Slashdot Mirror
Dell to Sell Machines with Ubuntu Pre-Loaded
kotj.mf writes "Cnet is reporting that Dell will shortly announce a partnership with Canonical to offer Ubuntu pre-loaded on certain consumer-oriented desktops and notebooks. The announcement comes after a groundswell of support for pre-installed Linux on Dell's IdeaStorm site. 'The company is starting its business by trying to appeal to users of desktop computers. From there, Canonical Chief Executive Mark Shuttleworth has said, the company plans to head to the server market, where the real Linux bread and butter can be found. [Dell spokesman Kent] Cook wouldn't comment on whether Dell plans to offer Ubuntu on its servers as well.'."
I don't agree. What has Vista got to do with it? Linux (and Ubuntu) gained a user base large enough to gather some attention.
Ubuntu on servers is a bad, bad idea. It'd be like running your hardware on Debian Sid all of the time with neither thought nor care as to the consequences.
I tend to agree with most of your statement. I wouldn't run Feisty on a server, but I would/do run Dapper 6.06 LTS, it's been in the market over a year. I've been running it on a couple production servers for 6 months now, haven't had a single issue with it. At least Ubuntu server doesn't install X by default either, I'm looking at you SuSE and Red Hat.
root@allevil:~#
I've been using it on one of my servers (samba,cups,apache,java,postgresql) and it works quite well. So far, it's been significantly nicer to deal with than the CentOS 4.x install it replaced.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
Do you honestly that Joe is going to opt for the $800 "vista ready" computer when it looks as though the $500 "ubuntu loaded" one is right next to it on the virtual shelf?
Um, care to quote a real price on the unit? Seeings as where Dell sells PCs with no OS for about the same prices as a Windows machine my guess it that a Linux machine won't be any cheaper. Not to even mention that OEM versions cost nowhere near the price of the retail box. There is no way that it's going to cost Dell 300 USD more per PC for even the best copy of Vista. No business would ever agree to that.
PS, Joe: you don't have to pony up another $200 for Office, either.
PS, Joe: OO is available on Windows too. No need to learn a new OS for a cheap office suite.
If Joe really wants open office it's already there for him today with no snags whatsoever.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Um, care to quote a real price on the unit? Seeings as where Dell sells PCs with no OS for about the same prices as a Windows machine my guess it that a Linux machine won't be any cheaper. I think the GPP was referring to the fact that machines that can be advertised as "Vista Ready" will require rather higher specs (and hence be noticeable more expensive) than a machine that will run Ubuntu. Sure, on identical hardware there will likely be little or no price difference, but the hardware requirements of the two OSs are distinctly unequal, and if all you need is a low spec box, why spend all the extra money just because Vista requires fancier hardware?
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
I've seen Ubuntu's weird versioning explained over and over again many times on Slashdot. I wish they had chosen a more conventional versioning system, but I guess it's become too much tradition now.
The most important reason is the lack of explosion. Linux is robust in a way that neither Windows nor OSX can even approach. If an app blows up on Windows, it often takes out the GUI which takes out the whole system. On Linux, if the app crashes, you can almost always kill the app. If not, sometimes the window system blows up, and then you find yourself back at the login prompt when it restarts. It almost never takes down the whole system.
Add to that same reason the lack of viruses, worms, and other infections, and you've got yourself the most stable and reliable platform out there.
Linux with wine can actually run a huge body of the most important Windows software, but Windows doesn't run Linux software without actually running Linux under Windows (colinux, vmware, etc) and then using an X server on Windows and displaying the apps back. But that tends to be slow, especially with OpenGL applications - and that tends to be crashy as well.
Add to that the many pieces of top-quality Free/free software on Linux, and yes, I can come up with a significant number of reasons to run it. But the only one that's important for the home user is that they can websurf and email with all the usual trimmings without having to worry about getting owned.
Another important reason for ALL users, though, is the lack of lock-in. So what if your flavor and version of Linux becomes unsupported? The next one will work in much the same way, run the same software, and open the same file formats. Plus, it won't cost you hundreds of dollars. Or even a dollar.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"