Here is the problem why Linux laptops aren't cheaper.
HP pays Microsoft for a Windows license (lets say in the range of $50-$100 and I'd honestly guess more in the $50 range given then offer Vista on a $400 computer). HP gets money back however from Google, AOL, MSN, Norton or whomever wants their crap preinstalled. That money buys down the cost of the PC.
With a Linux computer, there is no AOL preinstall, so HP loses out of money which in turn offsets the savings of not purchasing Windows. There is also the additional cost of support and development for Linux laptops/desktops.
I still think HP should do it, but don't expect the laptops to be cheaper just because they use Linux, especially if they have to pay to license libdvdcss, codecs, etc.
It depends, if you can quickly afford to establish the new brand while informing the consumer of the parent company (most people know Saturn is GM, and Scion is Toyota for instance) then go ahead.
Dell pays to license codecs and such and includes them in their Ubuntu install. I'm sure HP would do the same.
For a traditional openSUSE install you are literally a one-click installer away from having all the codecs and packages you need for every major "restricted" format.
And while a retailer dealing with an Asus netbook can't provide technical support, when it comes to a big name like HP, they can provide technical support for their products.
Relearning is an issue for the intermediate Windows user because they go from feeling like they really know what they're doing to suddenly not knowing as much.
The truly computer illiterate who just barely know how to operate a web browser don't struggle with Linux because they don't have to unlearn and relearn. Linux is more intuitive and largely works as they expect it to.
I've found the hardest group to turn around to Linux is fellow SysAdmins who know Windows intimately, and aren't contend to barely use an OS. If you convince them to play with Linux, they won't just accept distro defaults. They're going to really get in there and break their box a few times.
This group will appreciate the merits of Linux the most, but only if they are willing to take the time to learn it. However inertia keeps them from changing in the first place.
Put 100 grandmas in the room and put them to the grandma test. Give them a Vista PC and ask them to perform certain tasks. Them them a decent Linux PC (say openSUSE 11 with KDE 3) and ask them to perform the same tasks. See which take longer.
I've been switching several people to Linux specifically because they aren't computer savvy, and they find KDE more intuitive and user-friendly than Windows.
For the truly naive and terrified, you're right, they'd need training regardless if they're using Windows or Linux, but one can contend that Linux is closer to being "ready for the desktop" than Windows these days.
Actually Mac sales keep climbing and climbing, and Linux adoption rates are up. The average end-user doesn't know much about operating systems. They don't know that choice exists. Provide that choice and see what happens.
Either way, if you're pissed at Microsoft, this is how you let them know.
Dell started offering Ubuntu on desktops, and I'm assuming Microsoft hasn't started charging Dell more for the move. HP is large enough that they should be able to pull the same move.
HP is still responsible for technical support and drivers for every OS they want to support. If HP offered Linux, it would likely be one distro. They went with SUSE in the past, and I happen to dig on openSUSE so that is why I suggested it.
I don't run Vista but I'm going on a limb and guessing the graphics card struggles with the Aero interface. Otherwise I don't know why the chipset would be a big factor.
With Ubuntu, and with netbooks, Linux is gaining some recognition with the public. A big name like HP offers a Linux laptop that you can buy on Amazon.com and in BestBuy, and then suddenly the public will see Linux in a very different light.
HP is in the best position to push a Linux laptop since HP also offers very good Linux printer drivers. One product purchase can drive a complimentary sale.
Many users don't feel comfortable doing an OS install themselves. HP in the past used to sell laptops with SUSE preinstalled. If you're pissed at Microsoft, a letter won't do anything. You're still preinstalling Vista on every computer.
Offer a new line of openSUSE laptops with all the hardware configured and working out of the box (wireless, webcam, etc) and that will send a message to Microsoft.
It was part of the interoperability pledge they made for the EU. Microsoft said they'd provide the same level of support for developers working with Silverlight and Moonlight. I was skeptical but the Mono devs have said it was because of Microsoft's help that Moonlight already supports all of the Silverlight 1.0 spec.
I used to have sewage reclamation plants in California as one of my clients. They take fresh sewage, separate it, clean it, and turn it back around as drinking water. It happens all the time.
However, the toothbrush myth was debunked on Mythbusters. Toothbrushes kept closer to the toilet did not contain more bacteria. However, they did show that toothbrushes all over the place, even kept outside the bathroom (in the middle of the lab) had bacteria. They pretty much all had the same levels of bacteria.
Microsoft pledged to offer official support for Moonlight, and Moonlight does match all the Silverlight 1.0 features/specs. They are working on the 2.0 features/specs. The nice part is that Microsoft is helping the Mono devs, but the Mono devs maintain any copyright on the code and use a FSF license.
Use it personally, or don't. Just don't distribute a forked version. It doesn't help maintain Java as a stable standard, nor would it help Flash as a standard to have 20 forks.
In my scenario we could have had 64-bit Flash and Java ages ago, as we could recompile it. We could fix bugs and submit them upstream. We could help with ports to BSD or whatever. But it would be prevented from fundamental forks, such as Microsoft releasing a modified version that extends Flash to do more, but only on IE and Windows.
"Forking" Java, and Microsoft releasing their own version without permission is a problem. If Flash were open, and Microsoft extended it so that it worked best with IE and Windows, and that caused problems for Linux users, which version would be adopted more?
Certain things need to remain standardized without forks.
Some things need to be standard. How quickly we forget Microsoft releasing a modified version of Java without permission. They were famous for Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. I wouldn't say such a license would be great for an entire distro, or most software, but for certain projects such a license would be ideal.
Are you forced to use Flash to design a webpage? No.
Can you use Flash on Mac OS X and Linux? Yes.
There is still choice here. Choice equates to freedom. You can use it or not as you see fit. "Freedom" is not removing all proprietary software and forcing people into one specific "GNU-or- nothing" dichotomy. Do you understand how that isn't freedom?
How many Sparc and Itanic users need a 64-bit Flash for web browsing needs?
Adobe isn't going to GPL Flash just because people complain it isn't "free". Nor do I need every app in the world to be OSS. I prefer OSS apps, but at the end of the day, I'll take the best app for the task.
I don't think the GPL was the way to go for Java either, as Java needs to be fairly standardized. I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and recompile. However the license would prohibit people from distributing altered/forked versions. Such a license might very well convince Adobe to release the source code, as well as Nvidia for their drivers.
Go-oo is developed by the Novell team. It doesn't carry official Novell branding because it gets packaged in openSUSE, and they release unstable packages. The "stable" packages made for SLES and SLED get the official Novell branding.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the problem why Linux laptops aren't cheaper.
HP pays Microsoft for a Windows license (lets say in the range of $50-$100 and I'd honestly guess more in the $50 range given then offer Vista on a $400 computer). HP gets money back however from Google, AOL, MSN, Norton or whomever wants their crap preinstalled. That money buys down the cost of the PC.
With a Linux computer, there is no AOL preinstall, so HP loses out of money which in turn offsets the savings of not purchasing Windows. There is also the additional cost of support and development for Linux laptops/desktops.
I still think HP should do it, but don't expect the laptops to be cheaper just because they use Linux, especially if they have to pay to license libdvdcss, codecs, etc.
It depends, if you can quickly afford to establish the new brand while informing the consumer of the parent company (most people know Saturn is GM, and Scion is Toyota for instance) then go ahead.
Dell pays to license codecs and such and includes them in their Ubuntu install. I'm sure HP would do the same.
For a traditional openSUSE install you are literally a one-click installer away from having all the codecs and packages you need for every major "restricted" format.
And while a retailer dealing with an Asus netbook can't provide technical support, when it comes to a big name like HP, they can provide technical support for their products.
Relearning is an issue for the intermediate Windows user because they go from feeling like they really know what they're doing to suddenly not knowing as much.
The truly computer illiterate who just barely know how to operate a web browser don't struggle with Linux because they don't have to unlearn and relearn. Linux is more intuitive and largely works as they expect it to.
I've found the hardest group to turn around to Linux is fellow SysAdmins who know Windows intimately, and aren't contend to barely use an OS. If you convince them to play with Linux, they won't just accept distro defaults. They're going to really get in there and break their box a few times.
This group will appreciate the merits of Linux the most, but only if they are willing to take the time to learn it. However inertia keeps them from changing in the first place.
Put 100 grandmas in the room and put them to the grandma test. Give them a Vista PC and ask them to perform certain tasks. Them them a decent Linux PC (say openSUSE 11 with KDE 3) and ask them to perform the same tasks. See which take longer.
I've been switching several people to Linux specifically because they aren't computer savvy, and they find KDE more intuitive and user-friendly than Windows.
For the truly naive and terrified, you're right, they'd need training regardless if they're using Windows or Linux, but one can contend that Linux is closer to being "ready for the desktop" than Windows these days.
Actually Mac sales keep climbing and climbing, and Linux adoption rates are up. The average end-user doesn't know much about operating systems. They don't know that choice exists. Provide that choice and see what happens.
Either way, if you're pissed at Microsoft, this is how you let them know.
Dell started offering Ubuntu on desktops, and I'm assuming Microsoft hasn't started charging Dell more for the move. HP is large enough that they should be able to pull the same move.
HP is still responsible for technical support and drivers for every OS they want to support. If HP offered Linux, it would likely be one distro. They went with SUSE in the past, and I happen to dig on openSUSE so that is why I suggested it.
I don't run Vista but I'm going on a limb and guessing the graphics card struggles with the Aero interface. Otherwise I don't know why the chipset would be a big factor.
With Ubuntu, and with netbooks, Linux is gaining some recognition with the public. A big name like HP offers a Linux laptop that you can buy on Amazon.com and in BestBuy, and then suddenly the public will see Linux in a very different light.
HP is in the best position to push a Linux laptop since HP also offers very good Linux printer drivers. One product purchase can drive a complimentary sale.
Many users don't feel comfortable doing an OS install themselves. HP in the past used to sell laptops with SUSE preinstalled. If you're pissed at Microsoft, a letter won't do anything. You're still preinstalling Vista on every computer.
Offer a new line of openSUSE laptops with all the hardware configured and working out of the box (wireless, webcam, etc) and that will send a message to Microsoft.
It was part of the interoperability pledge they made for the EU. Microsoft said they'd provide the same level of support for developers working with Silverlight and Moonlight. I was skeptical but the Mono devs have said it was because of Microsoft's help that Moonlight already supports all of the Silverlight 1.0 spec.
I used to have sewage reclamation plants in California as one of my clients. They take fresh sewage, separate it, clean it, and turn it back around as drinking water. It happens all the time.
However, the toothbrush myth was debunked on Mythbusters. Toothbrushes kept closer to the toilet did not contain more bacteria. However, they did show that toothbrushes all over the place, even kept outside the bathroom (in the middle of the lab) had bacteria. They pretty much all had the same levels of bacteria.
Microsoft pledged to offer official support for Moonlight, and Moonlight does match all the Silverlight 1.0 features/specs. They are working on the 2.0 features/specs. The nice part is that Microsoft is helping the Mono devs, but the Mono devs maintain any copyright on the code and use a FSF license.
Use it personally, or don't. Just don't distribute a forked version. It doesn't help maintain Java as a stable standard, nor would it help Flash as a standard to have 20 forks.
In my scenario we could have had 64-bit Flash and Java ages ago, as we could recompile it. We could fix bugs and submit them upstream. We could help with ports to BSD or whatever. But it would be prevented from fundamental forks, such as Microsoft releasing a modified version that extends Flash to do more, but only on IE and Windows.
"Forking" Java, and Microsoft releasing their own version without permission is a problem. If Flash were open, and Microsoft extended it so that it worked best with IE and Windows, and that caused problems for Linux users, which version would be adopted more?
Certain things need to remain standardized without forks.
Some things need to be standard. How quickly we forget Microsoft releasing a modified version of Java without permission. They were famous for Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. I wouldn't say such a license would be great for an entire distro, or most software, but for certain projects such a license would be ideal.
Are you forced to use Flash to design a webpage? No.
Can you use Flash on Mac OS X and Linux? Yes.
There is still choice here. Choice equates to freedom. You can use it or not as you see fit. "Freedom" is not removing all proprietary software and forcing people into one specific "GNU-or- nothing" dichotomy. Do you understand how that isn't freedom?
ATI's OSS drivers give 3D and good 2D support. Their binary drivers have been improving as well.
Nvidia's new driver has great OpenGL performance, greatly improved 2D (XRender) performance, and great compiz performance.
I can't find any complaints with Nvidia's latest driver.
It does fully past the test suite however, and works well enough for every site I've come across.
How many Sparc and Itanic users need a 64-bit Flash for web browsing needs?
Adobe isn't going to GPL Flash just because people complain it isn't "free". Nor do I need every app in the world to be OSS. I prefer OSS apps, but at the end of the day, I'll take the best app for the task.
I don't think the GPL was the way to go for Java either, as Java needs to be fairly standardized. I would like to see a new OSS license that prevents forking, but allows me to read the source code, submit patches upstream, and recompile. However the license would prohibit people from distributing altered/forked versions. Such a license might very well convince Adobe to release the source code, as well as Nvidia for their drivers.
Alert me when some hacker at MIT builds one. That is all.
Was this prompted by Microsoft supporting Silverlight and Moonlight on 64-bit platforms from day one?
Either way, thanks for finally making it happen. We now have Java and Flash on 64-bit. No more reason to bitch.
Go-oo is developed by the Novell team. It doesn't carry official Novell branding because it gets packaged in openSUSE, and they release unstable packages. The "stable" packages made for SLES and SLED get the official Novell branding.
I thought OOo 3 supported Cocoa natively and no longer requires X11 to be installed for Mac users.
There is always NeoOffice as well. It is an OOo fork aimed at Mac OS X.
http://www.neooffice.org/neojava/en/index.php