of Linux with more centralized support/hardware/drivers (MacOS), it doesn't matter what you think. All of you MacOS fans who were bashing Linux, guess what... you "inferior" OS is BUILT OFF OF LINUX. MacOS X, that is. If you must know, let me put this into a flowchart form:

/- Linux   -\ UNIX -				  - MacOS X		   \- MacOS -/

Now that chart does NOT say Mac "OW3NS" all or anything, it simply states that MacOS X is built off of UNIX, Linux, and previous Mac platform. Of course, BSD is also in there but the majority of it is just *NIX and Mac.

Windows is completely off the charts. Some people do not like commercial software for several reasons. Commercial software has a longer life than open source, but still, it's basically the same. With Open Source, there are no "extra hidden licensing fees" when you buy a computer. I tried to order a computer from Dell with NO OS what so ever. I couldn't do it (which is bull because why should I pay for something I don't want).

2. No one cares that you like Vista. It's a matter of opinion. - I really don't like Vista and so I don't care if you like having a resource sucking operating system installed. If you're not a geek, never opened your computer and cannot even correctly identify what your processor, amount of RAM and your OS is, don't say anything. In fact, go to Xisto.com. If you're going to state an opinion about Vista, at LEAST you can back up what you have to say with facts. I don't like it because 1) it uses way too much disk space, 2) it uses 57% of RAM (1 GB installed) with nothing but the GUI running after boot up and 3) way to much freaking eye candy and stupid window effects that I don't care about, nor do I need.

Ok, I feel the need to rest a bit and unpack my things... jet lag is starting to hit me a little bit more now.

[N]F
Edited May 13, 2007 by nightfox (see edit history)