Mandrake to Come Preloaded on Wal-Mart PCs

surfimp writes "Here's a story from NewsForge: 'MandrakeSoft CEO Jacques Le Marois confirms the news this morning, and company spokeswoman Margaret Waters says, while a contract with Microtel has not been finalized, the company is working on getting Mandrake certified to run like clockwork on the Microtel systems. Waters is hopeful that the dotted line will be signed and PCs up for sale by the end of next week.'" Update: 06/20 17:21 GMT by T : Ooops! The Mandrake spokeswoman's name is Margaret Waples, not Waters. Apologies, and thanks to Todd Lyons of Mandrakesoft for the correction.

Comments

wow

[TheMMaster]

I am no american so I might be talking out of my ass here, but it seems that wallmart really is trying to bring choice to ther customers, I just wonder if they'll support all OS's they ship now (mandrake, windows and lindows), if they do, and are succesfull, maybe more companies will follow...
I can't help but feel that this is "a good thing (TM)"
I'll bet dell is really wondering what they did wrong back then ;)

Re:wow

[SirSlud]

Walmart is notorious for demanding that magazine covers and CD covers be changed if they are going to carry it. Seeing as Walmart represents 15% of all US music sales, and an even higher percent of the magazine retail market (I think, might be wrong on that), publishers constantly have to succumb to Walmarts desire to retain its 'family image'. In that sense, Walmart censors .. they couldn't give a rats ass about choice. They are down to make money, and by opting to force magazines to self-censor, I don't really think choice has much to do with this story.

I think money. The margins. No MS Tax. Yadda yadda. Ironically, due to their size that causes the negative behaviour referenced above (nevermind they represent the new generation of ultra-shitty employers), they might just be more than a little 'blip' on MS's radar. It's like Godzilla and Mothra; they're both evil, but if one takes down the other a few deserved notches, I won't complain!

Re:wow

[SirSlud]

Two things:

1. Walmart gets magainze covers changed before they are printed. That means, *every store* carries the 'walmart approved' copy. Thats not choice. Thats Walmart unfairly influencing what musicians (Nirvana is one such band that changed the cover of their CD before releasing it, *soley* due to Walmart issuing a complaint with their label.) and magazines wish to print. You really shouldn't talk like you do, in a country which claims free speech (both the right to be free of censorship, and the right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor.) is one of its founding principals. But you dont sound like somebody whos interested in these types of issues. No worries, people like me will care about the world you live in such that you dont wake up and find free speech an outdated concept in a not-so-distant future.

2. These are not soft-porn magazines. This is Time. Rolling Stone. Seventeen. All mainstream magazines. Many magainzes specifically call up Walmart and seek approval for their covers pre-printed, because if Walmart refuses to carry the published run of the magazine, you cannot justify to stockholders, as a magazine publisher, giving up 15% of your sales right off the bat.

You dont sound like you have a clue as to the scope of leverage and power that Walmart brandishes in the marketplace. Sit down and really think about what it means, to have virtually every magazine in your country seek approval from Walmart before running the presses. Walmart is censoring your culture.

Passing the Savings

[Dark Paladin]

Before people think Wal-Mart is being all altruistic, think of it this way.

Wal-Mart wants to advertise they're underselling the compitition. Easiest way to do this? Sell computers without an operating system. Of course, if you do this, you sell a computer that is a) useless to Joe User (who probably doesn't know how to install an OS without help), and b) Microsoft cries piracy (I don't have the link, but one of their white papers basically says that only software pirates buy computers without operating systems.)

Now, go to Dell. Computer comes with Windows, and Microsoft Works (or Office, or whatever). You can't tell them *not* to put it on, and odds are, they have some legal ass bullshit agreement with MS that all computers must have the OS and some office suite on them (aka, the "Windows Tax").

So Wal-Mart figures they can save $100-$200 on each computer sale by putting on Mandrake and probably Open Office. Joe User gets a computer he can do email/web browsing/document editing on. Yes, it might not run all the same software as Windows - but if he wants that, he goes back to Wal-Mart and shells out another $100 (or he learns to live with it and gets a Playstation 2 instead).

Guys like me who just want cheap ass hardware without the Windows Tax get hardware. Everybody wins. Well, except for MS, but the way they've been acting with their draconian "Use software subscription or no patches for you!" additude they've been shelling at the Corporate Level, I don't feel too sorry for them.

Re:this frightens me.(But don't let that stop you)

[Marx_Mrvelous]

Have you ever used Mandrake? The default install is very secure, if I rmember right FTP, telnet, etc are all disabled by default. Anyways, is it any worse than yet another MS computer out there to be infected by nasty e-mail viruses?

I guess beign scared by change is one thing, but I'm glad Walmart and Mandrake are attempting to bring some choice.

Consumer Confusion?

[Capt_Troy]

I'm a little worried to where this is heading. If these PCs are intended for low budget novice consumers...

A> They might be confused about Lindows (while not infringing on MSs Trademark, it is definitely misleading). How many novice users are going to buy a PC that they think will run all the screensavers and games that a Windows PC will?

B> Giving novice users a choice between Mandrake and Lindows seems strange to me. How will most novice users be able to choose the most appropriate? I think we might just confuse them out of buying a computer, or they will probably choose the Lindows box just because the name sounds familiar.

C> As far as I know Walmart sells Windows PC software (maybe Mac??). Won't user's assume that since they buy their computer from Walmart, that the software they buy from Walmart will work on their computer? Is Walmart planning on selling Linux software somehow as well?

I like the Mandrake thing, but I am a little worried that the inclusion of Lindows will be confusing to the non-technical user who is most likely to buy these boxen. The name of the distro implies that it is analogous to Windows. As far as I have read, it is not. This will only serve to make the general public hate linux because they can't run "regular" software on it.

Troy

Re:this frightens me.

[capt.Hij]

The article says:
Walmart.com has a few well-placed electronics buyers who are savvy to Linux, and a management team looking for ways to reinvigorate stagnant computer sales numbers. The combination has resulted in innovations like the Windows-free Microtel line and has generated strong sales and low return numbers...

Contrary to what was posted in the last slashdot story about this, Walmart is not selling these machines to unsuspecting rubes who are still trying to figure out how the door to their mobile home works. It sounds like Walmart knows their customers which is exactly why they are able to reach a large portion of the American public. A large number of the good folk here at slashdot seems to equate this with ignorant masses but that is not the case.

I live in a small town and have seen what Walmart can do to a community. I don't like Walmart but I certainly am not going to underestimate it. This appears to be a very shrewd move by a company which is the master of its domain.

Re:I can't understand their reasoning

[thelexx]

"Why carry Windows, Lindows & Mandrake? Isn't this just overkill?"

As sold at least, this seems very logical to me:

Machine A - 100% Windows
Machine B - Linux w/option to run some Win stuff (they've lost points on marketing this though I know)
Machine C - 100% Linux

"Worst yet, it's going to really confuse the people that can't afford to get confused when buying a computer because all they can afford is the cheap models."

Well yes, options brings complexity. I've long felt that the entire consumer-level computer industry has played it very close to false advertising at a root level though. It's a rant for another time, but cripes, you can control a robot, your stereo, enjoy the internet, play chess, etc a computer. It's a COMPLEX device because it gives you so freaking many fundamental options. Yes, cute and limited software can be used quite easily by the unlearned, but that's not what started the revolution or the interesting part of its unfolding. Anyway...

"This is a disservice to their loyal customers because they'll have just bought a computer from WalMart but won't understand why they can't walk down the software isle and pick up a game for the kids. So is Wal-mart going to carry shrink wrapped Linux apps too, or are they going to blindly claim that every Windows application can run on it like they did last week?"

Indeed, but how many more companies will, between things like the IBM commercials and Linux being sold pre-installed on a highly visible chains shelves, see Linux as a viable market and target it? Maybe our time has finally come.

LEXX

Yes it can

[Sloppy]

I wouldn't be too sure about unlicensed DVD players being illegal. Kaplan's decision was in regard to one particular program: DeCSS, which didn't play movies. This warped Kaplan's decisoin about what it was "primarily designed" (important words within the context of DMCA) to do. He incorrectly concluded that it was primarily designed to circumvent copyright (this making him particularly hostile to it), but was technically right that it was primarily designed to bypass the technological measure. And being primarily designed to bypass the technological measure, was what made DeCSS so vulnerable to DMCA.

A program that actually plays DVDs (even if it contains an unlicensed DeCSS implementation), though, would be another matter. You can't look at the .01% (pulling number out of ass, but you get the idea) of the code in a player that descrambles CSS, and make a good argument that bypassing the technological measure, is its primary purpose.

An unlicensed DVD player would be far less likely to be judged as "illegal." And face it, it would never go to court anyway. 2600 was picked on because MPAA knew 2600 would have trouble defending itself. Nobody thinks that about Walmart.

Walmart has money on their side, and probably the law too. That makes it legal. Go for it, Walmart.