Slashdot Mirror
100% Free Software Compatible PC Launches
crimperman writes "The Open-PC project has announced that its first PC will be available at the end of February for €359. They claim the mini-ITX desktop machine is energy efficient, consumer ready, easy to upgrade, and — significantly — uses only hardware that has free software drivers available. As you'd expect, it comes with GNU/Linux which is running KDE (a €10 donation to the KDE project in included in the price). Interestingly all the key decisions on design, pricing etc. have been made by the community via online polls. The spec of the machine is pretty reasonable for the price: Atom 1.6GHz dual-core processor, 3GB RAM, 160GB HDD, Intel 950 graphics."
The prices approach the price of Apple hardware. I'd rather get a Mac and run Linux on an open source VM.
950 video at that price why not ion or a real desktop cpu?
I can go to Walmart and get a better machine with Windows already on it for half the price.
For the second time I ask, who do I have to suck off to get my shitty product slashvertised?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
How about the BIOS? That's never considered software by the FOSS crowd for some reason.
Of course if you look at this from a strict price/performance standpoint, it's not going to win - the point is solid support of the hardware is possible with fully open source code. How does this play out? Hard to say. I'd like to see a review geared to evaluation of points such as stability, responsiveness, usability of major open source programs (Blender, anyone?) and how/whether a fully open driver stack impacts that experience.
Apple wins in the market because they create a smooth, integrated experience that has view technical "gotchas" waiting to pounce on the consumer. The point of projects such as this (IMHO anyway) is to try to achieve something similar with open source - a hardware/software stack that can be tuned for a performance that, while perhaps not the fastest possible, is "smooth".
Realistically, how much horsepower is actually needed for anything not involving heavy duty graphics or video editing? Wouldn't it perhaps be worth trading off a bit of the "latest and greatest" hardware performance for something that was quality components, solid support and would run reliably for a long time? I know I'd be interested.
It'll be interesting to see if they can find a way to illustrate the benefits of such an experience, even if they can create it - and whether the open source audience will be sufficiently impressed to buy it or not. I know that if my machine were to croak tomorrow, I would at least be curious - a Walmart PC or Dell might have better specs for a cheaper price but I'd be scared of component quality and assembly QC - that's one reason folks still build their own boxes, after all. My current machine was assembled from parts years ago, and has been quite reliable (as well as fast enough) through years of building Gentoo updates and other fairly intense desktop tasks - that's what I want for my next machine, because this month's hardware will be slow next month anyway and I want my $$ to last. Is this it? Who knows, but I'd be curious to see what a real in-depth review has to say.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
I really don't see the point of this. Perhaps back in 1998 when it took a lot of effort to get Linux up and running this might have a market, today, I can buy almost any laptop/desktop and install Ubuntu on it with little to no problems. Why should I have to pay $400+ more for a computer that gets me less? For $600 I can get a Core i7 gamer rig and not a crappy "nettop". For $150? I'd buy it in a heartbeat. For $250, I might consider it. For more than the price of a Mac Mini? No way.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
No wireless chipset, of course. Because after 15 years of WiFi being in common usage worldwide, there still isn't a single chipset available with full support for 100% free software. That's just sad.
Anybody who buys this instead of a Mac mini, which does include 802.11b/g/n, gigabit Ethernet, DVD burner and better graphics for virtually the same price, is a fool.
I can get an AMD Athlon X2 Dual-core 2ghz laptop with 4 gigs of ram, a 250 gig hd, AND built-in display, mouse pad, keyboard, hdmi, 4 usb, 8x dvd, gigabit ethernet, b/g/n wireless, webcam, mic, speakers, UPS good for several hours (it IS a laptop), card reader, etc., for less.
And that includes the Microsoft tax (Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit).
Shouldn't a box that isn't a laptop, has lower specs, no battery, no display, less ram, smaller disk capacity on a cheaper hard drive, no webcam, no M$TAX, etc., be CHEAPER?
Nobody's going to buy one of these.
But does it have a Free BIOS? or use LinuxBios?
The lock on the desktop market is the private little BIOS monopoly Microsoft keeps in business. That lets them tweak every individual computer model "just a little bit" so the standard APIs like power management don't quite work perfectly.
Purchasing a non-Windows system on an Atom makes no sense at all. The only current use for an Atom is to run Windows. If you are going to run a non-Windows (free software, open source) system you should be looking at ARM based systems. Part of being an informed consumer is recognizing monopolies (both software and hardware) and making purchasing decisions that do not promote said monopolies. I'll bet any surveys did not include a choice of hardware (and one has to wonder how/why KDE got selected given that there are 3+ other window managers available under Linux -- most of which have a much smaller footprint).
So, design by committee is okay when open components are involved?
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
Linux doesn't need a fast CPU or graphics acceleration to be awesome. That's the point they're making here.
you know you can install linux on just about any x86 desktop right? even if it has windows pre-installed. any x86 desktop is a linux desktop, as is the one i quoted that has superior hardware, is smaller, and costs $200 less.
any way you slice it, it's better to pay less and get better hardware. linux might not need the better hardware to be functional, but it sure can take advantage of it and give a better experience.
The firmware for wireless cards is a proprietary binary blob for which the source code is not available.
This shoots down the "100% Free Software" concept.
While I applaud the decision to focus on hardware which is Open Source friendly, this isn't exactly rocket science. Linux has matured to the point where odds are pretty good that any given system will function "out of the box", without resorting to proprietary drivers.
Full hardware acceleration on newer GPUs can still be problematic, of course. The Intel 950 -- while it is in fact relatively new -- isn't particularly current in terms of features or performance. So effectively we're still in a situation where we're settling for second-rate GPU performance, just to avoid the need for proprietary drivers. AMD/ATI's push to work more closely with the Open Source community is starting to bear fruit; I'm hopeful that we'll see better support for current GPUs going forward.
(I think maybe the webcam doesn't work, but I don't really care.)
Sorry if this is a little off-topic, but THIS is my biggest problem with both Linux and Linux fanboys (I'm not necessary saying you're the latter; you just caused me to think of it). Core functionality is relatively easy to get, sure, even if it occasionally takes more work than a Windows user like myself is accustomed to. However, it's all the boundary cases that keep Linux from being mainstream: certain drivers not existing, certain hardware not being supported, poor excuses for replacements of legitimate products (OpenOffice versus Microsoft Office, for example), etc.
I've tried hard for two years to like Linux (I installed Ubuntu on two computers during that time and used it reasonably frequently), and it just never happened. But the absolute worst part of all of this is how Linux users often say that people should switch over to their OS because it's free, there aren't any viruses, and everything works just fine. However, they neglect to mention how much work and inside knowledge is required to make everything work, and when people point out things that just work better on a different OS (or work at all, period), they say "well I don't really care about that, so it doesn't matter." I've got news for all of you: we like our OSes because they're simple and functional, with no headaches involved. Maybe if the Linux community started caring when things didn't work, their OS might actually have a shot at competing with the other two.
Its weird how so much support is going towards the mac, that no one appreciates the simplicity of the laptop for what it is.
Its power efficient, and cheap.
And let me go into a bit more detail. The intel atom is a cpu designed by intel to run on as little power as possible.
The core 2 duo was not. It has power saving features, but its not designed with power being a primary factor.
The same things can be said for the chipsets.
I was unable to an exact comparison between the 2 chipsets since the details, but toms hardware did a match thats close enough.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-ion-atom,2153-10.html
The result is that the 945GC is up to 35% more power efficient. I expect its the same case with the intel core 2 duo vs the atom, if not, even more in favour.
The fact is that's a huge saving on power. Using the atom and 950gc you could get 3 hours batter life where the other only gets 2.
And laptops are meant to be portable. Anyone whos takes a laptop around with them, is well aware of the power concerns. That 1 hour can be the difference between moving with the laptop freely, and having to bring a power adapter and sit with it rooted to a power socket.
As i'm typing this post out, its on an atom netbook, its power consumption so low that its passively cooled. Try that with a core 2 duo and its matching gpu.
A few other things i'll touch on.
Its stupid to point out that for only 190 more euro you get a more powerful computer. But that's 50% more expensive then this laptop offering!
More memory isn't necessarily a good thing. At least on windows i can enter or leave hibernation mode in 26 seconds because i use 1gig of memory. If i had 3 gigs, it'd jump to about 45 seconds both ways. as well as draining more power, and increasing the price needlessly.
Its not a Mac. Seriously. Comparing Linux to mac, and talking about the mac favorably... I have to wonder where slashdot's culture is headed on threads like these.
If you want a top of the line gaming laptop, so be it. Just don't snub laptops that are aimed at a cheaper/work environment because it doesn't suit you.
To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
From the "specifications" page at the link:
Only components with complete technical specifications, as provided by the manufacturers, were used.
So where are the schematics, PC board artwork, parts lists, mechanical drawings of the chassis and brackets, etc.?
Not to mention the fact that the chip designs are copyrighted by Intel...
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Comes exhibit 3020 (PDF):
Is Ubuntu 9.04 new enough for you? Sound? Needed CLI. Wireless? Whole bunch of CLI. And I have been building and selling PCs since the days of Win3.x and can count the number of times I have had to go CLI on one hand with fingers left over. Do I use CLi on occasion? Sure, because especially networking it is more comfortable for me to use CLI.
But You are making the same mistake that many Linux users make, because you are comfortable with CLI you think others will be too, or because you use CLI or Regedit in Windows, well others must do it too. They aren't and they don't. I'm sorry, but only what most would call a "power user" touches either of those in Windows, and they are a very small minority. I can tell you that if I offered my clients $100 to bring up a terminal or registry editor in Windows that I wouldn't lose a dime. Windows simply doesn't need either of those in day to day tasks.
Lets try the same in Linux, and you can see if the same holds true. there is a way to disable bash, yes? I'm sure that there is a CHMOD command that will allow you to disable bash so you can't access it, yes? So do it, disable bash. Agree to run WITHOUT any CLI for 6 months. No bash, no Bourne, no shell access to you the user at all. I'm willing to bet the first major update and you'd be borked, because there would be something that needs CLI access to tweak or fix. Sound, networking, wireless, something.
Which as I said makes sense, as Linux is based on a mainframe OS (Unix) and is developed largely by corporations using Linux as a server OS. On servers there are admins, who by and large prefer the speed and control afforded by CLI. But as I said that is a task friendly mindset, not a user friendly one. And I'm sorry to burst your bubble but I have plenty of Windows customers that don't even know Windows HAS CLI or regedit. They have never used them, never needed them, and wouldn't know where to even find them. That is a user friendly mindset, which is what OSX and Windows excels at. Doesn't make one better than the other, but it does make their users vastly different.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
The fact that you found it necessary to use a terminal with Ubuntu doesn't necessarily indicate an Ubuntu failing.
Plenty of old timers don't realize that Linux isn't perpetually stuck in 1998.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.