Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Dell Has Everything To Beat Apple

Filed under
OS
Linux
Mac

There are two possibilities, either you create a door for yourself, or if you see a door, then just open it and walk in. We will talk about the door thing later, first tell me: what do you use for your computing? Did I hear Microsoft Windows? GNU/Linux? Some might be using Apple Mac as well.

Windows is passe nobody seems to be talking about it any more. Except for Microsoft, and even they may shy away if you say something that sounds similar to 'Vista'. Now, the rage is Mac and GNU/Linux.

Apple Mac has increased its share in the market post Vista release. The market was there and Vista disappointed people. GNU/Linux is fighting but, it has more yards to cover.

rest here




almost everything

What Dell is really missing is customers that actually buy the systems already offered running Ubuntu. That's not their fault, that's the fault of the linux community that has for years complained that "what we really need for linux to compete with other OSes is a vendor installed distro", then when Dell does just that, they don't support the effort.

Quit whining and pontificating, buy a Dell w/Ubuntu. That's how you encourage further development from a vendor in a market economy.

I did. My Dell Studio 15 laptop came with Ubuntu 8.04 LTS preinstalled and everything worked perfectly right out of the box. Ubuntu wasn't my first choice for a distro, but I felt that it was important to support the efforts of a vendor that was willing to give me a viable choice in the OS dept. I've since grown fond of Ubuntu and would recommend it to anyone interested in trying linux.

re: Dell beat Apple

Another clueless armchair MBA thinking that wishes can come true.

Actually, from a consumer POV

I don't beleive Ubuntu is 'the' distro to push to users.

Ubuntu's claim to fame is it's installation process. That's about all it has to offer over any other distro.

It lack even having a distinct, polished configuration panel and the ubuntu user forum is positively littered with identical questions from users trying to figure out how to make the simplest changes.

They don't at least present the Gnome config panel as a default resource and they are a gnome based distro. Talk about ignoring user needs.

I will pay for a product that is worth paying for. Easy install is only part of the package. There are other distros just as polished, some more so, and present a much more user friendly environment.

SUSE/opensuse has YAST (which gets mixed responses those who love it, those in the opposite camp) but at least it offers something. Mandriva offers the MCC (Mandriva Control Center) which is arguably the best control panel in Linux.

Pretty much all of the major distros offer auto updates and simplified (somewhat) software installation/package managers.

So, outside of the install, Ubuntu really isn't that special. I'd rather Dell sell a blank machine and let me decide which distro I want. It's not like they are supporting proprietary drivers for the ubuntu release. In which case they could offer other distros with support, just as easily.

Sorry, I won't support ubuntu just because rookies who don't know better find it popular or 'noveau'

Ubuntu is not a bad distro, I find it usable, but nothing to write home about.

Big Bear

re: Actually

And that's the problem in a nutshell - which of the 9 bazillion flavours of linux should a vendor install, and more importantly, support?

When you consider that ALL Linux distro's combined is a very tiny percentage, picking a smaller percentage yet and ramping up to sell and support it is pretty much destined to be a NON-money maker.

The no-OS system won't fly either. Although Hardware tests these days are all standalone appliances, the bean counters and lawyers are afraid a no-OS system would encourage piracy.

Or it could just be most people just don't care and want Windows anyways.

I have to agree.

Then again, from it's origins GNU/Linux wasn't really 'geared' to be a commercial offering in and of itself.

Based on Linus's various comments over the years, he has no problem with a company like RedHat or Novell, Canonical, etc.. using the Source code and taking it in whatever direction they wanted. If they could make it work in a consumer environment, hey, more power to them.

The overall Linux community is so fractionalized due to fanboy identifications and associations that there's no way a vendor like Dell or anyone else will make money selling Linux to the Linux community. They will make their money selling Linux to folks who haven't gotten involved and joined a camp yet.

Personally, I don't spend my money at Dell or HP or any of those anymore. I like to buy blank systems from small vendors anymore. I get better customized service and I get machines built usually exactly the way I want them.

Big Bear

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Firefox OS media-casting stick strikes Kickstarter gold

The first Firefox OS based media player has arrived on Kickstarter, in the form of a $25 open-spec HDMI stick that supports Chromecast-like content casting. The Matchstick, which has already zoomed past its Kickstarter campaign’s $100,000 funding goal, with 28 days still remaining, was teased back in June by Mozilla developer evangelist Christian Heilmann. The unnamed prototype was billed as an open source HDMI stick that runs Mozilla’s Linux-based Firefox OS and offers casting capabilities. Few details were revealed at the time except that the device used the same DIAL (DIscovery And Launch) media-casting protocol created by Netflix and popularized by Google’s Chromecast. Read more

Open source history, present day, and licensing

Looking at open source softwares particularly, this is a fact that is probably useful to you if you are thinking about business models, many people don't care about it anymore. We talk about FOSS, Free and Open Source Software, but if we really are strict there's a difference between free software and open source software. On the left, I have free software which most typically is GPL software. Software where the license insures freedom. It gives freedoms to you as a user, but it also requires that the freedoms are maintained. On the right-hand side, you have open source software which is open for all, but it also allows you to close it. So here we come back to the famous clause of the GPL license, the reciprocity requirement which says, "If I am open, you need to be open." So software that comes under the GPL license carries with it something that other people call a virus. I call it a blessing because I think it's great if all software becomes open. Read more

Leftovers: Software

Proprietary

today's howtos