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.'."

Vista

[rhennigan (833589)]

I think we owe this to Microsoft. This would never have happened were it not for Vista.

Re:Vista

[borizz (1023175)]

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.

Re:Vista

[jkrise (535370)]

What has Vista got to do with it? Linux (and Ubuntu) gained a user base large enough to gather some attention.

For the first time, the learning curve, legacy hardware and software compatibility and cost of adoption for the latest Windows operating system (Vista) is greater than a well-known Linux distribution. Microsoft must be congratulated for this stupendous engineering effort.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

As much fun as it is to read clueless posts on Slashdot (Especially clueless posts about business), Michael Dell didn't wake up in January and say "Gee, you know, I think we'll start selling Ubuntu!". You can be sure that Canonical and Dell have been in talks about this for a very long time. If they've been in negotiations for less than 24 months, I'd be impressed. These sorts of things don't happen over night, and Vista had nothing to do with it.

Re:Vista

[physicsnick (1031656)]

You can be sure that Canonical and Dell have been in talks about this for a very long time

Do you really think Dell waited for Vista's release before figuring out it would be bad for business?

Vista had been in beta-testing for a year and a half. The negative press about Vista has been rolling in for YEARS. Dell knew full well it would be a disaster long before the release. So yes, they probably started talks with Canonical well over a year ago, and I stand by my statement that it was heavily influenced by Vista.

Re:Vista

[russ1337 (938915)]

>>>"I'm prepared to be proven wrong."

Bold words for an AC...

Re:Vista

[by Anonymous Coward]

He is an imposter, it was my post. I post as an AC because I am too lazy to register, have more karma than I can handle and like to talk rubbish without being challenged.

Re:

[east coast (590680)]

The reason Vista made this happen is because the general population hated Vista *so much* that they just stopped buying computers.

Don't confuse the slashdot population versus the general population. The general population never even got enough of a whiff of vista to stop buying PCs with it on it.

That's very bad for Dell's business, which sent them looking for alternatives.

It's called XP. If you think for one second that users who migrated from XP to vista and hated vista are more willing to go to an "

Re:Vista

[by Anonymous Coward]

i'm having a parade tomorrow. perhaps you could drop by and piss all over it.

Re:Vista

[Ian Alexander (997430)]

Yeah, good luck with that. Seriously. I have nothing against Linux but the fanboism is really starting to stink up the place. Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on? At least with the download Joe Sixpack has a Windows disk to fall back on if Linux turns out to be something that he simply doesn't want. With the Dell offer he's either going to have to put up with an OS that he was already too lazy to download or he's going to have to go Windows on a retail basis. Guess what kind of bitching and moaning that's going to cause.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? Someone who can't be bothered to download the half-gig .iso's, burn them, install them, and possibly configure the newly installed OS so it actually works correctly on their hardware might like the idea of having all that done for them so they get a sqeaky-clean install that works out of the box?

Re:Vista

[enharmonix (988983)]

Someone ... might like the idea of having all that done for them so they get a sqeaky-clean install that works out of the box?

We have a winner. This is why Windows and Macintosh have had commercial success in the desktop market while Linux flails: the computer works out of the box. And Windows wins out of the two because PCs are cheaper than Macs. The big problem with Linux distros is a lack of usable, pre-installed software and working drivers. Users have never liked or understood command lines.

You almost need a manufacturer to bother taking the time to put together a bundle where everything "just works" out of the box. If they can negotiate selling Ubuntu desktops/laptops without the Windows tax, you just might see a real shift in marketshare. The only thing missing is some form of Bootcamp: Linux Edition (UboontuCamp? nah...) so people can play their games.

Re:Vista

[MindStalker (22827)]

Nope, I've had several barely computer literate coworkers ask me how they go about buying a computer without Vista.

Re:Vista

[physicsnick (1031656)]

The general population never even got enough of a whiff of vista to stop buying PCs with it on it.

That's just not the case. Word of mouth goes a very long way in computers; people don't know what to buy, so they ask the local computer geek. He's the guy who will tell them to avoid Vista at all costs.

I know several laypeople who have purchased computers with Vista, and they go out of their way to tell people how bad it is. You could walk up to anyone on the street and ask them what they know about Vista, and I'd be willing to bet a significant fraction of them could tell you they've heard bad things about it.

It's called XP. If you think for one second that users who migrated from XP to vista and hated vista are more willing to go to an "unknown" OS versus going back to XP you are out of your mind.

I completely agree. The fact that Dell is re-introducing XP confirms this. However, Ubuntu desktop computers are not likely to show up for many more months, and Windows has already stated that they're not allowing manufacturers to sell XP OEM in 2008.

People are certainly more willing to go back to XP, but pretty soon they won't have the choice.

There is enough stuff out there today for Joe to get his taste of Linux if he's interested.

No, there isn't. How many people can install an operating system? It's not even a matter of making it easy for them; most people are just too afraid to try. A preloaded machine from a major manufacturer with full customer support gives them the comfort they need to go with it, and the stability and total lack of viruses or spyware is the selling point.

Anything's possible

[Mateo_LeFou (859634)]

"Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on?"

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?

PS, Joe: you don't have to pony up another $200 for Office, either.

Re:Anything's possible

[east coast (590680)]

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.

Re:Anything's possible

[Coryoth (254751)]

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.

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?

Brand awareness...

[LinuxGeek (6139)]

works for some products, but not everything. Your coke/pepsi/generic cola example is about a cheap and quickly consumed product. If they don't really like the generic,it will only last a short while and is cheap enough that they can toss it out if it is truly horrible.

Where windows/linux is concerned, let me relate a recent experience. My nephew just moved out of his parents house and out from behind the router and firewall I had configured. He got dsl and hooked it up to straight from the modem and into his computer. Guess what? Within three days he couldn't run either IE or firefox, they would just crash when launched. Before, he hadn't really appreciated the delicate nature of windows or the importance of a good firewall.

I installed the newly released Ubuntu 7.04 and he is tickled. He can do everything that he needs with totally free (in every respect) software. I showed him some windows games running under wine on my laptop and he was interested, but since he is now working and going to school, games are not as important. We haven't even bothered fixing his winxp install yet. His roommate was watching me setup Beryl and was asking a lot of questions about this linux thing, completely surprised at the maturity and features of the new Ubuntu. Brand awareness of Windows and Microsoft is very high with both of those guys, but seeing the differences in action has greatly tempered any effects of that awareness.

Depends

[CasperIV (1013029)]

People are stupid. Why do you think people run out and buy a $40,000 SUV while gas prices are nearing $4 a gallon and the only use is to get groceries and haul around their 1.5 kids? Why do you think people are running out to buy a hybrid, when right now the best technology we can implement for the batteries only suggest a life of 3 years and the battery is the majority of the value of the car? Same people are buying computers. Why do you think some of the worst systems make the most money? The average person doesn't know DDR RAM from a Dodge RAM, so when they walk in to buy a system they look at 3 key things: Price, Style, and Prestige. If the laptop looks like a brown box with lights, but boasts the best stats in the world, they average consumer will walk right past it for the Dell or HP that looks cuter. The operating system is all part of the style of the machine. If the OS looks good but not intimidating, they will love it. When it comes to price, if the laptop costs $900 with XP and a system costs $800 with Linux, they will most likely go with the cheaper solution (provided they are not looking for specific applications that are windows specific, and the sales person does not down talk the cheaper system for commission). The prestige of a product comes form the water cooler gossip. If the office has a bunch of wanna be techs, then they will be talking up linux like there's no tomorrow. If the office is full of ignorant users, they will probably be down talking linux because they can't figure it out and all they see are limitations. This is the area that will most greatly affect the sales of the systems. If it's "cool" to have more people are likely to buy it. A great example of this is the ipod trend. Ipods are nothing special, in fact they lack 80% of the features of the better MP3/Video players on the market, but they have all 3 areas covered. They are cute and simple, they are cheap, and they are the "cool" thing to have right now.

Re:Depends

[level_headed_midwest (888889)]

I think I'd want a pickup truck to haul around the 1.5 kids. The one kid wouldn't be a problem, but that half of a kid would be awfully messy to have inside the vehicle.

Re:

[mbrod (19122)]

Business hated it too. They don't want to have upgrades forced upon them any more than consumers do. They want the freedom to upgrade when they want. Also M$ moving from VS6 to .NET breaks development plans of a lot of legacy business systems. That pissed them off too. So the momentum is coming from both the consumer and business.

We do owe it to M$, for not playing nice. There are a lot of other players who are willing to play nice and take their place.

Re:Vista

[by Anonymous Coward]

It is because of Microsoft, but not in the way slashies hope.

Dell just created a bargaining chip in pricing negotiations Windows licenses for their bread and butter business.

Re:Vista

[dAzED1 (33635)]

also, the CIA was behind 9/11 - as we could see in Oakland this last weekend, concrete and steel don't melt and become unstable.

It could be, and I know this is crazy, but it could be that what lots of people have requested (or several people have requested many times each, depending), Dell is simply providing. There is a potential demand, but no supply. Dell knows they did a piss-poor attempt with their previous Linux offerings, so they can't really count that failure against Linux on the Desktop as a paradigm. Additionally, it has been a few years, and Linux has matured in the desktop world a bit more.

What Ubuntu brings in to all this is an integrated role-based system with handy tools and such. This means Dell can sleep a little better at night not thinking everyone is logged in as root on their boxes, surfing the web. RedHat doesn't do this, and Ubuntu has this huge silly grassroots thing right now (a grassroots movement that will feel the sting of betrayal in about 18 months, by my guess).

There are actual reasons to do this, sans some silly bargaining chip for negotiations with MS. Sometimes a cigar is, indeed, just a cigar.

Drivers, Drivers, Drivers, Drivers!

[ibi (61235)]

[Cue monkey boy dance]. The biggest benefit that could come out of this for *all* Linux users would be better hardware support. If manufactures think that "Hey, no Linux driver means we're not supporting part of Dell's consumer line" they might get serious about writing (open?) drivers or at least making it easier for the community to support their stuff.

And if Linux can end up being 5% of Dell's consumer sales (though even that might be optimistic) it's going to have a huge effect - because Dell is more likely to bundle stuff that will work with their entire line, not just 95% of it. Supporting one type of hardware is cheaper than two. (Though, of course, so it supporting only one kind of OS, which is how we got here :-) It would be so great if you could just assume that any random printer would totally work with Linux...

So who's going to buy them?

[eln (21727)]

People on the Internet (places like Slashdot in particular) have been begging Dell for this for years. Now, it's time to see how many of those people were doing it just on principle or to be part of the crowd, and how many did it because they actually were planning on purchasing such a box.

Dell may offer this, but I guarantee they won't be advertising it as heavily as they do their Windows boxes, so the only real way for it to work, at least to start off, is for all these people that were begging for Dells with Ubuntu loaded on them to go out and buy a Dell with Ubuntu loaded on it. Joe Blow won't be buying these yet, not until there are enough early adopters out there to generate a buzz.

Re:So who's going to buy them?

[Billosaur (927319)]

Personally, I have resisted the siren call of Dell for a long time. This changes my mind. I need a new machine and this could be just the ticket -- it was either that or refurb an old HP with a new HD and a copy of Feisty Fawn. I like the idea of it pre-loaded.

Will people buy it??

[Hokie06 (986634)]

Now lets see if half of those people that voted for Linux on the ideastorm site actually buy a machine. Because if this flops it will seriously hurt Linux in the mainstream market.

Re:Will people buy it??

[Hercynium (237328)]

Bingo.

Of course... I'm about to purchase two new machines for friends who A. Need new computers and B. Are really frustrated with Windows.

I gave one an Edgy Eft Live CD and the other a Feisty Fawn Live CD to see if they felt they could use Linux instead... *both* had the same, very minor, complaints - Websites with Flash and Java don't work (drop-dead easy to fix, esp. in Feisty) and they felt it was kinda slow, running from the CD (duh) Of course, the sad part is that their Windows installations were actually *slower* because of poor maintenance.

If Dell does it right and includes Flash, Java, DVD-playback and other common video codecs, and charges the same as or less than the Windows-based systems, I'll jump. I'm assuming that proper driver support is a given.

Granted, this also puts a challenge to Canonical - STOP BREAKING DRIVERS!!! Every new release seems to have a spate of driver-compatibility regressions. I know this is due to the nature of upstream maintenance vs. distro maintenance, but it's time for them to step up to the plate and make it a non-issue.

Again - all players will have to do it right for this to be a win-win.

What?

[OECD (639690)]

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...

What? If servers are where the money is, why not start there? If I was a stockholder I'd be concerned about that approach.

Re:What?

[eln (21727)]

It's kind of silly to say that Dell isn't already making tons of money on the Linux server market. After all, Dell sells tons of server hardware with no OS pre-loaded. Quite a lot of those servers end up with Linux on them. Most companies will have their own images of Linux that they use for their servers, so preloading it is a waste of time. Any pre-loaded image will just get blown away anyway.

Re:What?

[Kjella (173770)]

CIO: "Let's see now, you're a startup incorporated two months ago, with no past experience building a Linux distro and no track record of reliability or usability. I've asked my tech people about you, but you're generally unknown to them. You want us to trust our enterprise servers to you?" *hysterical laughter* "No."

as opposed to:
CIO: "I see you've for the last few years have built a generally acclaimed Linux distribution focused on the desktop and usability. and fairly stably as desktop distributions go. Those of my techs that have tried it gives it high prise. Now you're telling me you'd like to expand on this to provide more server-oriented solutions? Of course I expect a good price and tight follow-up from your support since your new in this market, but you've got your foot in the door."

Linux needs no Windows Tax

[rayde (738949)]

i remember seeing dell machines that offered linux instead of windows in the past.. but the prices were the same or HIGHER for linux! Dell will need to address this, and offer these dellbuntu boxes at lower price. the OS is free! if they need to include a price to cover support costs, it should still not be equal to or greater than the cost of including Vista!

Re:Linux needs no Windows Tax

[physicsnick (1031656)]

The problem with Windows machines is that you don't just get Windows; you get Windows and a pile of craplets, which companies are paying Dell to supply to you. Windows can have a negative price tag on low-end computers because the cost is offset by all the garbage your computer comes filled with.

Re:Linux needs no Windows Tax

[TobascoKid (82629)]

But with Ubuntu installed, all you need to do is:

sudo apt-get install dell-crapplets

No need for Dell to send you a CD.

Why not pre-installed Dual Boots?

[Critical Facilities (850111)]

Dell will need to address this, and offer these dellbuntu boxes at lower price.

Agreed. Moreover, if Dell is REALLY interested in sparking the interest of "Joe Sixpack" in test driving Linux, I'd recommend they offer an option to have a desktop/laptop preconfigured to Dual Boot for the same price as a Windows Only machine. I agree with some of the other posters in that it's unlikely that your average user is going to be terribly interested in Linux preinstalled (unless there's a considerable price diffe

Call me crazy..

[foodnugget (663749)]

So we're expecting a flood of people complaining about how they are offering one specific distro, and none others. The big worry here was that few people would be happy with whatever 1 distro was picked, and picking many, and subsequently supporting them, would be a problem.
so my question: As I feel about it - I was under the impression that the idea behind getting linux pre-loaded was that you simply aren't paying for an OS you don't want. IIRC, it has been awhile, or it has never been possible, to get a blank HD with your system from dell. Personally, I think this would be the best option. Linux, configured totally-not-the-way-I-want -it would be one step better, as I'm not shelling out the $235345 for windows, which I'm just going to delete anyway.
Don't get me started on how when a relative or co-worker buys one of these things, you have to format the computer just to get rid of all of the annoyware that comes with it. (Mcafee! Musicmatch jukebox? Qualcomm service agreement? WTF is this agreement that comes pre-installed and pre-agreed to? )
Am I under the wrong impression here, or can we be happy just to not have windows pre-loaded, and not be paying for something that is going to get deleted?
Do we really have to argue about whether or not Ubuntu was the way to go? I can't imagine a single person in this crowd who would be happy with the way dell will set it up, and if the argument is that it will introduce linux to the masses, well, I just don't see that happening. The only people who don't already know what they're doing who wind up ordering a dell box with linux already on it are only going to order it because of the cost discount.
Then they'll do one of two things:
Ask you to show them how to use it (ugh)
pirate/buy windows.
So, my original question: We're happy because this primarily means not paying for windows when we're not using it, right? What other benefits are there?

Drivers

[WED Fan (911325)]

Do they plan to sell this on less capable machines because the drivers just aren't available for the latest and greatest of options? Or, will they still sell you a machine with the hottest hardware, but no ability to use it?

What's been missing from linux so far...

[mstahl (701501)]

...is a hardware platform that consumers are guaranteed will work with a particular distribution of Linux. It doesn't even matter which one it is as long as it comes, out of the box, ready for use. That's the only thing that, so far, Windows has always had up on any distro of Linux.

But perhaps.....

[8127972 (73495)]

.... this is more about painting Microsoft into a corner by first flipping back to selling XP on some of their systems, and now this. I suspect that Dell is going to be in a very interesting position when they go to re-negotiate their OEM agreement with Microsoft where they can try and dictate the terms that they want.

Dude, you got Ubuntu.

[EveryNickIsTaken (1054794)]

Sorry, but it just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Obligatory

[eosp (885380)]

Does it run Li...ooh, it does!

Thanks you Dell

[jshriverWVU (810740)]

Now I can buy my first Dell w/ Ubuntu loaded already for me *tears up* it's a beautiful day :)

Linux on Dell

[oneandoneis2 (777721)]

http://geekblog.oneandoneis2.org/index.php/2007/03 /29/linux_on_dell [oneandoneis2.org]

(To the tune of "Road to Hell")

Well I'm here to place an order
But there's a choice I don't know
It's weathered every crisis you can think of
And I came here to buy Vista
But the Windows joy I know
Is priced beyond belief way down in the shadows
And the need for anti-virus
Chokes the smile on every face
And common sense is screaming, "What the Hell!?"
This ain't no technological breakdown
Oh no, this is Linux on Dell

And I don't need to ask for credit
And there's nothing they can do
But watch the E.U.L.A.s, flying away from you
Oh look out world, take a good look
What goes down here
You must learn not to have fear of the G.P.L.
This ain't no vendor lock-in-forced upgrade
Oh no!
This is Linux
This is Linux
This is Linux on Dell

And to think...

[i.r.id10t (595143)]

... I just spent $800 on a laptop for the wife (from Dell with XP on it)... had this been out a week earlier, I woulda gone Ubuntu (planning on it anyway...)

Dual Boot Please (Pre-loaded)

[HighOrbit (631451)]

I can happily use Linux for most desktop stuff, but I still "need" Windows to play my games. I want to get the Linux certified hardware, but I also want OEM pricing on my Vista license. I don't want to have to go buy Vi$ta Ultimate retail.

So here is the dilemma: - I want the linux hardware and they will probably only offer it with Linux OS. But I want the Vista OS too at OEM pricing. If I buy the Vista box, that is a lost sale for Linux. If I buy the Linux box, I have to go spend extra money for Vista.

Hopefully Dell will offer pre-loaded dual boot or a Linux-ready box with Vista that will count as a "Linux" sale

Re:

[stinerman (812158)]

Yeah, openSUSE. And then there'd be a flamewar about how Dell is still in bed with Microsoft.

Really, I expected it to be openSUSE for just that reason. Now, the question is how much Microsoft will retaliate with respect to Vista licences in the future.

Seeing as I don't buy computers (I buy parts and then assemble them), this doesn't affect me much, but all the same it's good that people are getting more choices.

Re:Yep.

[ColdWetDog (752185)]

the question for me is how their "offshore apology service" will hande tech support calls for linux related issues.

UbuntuNewbie: "I'm having a problem with my new computer".

DellSupportDrone: "Hi, I'm Bob from Wheatfield, Kansas - how can I help you?"

UbuntuNewbie: "Well, it works OK but I don't like the color scheme, how to I get the bright blues and reds my old computer had?"

DellSupportDrone: "Is the computer plugged in?."

UbuntuNewbie: "Yep, I did that.Like I said, it works OK but ... "

DellSupportDrone: "OK, reboot the computer three or four times."

UbuntuNewbie: "But...."

DellSupportDrone: "If that doesn't work, reinstall the operating system."

UbuntuNewbie: But...."

DellSupportDrone: "Thanks for calling Dell Support, have a nice day!"

Click

See, no problem. They don't even need to change the script.

Re:Yep.

[porkThreeWays (895269)]

Sometimes you just have to take leadership and make a choice. It may not be the perfect choice, but it's a final decision that will get things rolling forward. I already know there will be a billion posts arguing why another distribution is better than another, but the point is moot. Ubuntu is a great distro. There are other distros out there that are great too. Distrowatch ranks it at #1 in popularity. Also, the choice of Ubuntu will make many in the community happy as Ubuntu isn't controversial with its licensing. A high quality, popular, FOSS distro. They could have made other choices, but I think Ubuntu will make the most amount of people happy, is an extremely safe decision, and they only have to support a single distro.

Re:Ubuntu on servers? NO THANK YOU.

[PaisteUser (810863)]

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.

Re:Ubuntu on servers? NO THANK YOU.

[Zonk (troll) (1026140)]

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.

Using Ubuntu releases like Edgy and Feisty on a server is a bad idea a they're only supported for 18 months. However, Ubuntu now does LTS (Long Term Support) releases, first of which being Dapper. Support is 3 years for desktops and 5 years for servers. more info [ubuntu.com].

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.

Re:Why would anyone want linux (now)?

[drinkypoo (153816)]

But today, what does linux do, out of the box, that would make you want to switch your desktop? I can think of one reason: MythTV. Any others??? Or is this a ten-year plan on Dell's part?

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.