Is Dell Just Testing the Market? 287
sarig_magik asks: "It seems that Dell is testing the Linux desktop market worldwide, and their choice of desktop is Linspire 4.51. I wonder how Microsoft will view Dell, now? Could this be a real attempt to gain a foothold before any of the other distributors do? We know the hardware vendor, but can anyone comment on the choice of OS?" Although Dell is offering a system with a preloaded Linux Desktop, they aren't doing it here in the US, but through their Italian partner, Questar. While the choice of Linspire as a desktop may leave a few of you underwhelmed, this does seem to be a step in the right direction. Is Dell testing the market? Of course they are. How well do you think they will do?
It's a good start (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal problems (Score:2, Insightful)
Also remember the legal trouble Linspire had when it was Lindows.
Things do Happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they every decide to install new hardware they might. Although I have no idea how often the average Dell consumer actually upgrades their machine instead of just waiting to buy a new one?
Re:Not Very Well (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a combination you don't see every day.
I'd actually support a subscription model for Linux desktops. You don't necessarily pay for the software. You pay some local guy to come around every Friday to play Bridge and update your software. (He'll bring this week's updates on CD. And he'll happily train your child or grandchild in Linux system administration.)
Give Linux a friendly face.
Re:the REAL question is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a good start (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a good start (Score:5, Insightful)
While Linspire might not be ideal for the hard core folks, it's a good first choice for people who want to find out what all the buzz is about and see what it's like to live in a world free of virii and pop-ups, without having to worry about the administrative overhead of a Debian or a Gentoo install. Let them get comfortable first before suggesting such a quantum leap like that.
Do They WANT To Fail? (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe Dell WANTS to fail, to justify future lack of Linux support. Because I can't see this being successful. Especially because they will undoubtedly have various devices that don't run under Linux -- modem, wireless card, etc. Until the hardware is 100% supported, Linux won't make inroads with the common man. And until they ditch Linspire, they won't make inroads with geeks.
Paranoia mode (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Microsoft has some serious security issues
3) Microsoft has no clear "target" to say, "hey Linux too has security issues"
4) Microsoft ask Dell to start shipping Linux
5)
6) Microsoft steathly release an exploit/virus/whatever that target Dell's Linux machines
7) voila! Bingo! Next on CNN, "Linux is target of a mass viral infection! Microsoft has the solution!"
8) A page show up on microsoft.com talking about how Linux is bad, etc...
Really, it makes sense...
OK, I'll put back my foil hat now. Kthxbye.
Re:Things do Happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Check back in a year (Score:2, Insightful)
/. users can be hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a good start (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I have a question..... (Score:4, Insightful)
1.) Dell is bound by liscense agreements with Microsoft to ship consumer PC's with a copy of Windows installed. (notice I said consumer PC's)
2.) Dell does ship servers with linux pre-installed to businesses. So, there's no contractual requirement forcing Dell to ship a machine to a business with Windows.
3.) Dell will ship desktop machines to businesses with FreeDOS installed (they call it the no-OS option). This re-enforces the statement in 2.
4.) Questar is buying white-boxes with the no-OS option, and intalling Linspire itself. Questar then ships these to consumers. This is a work-around for case 1.
5.) Dell is testing the waters in Europe. Once they've got the bugs worked out, they'll start shipping machines, under another name, with Linux pre-installed, within the U.S.
There's nothing to prevent a mom and pop shop from buying white-boxes from Dell today and doing what Questar is doing, inside the U.S. Maybe this is what Dell wants. It's a win-win. They sell machines (albiet not Dell branded) and consumers get machines with Linux pre-installed.
I bet (Score:1, Insightful)
One can expect them to drop Linux again in a few weeks once they have been to Redmond to have a personal talk with Bill and Steve
(you know MS dont want to loose one of their biggest resellers)
Lindows... Linspire? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, Lindows should have set up root and a default user, and a bunch of sudo gui programs to admin the box. The default user should have been a random name, with the installation option to change to a user-chosen name. Then use the autologin feature of gdm/kdm/xdm so the system boots to a ready-to-just-use state.
Next thought... Include something like pam_usb hooked into the sudo, and include a USB memory key. The installation process sets up the key, and then you plug it in to administer the box. Make the user aware that the key IS the security, and not to leave it just plugged in. Possibly even limit the admin that can be done while the network is up. Include a sticky hook so it can be stored on the system.
Does Linspire run users as root?
Microsoft discount (Score:4, Insightful)
Competition reduces cost - economics 101.
Re:the REAL question is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahhhh, now I understand. Hell, if the 3rd world would just steal everything they need then they wouldn't have to live a life poverty. Don't you think that if Microsoft wanted to they could make their OS unpirateable? Activation keys are very close to that, if it wasn't for the no-call-in Corp edition, the option to pirate wouldn't exist at all. In fact, I'd bet that the Corp edition exists with the no-call-in feature specifically to keep the option to pirate open. I know of very few non-corporate users who, if the OS didn't come with their PC, have a valid licensed copy of XP.
"Linux" Support is the Key Here (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that Dell is supporting any linux distribution is what's significant here.
By supporting linux as the OS as a vendor, you automatically guarantee hardware support for at least one distribution.
Re:/. users can be hypocrites (Score:3, Insightful)
but no AMD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good start? Why was RH not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much the same could be said of any computing system - including acknowledged crap like MVS. Nobody claims that the mainframe o/s like MVS are ideal any more, but ten years ago there were still people arround who had never used anything else and thought that the MVS way of doing things was perfect.
Linux is essentially architected the same way a modern mainframe O/S are architected. You have a reasonable user interface that is connected to a terrible one via pushrods. All the work gets done by the cruft underneath, which does not matter much most of the time, but when something goes wrong you have to start fiddling with the engine.
Windows has a unitary design that is much closer to the way a car is designed, in windows the UI is the O/S, there is no underlying layer, most users never look at the registry, let alone start editing it.
From a pure architecture perspective the Windows approach is the right one, there is much less to go wrong. With Linux you have two places where things can go wrong, the O/S itself or the pushrods holding up the UI. This means it is much more likely something would go wrong, but if something does go wrong you have a lot more visibility into the problem and it is more likely that you can fix it - if you know what you are doing.
The last part is the kicker as far as being a real new computer user goes. It is very easy to learn UNIX if you have a large support community who can get you out of trouble, if you are at university or whatever. If you don't have that support structure you are not going to do UNIX for very long if there is an alternative.
Back in the early 90s the incentive for learning UNIX was that you could buy two SUN sparcstations for less than the cost of a slower VMS box. So it was worth putting up with the poor documentation and user interface. Today I just don't see the incentive, even though Linux is a major advance on SunOS or ULTRIX, the improvement there is nothing like the improvement of Windows over VMS.
Despite the claims made about OSS and innovation the fact is that in the last ten years the OSS movement has not done much more than write a copy of a 1970s O/S and layer on a 1980s window system.