Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business

Ubuntu On Dell After Four Months 378

mrcgran sends us to LXer for an interview with John Hull, a manager of the Linux Engineering team at Dell, where he reports on how the Ubuntu machines have been working out for them so far. "Embracing Ubuntu Linux on our desktops and laptops seems to have really raised Dell's visibility within the Linux community. We have been supporting, testing, developing for, and selling Linux for 8+ years here at Dell, but before the Ubuntu announcement, a lot of people didn't know that we did any of that... Previous to our Ubuntu product announcement... we would have a conversations with vendors about pushing Linux support for their hardware, but without a Linux product offering from Dell for that hardware, it was very difficult to convince them to release Linux drivers. That has certainly changed now... The original sales estimates for Ubuntu computers was around 1% of the total sales, or about 20,000 systems annually. The program so far is meeting expectations. Customers are certainly showing their interest and buying systems preloaded with Ubuntu, but it certainly won't overtake Microsoft Windows anytime soon."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubuntu On Dell After Four Months

Comments Filter:
  • I for one... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AmaDaden ( 794446 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:12AM (#20993607)
    Thank our Ubuntu pushing over lords. This kind of demand from a major vendor is just the kind of visibility that Linux needs for hardware makers to finally start working on Linux drivers on their own. With any luck soon suporting linux will be standard and not some kind of "giving to the weirdos" for hardware makers.
  • by MoonFog ( 586818 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:15AM (#20993623)
    You had to ask for Linux in a very different way. Now, they are offering a proper desktop alternative, which wasn't the case before, so when he says they've had Linux for 8+ years, it doesn't tell the whole story. There's a difference between offering Linux, under the table more or less, and offering it as an actual alternative to Windows when you're ordering your new laptop.

    Nonetheless, kudos to Dell and here's to hoping more vendors pick up this trend.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:20AM (#20993665)
    To be honest, I don't think it has to take over, nor do I think it will. Even Firefox didn't take over IE, but it did have some impact, and Microsoft changed its crappy CSS support to a _slightly_ better one. If Linux achieves ~20% or so it will be much harder for Microsoft to push its proprietary standards, and everyone benefits.
  • Re:okay... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoonFog ( 586818 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:21AM (#20993671)
    Not everyone is capable of building their own computer, and when a large vendor like this gives Linux a shot, chances are that more people who would normally not adopt Linux will look towards it as a proper alternative instead of a geek system.

    Your experiences with Dell and their hardware applies to Windows boxes as well usually, and Dell may influence other vendors to try Linux in the same way, thus the issues with support may get remedied in the long run as well.
  • by PianoComp81 ( 589011 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:22AM (#20993679)
    What I'd like to see Dell offer is the chance to get both Ubuntu and Windows installed by the factory as a dual-boot system. While I normally use Linux, I need Windows for a few games still. I know, I know, I'm never satisfied. While I'm glad Dell is selling desktops with Linux now, a dual-boot offer would be a great improvement.
  • by Luterek ( 1174623 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:32AM (#20993743)
    It's great that they are offering Ubuntu, but it is only available on one desktop system not the entire line-up and you need to go to a specific section of their website. I wish I could click customize and when the OS section comes up choose Ubuntu.
  • by iamdjsamba ( 1024979 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:33AM (#20993745) Homepage
    I know i'll probably get slaughtered for this, but I agree with this statement completely.

    I'm completely pro open source, and started off with Ubuntu as my first linux distro about a year ago, as everyone was raving on about it. Really impressed with the package manager, but I was completely lost when it came to installing stuff that wasn't in there.

    I'm on Mandriva now, which is a massively improved user experience, where most of my stuff worked perfectly out the box (except my wireless, which took a bit of work, but I got there eventually). However, I'm now in a position where I want to install subversion and tomcat, and it's really not easy. Windows wins in this situation, because of the ease of automated installers. Which is a great shame, and I know I'll get lambasted because I haven't done enough research or put the effort into to learning the basics of installing on linux properly, but for it to ever be accepted in the mainstream by your average Joe, things like that need to "just work".
  • by zergl ( 841491 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:45AM (#20993839)

    However, I'm now in a position where I want to install subversion and tomcat, and it's really not easy. Windows wins in this situation, because of the ease of automated installers. Which is a great shame, and I know I'll get lambasted because I haven't done enough research or put the effort into to learning the basics of installing on linux properly, but for it to ever be accepted in the mainstream by your average Joe, things like that need to "just work".

    Tomcat and SVN probably isn't part of what average Joe will use.

    While it's true that "professional" or "power user" software isn't that easy to setup (messing around in the configs with an editor, etc.), I don't think it would bother the ordinary desktop user very much, because he'll probably never need it.

    OTOH, installing everyday software like OOo, Gimp, Firefox, small little games etc. is extremely easy on linux in comparison to windows. Browse repository, install and forget. With the added bonus that the software you get is very probably free of malware of any kind (if you use $DISTRO default repository) and same goes for updates to that software.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @08:47AM (#20993855)
    I think Dell still has some work cut out for them before anything "real" happens on their Linux front.

    A product has to solve a real world problem AND offer some measurable benefit. So to offer Linux on Dell hardware - server of desktop - solves ONE of the real-world Linux problems: hardware compatibility. But in my view this should only be just the beginning, a good first step. What I am personally looking for is additional benefits on top of plain simple compatibility. Offer me a Linux Laptop that works in all hardware aspects as well as a MacBook, then top it with proven (i.e benchmarked) performance increase. More runtime and bandwidth, faster startup times, additional gadgets or security features, etc. Offer me a software update service that is top-notch (i.e. a distro mirror operated by Dell) and betters the community system. Offer me a software bundle that drives all my hardware seamlessly, i.e. if the Ubuntu distro doesn't have the webcam tool to compete with "Photo Booth", hire 5 programmers and develop it. It's demonstrated real-world betterment over the competition that will sell me for a Dell - compatibility, freedom and $50 off is not enough. So until that time comes, my Linux boxes will be whitebox PCs where I choose the components and my laptop will be a MacBook with a full 'port' install.

    --AS
  • by Toreo asesino ( 951231 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:05AM (#20994115) Journal
    I, for the first time actually got a friend setup on Ubuntu a couple of weeks ago. Normally, being of the Microsoft persuasion, I'd recommend Windows if nothing else for its generally universal familiarity if nothing else (all the other PC's in the house were WinBoxes), but the machine she was given was free and not very good. The Windows installed on it was Win ME that wouldn't get even to the desktop unless in safe mode, so it had to go, but it was not capable of running XP to any degree of sanity (128 mb ram, celeron processor, etc), and indeed there was the licensing issue too.

    A perfect opportunity for Ubuntu I thought! Or not, as it turned out.

    I downloaded and burnt the latest CD image and installed it. Everything was installed fine, except the network card was not detected, rendering the machine even less useful than the butchered ME installation that was on it before. She only wanted to browse the net and read GMail basically, so without a network connection, the laptop was now as good as a large paper-weight.

    Now, this is by no means a flame against Ubuntu at all. Before it turned out Ubuntu was compatible, I was thinking to myself that if there's one area Ubuntu could really grow in is the "too old to run Windows x/y/z" which sets the hardware requirement bar higher & higher with each release.

    Despite what Microsoft say, Vista is not suited to all PC's - but arguably, Ubuntu is suited to run on almost anything assuming you don't mind common commercial apps/games aren't going to run for newbies (for obvious reasons).

    So, if I had one suggestion for Ubuntu/Linux is please, get it to run on shite hardware! Refurbished machines are overlooked if you ask me as many people really can't be bothered to buy new hardware, and Windows really isn't so suited for them in many cases.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:08AM (#20994141)
    You've only solved half the problem. I used getdeb.net to get Pidgin 2.3 for 7.04, but I can't upgrade directly from GAIM 2.1 because the ubuntu-desktop meta-package has a dependency on GAIM 2.1 and...well, you get the idea. I have to keep GAIM 2.1 and Pidgin 2.3 installed alongside each other to keep the package manager happy.

    Linux distribution have developed an over dependency on package management as a cure-all instead of trying to fix a few of the underlying problems. Namely, poor standardisation, a poorly defined baseline and poor componentisation.
  • by VagaStorm ( 691999 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:13AM (#20994191) Homepage
    Now, if every linux game was as easy to install as Americas army, it would all have been a walk in the park. Unfortunately, even installing games that has a linux port can be hard at times.... I had to find out patch, alter the code(I have no right alt on my keyboard) and recompile sdl to get nwn working as I wanted the last time I installed it :p But unlike windows that seems to become stranger evry version, linux becomes simpler every time one of the larger distros makes a major release, which seems to happen at least once every 1-2 months :D
  • Not in norway. :-( (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arcade ( 16638 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:13AM (#20994193) Homepage
    I was hoping to get a Ubuntu laptop here in Norway.

    So far - no such luck. I'm looking forward to that day, so that I can just order one. But until they ship it, it's difficult.

    Hey DELL! We norwegians want Ubuntu on our laptops too!
  • by jeffblevins ( 554702 ) * on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:21AM (#20994293) Homepage

    We have been supporting, testing, developing for, and selling Linux for 8+ years here at Dell, but before the Ubuntu announcement, a lot of people didn't know that we did any of that...
    Selling Linux on business systems maybe. Until now, I don't recall seeing any consumer class PC's or Laptops that even had the option of shipping without windows. A quick tour of their site still reveals that they recommend Windows Vista for everything. Maybe thats why no one knew before..
  • by supermank17 ( 923993 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:38AM (#20994499)
    I dunno, people trot out this argument every time the debate of Linux ease of use rears its head, and I'm not entirely sure I agree. I use Ubuntu (and a couple other distros) regularly, and Windows, and OS X. I have to say that the various Linux distros, Ubuntu included, are the harder to install software on, even everyday software. The problem is that while the packages in the repository are easy to install, many pieces of software still don't exist in the repository. With Windows or OS X, you just find the program you want, download the installer / .app, and off you go. With Ubuntu, if the package doesn't exist, it gets considerably more painful. Painful to the point that I don't think your average user would be willing to put up with it. I think the repository system is great, I just wish that there were decent installers for when it fails. Then there are things like printer drivers. I think that adding a new printer is something that a regular user might be expected to do, but I don't think I'd expect a regular user to be able to use the command line to configure and install the supplied driver.

    Overall, installing software on Ubuntu isn't too bad. But there are still lots of cases that could cause problems for the average user, that the competing OS's don't generally suffer from.
  • by BKX ( 5066 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @09:49AM (#20994659) Journal
    You're making in incorrect assumption. It's EASIER to use a package manager. Most distros (and competent admins) seriously frown upon non-package-manager-installed software because of the problems this can introduce. Also, puTTY? Why? Just stick with the Linux/UNIX equivalents that puTTY was made to emulate. (That's right, puTTY was made for Windows users to get unix functionality, not vice versa.)

    Please, tell me one thing that putty can do that ssh, telnet, and xterm can't.
  • by DanielJosphXhan ( 779185 ) <scatterfingers.work @ g m ail.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @10:07AM (#20994913)
    When Apple bolts OS X to specific hardware, it's justified in the name of user experience. Apple stabilises the user experience by limiting the OS to a certain subset of hardware: theirs.

    Ubuntu, on the other hand, doesn't have that option. It does, however, have the option of pointing users in the direction of certain software by making it easy to install: repositories. Things that go into the repos are tested for compatibility, they install smoothly, and yet there are literally thousands of programs in the repos.

    If you want something outside the repos, you have to install it yourself. Which is not that easy unless someone has packaged the application properly.

    I like to look at this as a way of helping the Ubuntu user experience become as seamless and smooth as possible. Wide array of hardware, specific array of software.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @10:17AM (#20995063) Journal
    You need to compare apples to apples. (oops!) Take a machine that is preloaded with Linux and download a WinXP/Vista, if possible and try to install it yourself. Most people compare pre-installed windows user experience with download a full os, install and run user experience of Linux.
  • by mhall119 ( 1035984 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @10:19AM (#20995087) Homepage Journal

    With Ubuntu, if the package doesn't exist, it gets considerably more painful. Painful to the point that I don't think your average user would be willing to put up with it. I think the repository system is great, I just wish that there were decent installers for when it fails.
    .DEB is Ubuntu's equivalent of Microsoft's .MSI installer. Ubuntu will load .DEB files (and apt:// URLs [ubuntu.com]) in GDebi, which informs you of any dependencies, resolves them if they are available in any of your repositories, and installed the package. Developers just need to create the .DEB package, they don't need to use a third-party installation wizard. The problem isn't that Ubuntu doesn't have an easy to use installer, its that not every developer bothers to make .DEB files.
  • by Cato ( 8296 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @11:55AM (#20996799)
    .DEBs are a bit like .MSIs, but there are some major differences - as you mention, you can use Gdebi to install arbitrary .DEBs bu8t it's a lot better if the package is actually in a repository already. The big difference is that for packages in a repository, you can install a whole set of packages (tens or hundreds) with a single operation, whether CLI or GUI.

    Try doing that with Windows Installers - just keeping a Windows box up to date with security fixes (beyond Windows and MS Office) is quite time consuming, whereas on Ubuntu the system actually prompts you like Windows Update *for every app you have ever installed* from an Ubuntu repository...
  • by mhall119 ( 1035984 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @12:27PM (#20997391) Homepage Journal

    whereas on Ubuntu the system actually prompts you like Windows Update *for every app you have ever installed* from an Ubuntu repository...
    A minor clarification for those who might not know, Ubuntu's update manager will update any software from *any* repository you tell it to use, not just the repositories hosted by Ubuntu. The Trevino [tuxfamily.org] repositories are particularly popular with Ubuntu users, plus Google [google.com] and the Wine project [winehq.org] hosts their own repositories, as do many other projects.
  • by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Tuesday October 16, 2007 @12:50PM (#20997783)
    As the article hints, we should be expecting a wider variety of options for computers equipped with Linux in the not-so-distant future. This is mostly due to Dell working with their wireless hardware providers to release drivers to kernel.org, and also because of AMD opening up their fglrx drivers. I strongly believe that once AMD finishes opening their drivers, more game developers will code in OpenGL and OpenAL instead of just DirectX, and thus result in easier times porting games from Windows to both Linux and Macs. So, is it safe to say that Mac users will benefit from this too then?

Your computer account is overdrawn. Please reauthorize.

Working...