Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell Doubles Down On High-End Ubuntu Linux Laptops (zdnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the affinity-for-Linux-machines dept.

Dell became the first major OEM to offer a laptop with Linux pre-installed in it in 2007. Ten years later, the company says it is more committed than ever to offering Linux-powered machines to users. From a report on ZDNet: The best known of these is the Dell XPS 13 developer edition, but it's not the only Linux laptop Dell offers. In a blog post, Barton George, senior principal engineer at Dell's Office of the CTO, announced "the next generation of our Ubuntu-based Precision mobile workstation line." All of these systems boast Ubuntu 16.04 long-term support (LTS), 7th generation Intel Core or Intel Xeon processors, and Thunderbolt 3, AKA 40 Gigabit per second (Gbps) USB-C, ports. As the Xeon processor option shows, these are top-of-the-line laptops for professionals. It took longer than expected for Dell to get this new set of five Ubuntu-powered Precision mobile workstations out the door. The Precision 5520 and 3520 are now available. The 3520, the entry-level workstation, starts with an Intel Core 2.5GHz i5-7300HQ Quad Core processor with Intel HD Graphics 630. From there, you can upgrade it all the way to an Intel Core Xeon 3 GHz E3-1505M v6 processor with Nvidia Quadro M62 graphics.

23 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Why pre-installed? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are there really many people interested in using ubuntu on high powered laptops who can't install it on their own?

    Have they made it impossible to install your own OS on the rest of their laptops? I haven't tried to install ubuntu on anything in a while, I remember hearing something about how intel was trying to make it harder to install anything other than windows 10.

    1. Re:Why pre-installed? by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Have they made it impossible to install your own OS on the rest of their laptops? I haven't tried to install ubuntu on anything in a while

      No, it's that if people pay an arm and a leg for a laptop, they want it to be supported. And that doesn't mean "most of the stuff works", it means everything works. Every Ubuntu laptop I've used has had some quirk that didn't work right. Won't sleep. Won't hibernate. Display back light doesn't go off. DVD burner doesn't work. And so on.

    2. Re:Why pre-installed? by shigutso · · Score: 2

      Are there really many people interested in using ubuntu on high powered laptops who can't install it on their own?

      Yes. Otherwise Dell wouldn't be selling them.

    3. Re:Why pre-installed? by cvdwl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but it's nice to know the hardware is generally compatible out-of-box. Trying to correct graphics and audio issues is what drove me away from consumer Linux about 10 years ago. And my experiences configuring desktops at work have never lured me back.

      --
      ... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
    4. Re:Why pre-installed? by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      Atleast their not giving in to the dark leader Microsoft, Like all the other manufacturers are. I loved the fact that Dell started doing this. It prompted other manufacturers to also offer Windows alternatives. I'm sure any "Developer" that buys an XPS developer edition will have no problem installing linux on it. But why bother with having to Replace the OS when you can just have it shipped to you ready to rock and roll. Maybe with a custom kernel(I don't know for sure) for the newest hardware they plop into the thing.

    5. Re:Why pre-installed? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's $100 cheaper than the Windows version of the same laptop.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re: Why pre-installed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This may seem surprising but most of the people I know who use Linux are not techies. Half of them probably have not installed their own OS. They use it because Linux is stable and does not reboot in the middle of their presentations. They would probably be happy to see more Linux pre-installed options on the market.

    7. Re:Why pre-installed? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I, on the other hand, do the exact opposite, run Linux just fine on a Dell Latitude, and for the extremely rare times I need Windows, I run a Windows 7 virtualbox VM, using the OEM product key from said Dell laptop..

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    8. Re:Why pre-installed? by LVSlushdat · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I installed Ubuntu 14.04 on my current Dell Latitude, I had zero problems, everything worked right "out of the box".. including the wifi AND that wifi was a Broadcom, which I recall a few years ago used to be a serious pain in the ass to get working on Linux... Not the case anymore...

      --
      THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
    9. Re:Why pre-installed? by SadOldTechie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Me too, works perfectly on my Acer, all hardware features. Windows in a VM for those locked-in technology moments.

    10. Re:Why pre-installed? by steveg · · Score: 2

      Years ago, even if you could find a vendor like Dell who would sell you a Linux version, the Linux version ended up costing you more than the Windows version, if for for no other reason than the kickbacks the vendor got from all the crapware that came pre-installed on the Windows version. Either that or you had to choose completely different hardware for the Linux version, and the Linux hardware was always inferior.

      With this generation of of Dells, choosing Ubuntu as the OS actually cuts the price, on the same hardware.

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
    11. Re:Why pre-installed? by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Couldn't agree more. Notebooks are always a proprietary mess, and just because someone could install linux on one doesn't mean the experience would be a positive one. I actually have an XPS-13 running Windows 10 and still think it would be a nightmare trying to switch to Ubuntu as the main OS. I do, however, run Debian inside a VM. I have started to view Windows as the "cloud OS of uncertainty", while Linux/BSD derivatives are deterministic little walled gardens to be run only virtually.

      Thereby achieving the perfect combination of the rock solid stability of Windows with the wide range of legacy software and games on Linux. Hang on...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Why pre-installed? by houghi · · Score: 2

      That means that the prices they get for the shareware are dropping. Because that is the main reason companies do it.
      For them it would make no difference to put on a Windows Image, Linux Image or DR Dos or tripple boot image on the machine. It will be the identical same process in production.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  2. 2017 by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The year of the Linux Laptop (tm).

  3. Sad its so expensive by tatman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dell XPS 13 developer edition, Ubuntu, i7 processor, 16BM almost $1900. Yikes.

    --
    I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
    1. Re:Sad its so expensive by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd rather see some cheaper models. I'm still shopping around for a good basic laptop for my wife. It doesn't need to be ultra thin (it won't travel much) or super stylish, just something basic to run Ubuntu with a browser and LibreOffice. Not having to pay the Redmont tax is an even bigger deal on a cheap laptop. But the selection of low end laptops seems to be rather a lot poorer then when I last bought one around 5 years ago. And so does the selection of laptops with Linux or without Windows, come to think of it.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:Sad its so expensive by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Not having to pay the Redmont tax is an even bigger deal on a cheap laptop.

      Well somebody has to do the development work to ensure compatibility, it's not just a matter of taking some hardware and whacking on the latest Ubuntu release. That's something anybody's been able to do for the better part of 2 decades.

      The idea that people should choose Linux because it is cheaper is stupid, if anything they should be more expensive and used to fund quality development of the operating system.

      But the selection of low end laptops seems to be rather a lot poorer then when I last bought one around 5 years ago. And so does the selection of laptops with Linux or without Windows, come to think of it.

      On the low end you have laptops like Chromebooks and plenty of cheap Windows offerings (you can't just take away the Windows license cost by putting Ubuntu on, you just end up with a laptop where simple stuff like hibernate doesn't work properly). And there are more options now than ever in terms of laptops with Linux, Dell now offer Linux on systems across their range, HP offer it on many systems too and there are vendors like System76 that have a larger range than ever before.

    3. Re:Sad its so expensive by steveha · · Score: 2

      I'm still shopping around for a good basic laptop for my wife.

      I've had good success just buying whatever is on sale at a computer store near me, and then wiping it and installing Linux.

      The last time I did this, I bought a Lenovo IdeaPad S415 for something like $350, brand new. And to my horror, Linux installation failed on it; it includes both an AMD A6 and a discrete graphics adapter, and the two graphics systems fatally confused X11. There were workarounds but I never got around to trying one.

      Almost a year later, I simply grabbed the latest Linux installer, and the install Just Worked. Someone had patched whatever the problem in X11 and everything worked: the touchscreen, the WiFi, the sound, the Ethernet jack, sleep on closing the lid, everything.

      The moral of this story: most of the time, a Linux install will Just Work. But if you really need to be sure it will work, I suggest doing a Google search for the name of the laptop plus the name of a popular Linux distro. When I searched for "Lenovo IdeaPad S415 Ubuntu" I immediately found discussions, by other people who had the same problem I had, and the workarounds they figured out.

      At the moment, my father is using that laptop as his main computer. He's using it for hours every day. We are getting our money's worth.

      Not having to pay the Redmont tax is an even bigger deal on a cheap laptop.

      I'm not sure, this may be changing, but historically low-end computers are choked with pre-installed software you don't want, and the computer maker collects money for installing this bloatware. Enough money that they make more than they spent on Windows... at least in some cases, you actually would have to pay more to get a Linux computer.

      So unless you are really upset with Microsoft and don't want to give them a dime of your money, just buy whatever laptop is a good value, and wipe-and-install.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  4. Re:Five years? by omnichad · · Score: 2

    You can install a newer LTS OS later. And if there are drivers now, there is a good chance of drivers then.

  5. ...only 13"? by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

    Gad - some of us actually *want* some actual real-estate on the screen. :/

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. Re:Five years? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

    Five years worth of OS support? Really? That's totally impractical or very expensive for any non-Linux professional.

    Well, you have a point. But I'd note that it was only a few years back that LTS was only 3 years for Ubuntu, and if you really wanted a functional system, you probably should be updating with every 6-month release (which would finally make some things work but inevitably break other things). This is one of the reasons I abandoned Ubuntu several years ago. It's gotten a lot better in the past 5 years or so, and the support for releases has been extended.

    Not that this should excuse anything, but this is longer than it used to be.

    Another important thing to note, however, is that Linux tends to be more stable across OS versions, so you can often upgrade after 3-5 years to the new OS version and carry most of your old stuff directly with little disruption in interface or problems with incompatibility between old and new software versions. (Of course, as with everything, YMMV.)

    But it's NOT like, say, Windows, where you often get stuck learning a completely new interface every few years. Even if the default environment changes from release to release, you can generally still choose among the standard ones.

  7. Go lightweight by Provocateur · · Score: 2

    My DELL latitude E6440 had Windows 7 for a few hours, but bodhi Linux 4.1.0 has been its main resident ever since. Bought for $129 or available for $99 if you look hard enough; I used to be Thinkpad exclusively. E6440 is not bad but XPS13 is still in my crosshairs because I do prefer Tracpoints and discrete graphics.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  8. Re:1366x768? What is that, the Playmobil Edition? by chrish · · Score: 2

    I really wish PC laptop makers would stop with these ridiculous low-resolution screens. Especially up here in Canada, it's difficult to find laptops with reasonable resolutions... so many 15+" 1366x768 and 17" 1600x900 displays, both labelled "HD" or something to trick stupid people.

    Either stop making these horrible things, or let me easily search for models based on actual screen resolution rather than just size.

    --
    - chrish