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

I wonder what would happen....

[Fizzlewhiff]

If Walmart struck a deal with AOL to develop a Lindows friendly version of AOL (or a Linux version) and preinstall it on their machines. The cheapest Walmart.com PC is $299. With those prepaid subscription rebates Walmart and AOL could give these machines away.

Re:wow

[SuperCal]

I don't really think that WalMart cares if its customers are getting a choice. I think what they are trying to do is to figure out wether or not they can make higher profits by avioding the MS tax(I know, I know, that term is getting old). If people will buy a PC w/o Windows and Walmart can keep some of the difference then you can bet they will stick with it. If not they won't keep linux around just to give a choice to customers.

I only have a few questions you should ponder

[FortKnox]

When the customer buys the PC and goes to the computer software section and picks up MS Word for their kids, cause they need to type up papers (or games to play, etc...), and it doesn't install on their new shiny boxes, what are they going to think?

When they want to get online, and put in the AOL CD they got in the mail, and nothing happens, what are their impression of Linux?

Software is what makes windows big. Its how they stomped Mac. Is your average Wal-Mart shopper going to be able to know to pick up linux software, and will they be able to install it by themselves?

I'm not going anti-linux, pro-ms, I'm just getting you people to think before patting yourselves on the back.

A possible /. interview?

[sielwolf]

Ok we have seen a pretty consistent stream of articles about how Walmart/walmart.com have taken a decided interest in pushing non-MS OS machines (be they Linux based or clean).

But the 10k question is: who is behind this? I mean, this isn't like some normal free or open software guru we've known for ten years. Somebody at Walmart must be putting their John Hanncock on this.

Personally I'd like to get to know a little more about them (to congratulate them at least). Even more so I'd like a little more insight in to what got them started on this and how it all went down.

Short take of this Post: I wanna /. Interview! I'm sure it would go over huge.

To me this seems to be one of the first mainstream (outside of the IT industry and for endusers) acceptances of things most geeks hold dear. Who wants to miss this part of history?

Re:A possible /. interview?

[nolife]

I view this differently. The department store operation and computer selling in general is cut throat. Walmart needed a way to stand above the crowd and sell PC's for less then the competition. Walmart and Microtel got together and started offering cheap PC's with no OS at all. To 99.99% of computer users that planned to stay legal, the PC was useless, remember the first versions had a Winmodem so in theory, Linux was out also. Microtel switched modems and shortly there after started shipping with Lindows. Both Walmart and Microtel come out looking better because Walmart is getting more for there money and Microtel added very little cost to their bottom line. Now the same is happening with Mandrake. Mircotel ships a more stable full operation system with the PC's (no disto jokes, just making a point here). Again both companies gain. Walmart could probably care less what the hell the machine runs, as long as they are not paying any more for it, after all, they initally were happy selling it with nothing on it. I think Microtel's and more so Walmart's involvement in choosing Linux is next to null.

Re:the way walmart is

[miracle69]

I've actually suggested this exact thing on the Mandrake Forum.

Mandrake could increase market share by offering other resellers a "branded" OS, while making money on the support of the machines and the O.S.

Take Mandrake 8.2 and brand it to say, WalMart.

During Boot-up, Walmart gets screen space. They get a link on the desktop to Walmart.com. And Mandrake gets 30 bucks or so to do tech support for the OS.

If the big retailers pick up on this, Linux will be poised for a several percentage point growth. Combine this with an AOL client for Linux, and this could easily propel Linux into the mainstream desktop.

Re:wow

[SirSlud]

> Walmart isn't the one "not buying" the offensive covers, it's the shoppers, the family-values crowd.

Kind of hard to prove that if they dont actually carry them, now, isn't it? For that matter, that *nobody* ends up carrying them?

I don't really care about reasons or excuses; only that magazines willingly admit to changing their covers (content-alterting self-censorship is more common in the news biz, true) is due to one retailer, in what some people insisnt on holding up as an example of a functioning free market. Please! If people wont buy it, they wont buy it. Walmart seems to think that you are incapable of even *viewing* a potentially controversial cover and making a decision whether or not to buy it - they make that choice for you! Since you dont know what the pre-Walmart-Approved covers are, you're in no position to evaluate whether they are censoring material you deem censor-worthy. Alas, as usual, since they are successful and wealthy, people are all too happy to assume (envy?) that they must be the poster child of how to run a retail conglomerate and that all is good in the world.

Oh, and way to keep the lid on your sons' hormones! Heaven forbid they should learn that tool of the devil, masturbation, nevermind potentially read about musicians! *guffaw*

Re:Walmart and censorship

[SirSlud]

> And how do you intend to enforce a "right to be free of undue pressures to self-censor"?

Thats pretty easy. Make sure nobody can get super big. I think that the concept of economy of scale has costs that are both social and cultural. Yes, many people will laugh at me for worrying about social and cultural consequences of fostering pure economic goals. I dont care anymore, because it seems to me that the advertised ultimate goal of free-market capialism is to help people attain wealth in order to foster cultural and social health, safety, etc in addition to spurring technological development. (Although, with technology, whats the point of keeping people alive and physically safe if the social and cultural things one requires in order to enjoy life are sacrificed to attain it? I'm not anti-technology, but I think people lose sight of what the purpose of it is .. )

It just seems silly to me to encourage attaining massive amounts of wealth and economic leverage if it has negative consequences on the advertised goal of the system in the first place. And just because you or I dont want to see those covers doesn't mean that it doesnt make a lick of difference to me that my neighbour, who would like them, cant. My potentially laughable form of altruism is simply a way of paying my interests and values forward .. I dont want this to go furthur to the point where I feel my ability to enjoy and access to my culture is being opressed.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:wow

[johnnyb]

What they really mean to say is that they worship at the cult of baby and don't give a rats ass what the single/childfree people with disposable income want.

*********

I.e. - a significant portion of their customers.

As a parent, I don't want my child seeing racy stuff just walking in a store. I'd like to be able to _shop_ without having to explain why such material is indecent. Therefore, I go to Wal-Mart. It seems that a lot of people have the same idea (notice the number of children walking with their parents in walmart). These people constitute a _market_, and a large one at that. The beauty of capitalism is that the market decides. If you aren't a part of the mass market, don't go to mass-market places. It's that simple.

Is there nowhere else to find porn? I mean really, if blockbuster doesn't rent porn, find someone who does! It's not the end of the world. It's not like Ma and Pa Video requires a different kind of VCR to play their tapes.

It's not like buying at Target all-of-a-sudden makes your stuff incompatible with the rest of the world. It's not like Wal-Mart lies and cheats it's way to the top. They are what they say they are. The market likes them.

Re:wow

[nathanm]

The problem is that Wal-Mart is such a major distribution power. What if telecoms "made a choice" that they are no longer going allow you to transmit information of which they don't approve. I suppose that isn't censorship either. They are both private companies, and both control means of distribution.

If all the telecoms conspired to block certain information, it would be collusion, which is illegal. This is what the big 5 recording companies got slapped by the FTC for price-fixing CDs (not that the prices have changed any). Also, they do not control the means of distribution, only one mean. There are plenty of other retailers that carry products WalMart doesn't.

Once a company reaches a certain level of size and control of its given market they SHOULD lose much of their choices, because it is censorship, and it is dangerous. It is someone saying, "This you may not hear, this you may not see, this you are forbidden to know." It does not matter whether the entity is public or private. The decision whether or not to view something should rest ultimately with the consumer, and if some delicate little sensibilities are upset along the way, too bad.

So WalMart should be forced to carry everything under the sun, no matter how dangerous or objectionable? You want unlimited individual freedom, but want to force large corporations' behavior. You can't have it both ways. Freedom of choice must be protected for all. Besides, we may have the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have a right to be heard.

Grow up. People bleed, People die. Babies aren't brought by the stork, and they don't come from under cabbage leaves. Real live is rated at least NC-17, and if you don't like it, live in a bubble, but there's no reason the rest of us should sacrifice to make it easy for you.

<SARCASM>Really? Then how are babies made?</SARCASM> Like I said in my previous post: I could care less, I just won't buy the stuff. I'm not asking anyone to make any sacrifices, just let corporations have the same freedom of choice you expect yourself. And my life is rated PG (besides the bathroom & bedroom).