Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Dell Releases Ubuntu 7.10-Powered PCs

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the gutsy-moves dept.

Linux Business 75

sjvn writes "The official word will be out any minute now, but in the meantime DesktopLinux has learned that Dell will be releasing Ubuntu 7.10 on a laptop and desktop with immediate availability. And, as an extra added bonus, they're tossing in legal DVD-playback capability. In a word: Neat."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

this pc (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21755716)

I own one of these and benchmark test to show for it [tinyurl.com]

Re:this pc (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21755762)

Hey that's cool your benmarks are very close to the ones my laptop generated [ripway.com]

Silly Me (3, Funny)

Skraut (545247) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755830)

Here I thought computers were powered by electricity.

Linux keeps getting better and better every day it seems.

Re:Silly Me (5, Funny)

Facetious (710885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756830)

Electricity! Heavens, no. Windows PCs are powered by bluster, Macs by ego, *BSD systems by antisocial energy, and Linux boxen by the collective goodwill of those yearning to breath free. (Excuse me. My bias is showing.)

Re:Silly Me (3, Funny)

LrdDimwit (1133419) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759238)

I'll say your bias is showing. 'Bluster' is an interesting euphemism for "souls of the damned".

Re:Silly Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21828826)

...and apparently Ego is what works best, then.

Re:Silly Me (4, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757328)

Here I thought computers were powered by electricity.
They are. They put Tux on a hamster wheel attached to a generator. Bastards.

Re:Silly Me (1)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763254)

I believe Ubuntu experiments with different animals in variously-sized hamster wheels each release, hence the weird version names: grumpy gibbon, wheezing warthog, faltering fawn, etc.

Even sillyer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21757760)

I thought they were releasing Ubuntu 7.10 on PowerPC chipped computers! Hey, maybe they'll get Flash working on Linux for PPC was my first thought... :)

Pitty (1)

caffiend666 (598633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755856)

Pitty their website doesn't work with Firefox 1.5 in Linux, I can't choose options such as OS. Doubt this qualifies as being slashdotted. Dell, we love you guys, but first things first....

Re:Pitty (3, Informative)

osssmkatz (734824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755896)

Post this in the firefox forums, but make sure you're running the latest version (the latest patch). It's a bug I encountered on one other site with popup menus not working. You can also order by phone.

--Sam

Re:Pitty (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756120)

Firefox 1.5.x has been EOL for a long time now. Upgrading Firefox to 2.0.0.11 will probably fix your problem.

Re:Pitty (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757090)

At this point he might as well wait for FF3.

Re:Pitty (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758098)

Why? Is it going to take a month or something to download FF2, or is Firefox 2 so hard to install that it'd just be too much effort to install right now?

Re:Pitty (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758180)

No, it's just that he's already waited this long, and FF3 is already in (2nd) beta. Why upgrade just in time to upgrade again?

Re:Pitty (2, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758364)

Because there's no downside?

I mean, honestly, you're making it sound like this is unbelievably hard work. We're talking about downloading a program that installs without any trouble at all, and "just works" when upgrading. It's going to take him all of one minute to go through the upgrade process, if that, plus whatever time it takes to download. Twice in two months? Most people spend more effort switching on their computers in the morning.

And, honestly, upgrading to FF3 as soon as it is released is probably unwise anyway. I know I'm not going to. I'd prefer to wait a week or two to see the kinks ironed out.

Re:Pitty (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758834)

I don't mean to make it sound hard. It's just that if he felt that upgrading was worth it, he would have done so already.

Re:Pitty (1)

Sudheer_BV (1049540) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762782)

Upgrading software is a never ending story. It is very likely that his distro provides Firefox 2.x. It's just a matter of running the update program. Waiting for another release of Firefox doesn't make sense. Well, he can also wait for Firefox 4.x, 5.x, 6.x, ...

specs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21755858)

SPec release of said computers can be found here [tinyurl.com]

that's cool and all... (0, Redundant)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755908)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?

Re:that's cool and all... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756192)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?


Only if you spend about three hours manually editting config files, and have another computer handy to download new versions of stuff because teh Lunix won't boot.

In other words, it's a typical Lunix install. But on the positive side, you can chose any one of a bazillion text editors. Once you manage to get it working, that is.

Re:that's cool and all... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757362)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?
Note to the humor-impaired: that was a joke.

Re:that's cool and all... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757426)

I they don't find it funny anymore. Those that do don't seem to be getting mad points.

Re:that's cool and all... (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21760292)

Mad points? Sounds dangerous. I'll have to watch out for them.

Re:that's cool and all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21759356)

Yeah, but does it run Linux?
Note to the humor-impaired: that was a joke.

Note to the humor-impaired: barely.

first duke nukem forever now this (5, Funny)

kie (30381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755954)

The question is which will be first -
dell actually promoting linux on their front page or duke nukem forever going gold...

Seriously they must have sold a lot of the linux line to be doing this.
I bet all the chairs in Redmond are very afraid at the moment.

Re:first duke nukem forever now this (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756802)

If I was a chair in Redmond I'd be afraid with Steve Ballmer around.....

Re:first duke nukem forever now this (1)

3on3 (1007539) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756960)

you forgot the "hell freezing over" option.

Re:first duke nukem forever now this (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21770680)

Personally I think this story is barely newsworthy. It's the *same* models as previously announced but with an upgraded distro. It means they haven't scrapped it but they haven't expanded it either, and using the latest distro is hardly a surprise. In about 6 months you'll see a switch to Hardy Heron, but don't let me spoil the surprise (whoops, guess I just did). Now, if they decided to keep offering the old distro that'd be big news - see XP vs Vista.

DVD Playback (5, Insightful)

Poppler (822173) | more than 6 years ago | (#21755956)

And, as an extra added bonus, they're tossing in legal DVD-playback capability.
That's the real new here as far as I'm concerned. This is what needs to be done if they're going to try to sell these things to the home PC market.

If they're smart, they'll continue on that path and add out-of-the-box support for mp3, aac, and other non-Free multimedia.

Re:DVD Playback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756278)

Offtopic, but your sig is awesome.

Re:DVD Playback (1, Interesting)

kellyb9 (954229) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756564)

Not off topic AT ALL. If Linux or for that matter Ubuntu is ever going to become mainstream this NEEDS to happen. DVD playback has been sore spot for Linux for several years, and while it's possible, from what I understand it's legality is somewhat questionable which is why most versions don't include it out of the box.

Re:DVD Playback (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756992)

The offtopic bit was that the GP was talking about the GGP's sig, rather than the topic at hand. Hence, offtopic.

And this too is offtopic.

DVD Prayback (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21761696)

"If they're smart, they'll continue on that path and add out-of-the-box support for mp3, aac, and other non-Free multimedia."

What do you mean? Non-free? [thepiratebay.org]

What if I want to watch a crappy DVD? (5, Funny)

FuzzyDaddy (584528) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756202)

"In fact, one of the key requests from customers interested in Linux is the ability to watch their favorite DVD movies."

Of course, if it's not your favorite DVD, then the player won't work.

Re:What if I want to watch a crappy DVD? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758524)

Of course, if it's not your favorite DVD, then the player won't work.
Just MST3K it, it'll work fine.

Is the DVD playback crippled? (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756480)

I haven't read TFA (been here a while). Is the DVD playback crippled? Will it refuse to skip previews and such? It doesn't sound like a fully functional DVD player would get the blessing, and the promise not to sue, from the MPAA.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (1)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756590)

Doubt it. Dell just probably paid the patent fees and added deCSS.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (2, Interesting)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757800)

Is the DVD playback crippled? Will it refuse to skip previews and such?

A DVD player that refuses to skip previews and such isn't crippled, it's working exactly as it's designed to.

I'm not saying that forcing you to watch commercials is a good thing, I think it's awful. But let's not act like players are supposed to completely ignore PUOs on DVDs, they're not. Those that do are the ones that aren't working as the specs detail they're supposed to, they just happen to be doing so in a manner that's convenient to you.

In an ideal world, media companies would use PUOs responsibly and not piss off their consumers. In reality, their abuse of PUOs have caused many of us to seek ways around their pig-headedness by using DVD players that ignore elements of the specifications. It's sad, but we need to recognize the situation for what it is, not what we wish it were.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (2, Insightful)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757892)

But let's not act like players are supposed to completely ignore PUOs on DVDs, they're not. Those that do are the ones that aren't working as the specs detail they're supposed to...

According to whom? If we're talking the UOP specification [wikipedia.org] , I can't think of many end users that would AGREE to have their control taken from them. I'd also be willing to bet that if asked "Would you like to let the movie studio control what you watch on your legally purchased DVD, or would YOU like to choose?" darn near 100% of the users would indicate the latter. If you check the linked article above, pay close attention to the last sentence in the first paragraph.

Wonton abuse of a published spec is one of the first steps to render said spec obsolete.

Adhesion contracts (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758564)

I can't think of many end users that would AGREE to have their control taken from them.
Movie with loss of control, or no movie at all. What would most residential end users prefer?

I'd also be willing to bet that if asked "Would you like to let the movie studio control what you watch on your legally purchased DVD, or would YOU like to choose?" darn near 100% of the users would indicate the latter.
"Would you like to let the movie studio control what you watch on your legally purchased DVD, and in return have a wide selection of titles? Or would YOU like to choose and have only obscure films you've never heard of from countries you'll probably never visit?"

Re:Adhesion contracts (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759742)

I can't think of many end users that would AGREE to have their control taken from them.
Movie with loss of control, or no movie at all. What would most residential end users prefer?

So if UOP became illegal, or for some reason impossible, or too difficult, then all of a sudden all of the movie producers will just pack up and go home and never create another movie again? I don't think so.

Studios release on a format whose DRM they like (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759876)

So if UOP became illegal, or for some reason impossible, or too difficult, then all of a sudden all of the movie producers will just pack up and go home and never create another movie again?

FBI warnings reduce the likelihood of an ignorance of fact defense, which could reduce the damages that the copyright owner can collect from convicted[1] infringers. If a publisher cannot give FBI warnings on a given home video format, it might significantly raise the price of titles in that format to compensate for the cost of lost opportunity for damages. And if this increased price is not profitable for a given title, the publisher might just not release it in that format at all, instead choosing to release it on the competing format whose digital restrictions management capabilities more closely match the publisher's wishes. You already see this with some studios exclusively releasing on HD DVD and others on Blu-ray Disc.

[1] If "convicted" applies only to criminal law, what corresponding adjective from civil law meaning "successfully found liable" best replaces it in context?

Re:Studios release on a format whose DRM they like (1)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21762828)

FBI warnings reduce the likelihood of an ignorance of fact defense, which could reduce the damages that the copyright owner can collect from convicted[1] infringers. If a publisher cannot give FBI warnings on a given home video format, it might significantly raise the price of titles in that format to compensate for the cost of lost opportunity for damages.

1) there is no reason the movie company can't display the FBI warning anyway.
2) Everybody has seen the FBI warning. Most hundreds, maybe even thousands of times. That is why we skip it. Seen it already. The judge or jury would never believe they hadn't seen it.
3) The movie studios don't even go after people who share their DVDs, etc with friends. They would like to, but there is just no way. They don't get any damages for court cases they don't even persue.
4) The FBI warning has nothing to do with fact. It claims you can't do this or that under any circumstances. Which is simply not true.
5) UOP isn't used for FBI warnings. It is used for commercials. If it was just for the warnings, it would have been done differently.

You already see this with some studios exclusively releasing on HD DVD and others on Blu-ray Disc.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray support UOP. They have nothing to do with this thread. The exclusivity is due to multi-million dollar agreements, not because they prefer one or the other.

Re:Studios release on a format whose DRM they like (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763184)

5) UOP isn't used for FBI warnings. It is used for commercials.
Your Honor, if we weren't able to force viewing of the commercials, our advertisers would not pay us as much, and selling these discs at this price would be unprofitable.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray support UOP.
Because they don't want movie studios defecting en masse to the other format.

Re:Studios release on a format whose DRM they like (1)

PastaLover (704500) | more than 6 years ago | (#21765016)

The annoying thing is they insist on showing (localized) copyright notices even in locales where ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. Besides that, skipping it means you have seen it at least once, as otherwise you wouldn't be wanting to skip it.

Re:Adhesion contracts (1)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763098)

Movie with loss of control, or no movie at all.

What complete and utter bullshit. Like they never released any movies on VHS or Laserdisc because there wasn't any way to stop people from seeking.

Do you seriously believe that the studious would rather stop making movies than releasing them on media where you can skip commercials?

VHS was tape. There's a difference. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763170)

Like they never released any movies on VHS or Laserdisc because there wasn't any way to stop people from seeking.
VHS and other tape media never had random access, only fast play. Laserdisc already commanded a premium price that DVD generally does not match, especially after correcting for the increase in nationwide wages since the Laserdisc era.

You're still off the mark (1)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 6 years ago | (#21767116)

According to whom?

According to the people who came up with the DVD format [dvd-replica.com] .

I'd also be willing to bet that if asked "Would you like to let the movie studio control what you watch on your legally purchased DVD, or would YOU like to choose?" darn near 100% of the users would indicate the latter.

I'd be willing to bet that if asked "Would you rather go work and earn $100, or would you like to have it for free from UncleTogie's personal bank account?" darn near 100% of the people would indicate the latter. Majority rule is completely irrelevant in some cases, such as what the DVD specifications say.

If you check the linked article above, pay close attention to the last sentence in the first paragraph. Wonton abuse of a published spec is one of the first steps to render said spec obsolete.

I read it, and I saw the last sentence. Here it is for reference: "Some publishers run protected commercials on their DVDs, which is widely seen as an abuse of the feature." I don't disagree, and I also see it as an abuse of the feature. Maybe the spec is obsolete. That still doesn't change the fact that according to the specification, players that ignore PUOs are not working correctly. They may be broken in a way that is convenient to you, and you might like the way in which they're broken a lot, and I would never argue that you shouldn't use a player that works how you want it to.

But acting like DVD players that work according to the specification are broken only masks the real problems: companies that force you to watch stuff you don't want to because of greed, and maybe a specification that has parts in it that allows such companies to engage in such abuse, although there ARE valid uses of PUOs (some of which are also outlined in the Wikipedia article). Whining and complaining about the DVD players is pointless.

Wonton abuse of a published spec is one of the first steps to render said spec obsolete.

Actually, not buying DVDs that abuse the practice is the first step to make the situation better. If you get a DVD home and are forced to watch a crapfest of commercials, return it to the store and explain why. If companies start seeing an impact in their bottom line because of their abuse, they'll stop. If you keep buying DVDs from them and working around the PUOs, their profits will continue to go up, their abuse will appear to be profitable, and it will encourage even more abuse.

Re:You're still off the mark (1)

Gunstick (312804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21778938)

on the Web we had popup blockers, on DVD players we have commercial skippers.

It's all the same. Industry abuses their own specs so they get abused back from the consumers.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758204)

But let's not act like players are supposed to completely ignore PUOs on DVDs, they're not.
What if a DVD player were to honor the first consecutive 15 seconds of a UOP, and then ignore UOP after that? That much time is enough to display copyright notices and the like.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758692)

Sounds like a specification that includes an antifeature [fsf.org] . It's unfortunate that some companies [fsf.org] choose to include anti-features in their products and specifications.

Region-coded DVDs, copy-protection measures, and Apple's optional DRM music store--where users initially paid more for the DRM-free tracks--are also excellent examples. It takes a large amount of work to build these systems and users rarely benefit from or request them. Like blackmail, users can sometimes pay technology providers to not include an antifeature in their technology.

Adding an anti-feature to a product is crippling, regardless if the anti-feature is written into the specification or not.

Re:Is the DVD playback crippled? (1)

Erpo (237853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21764250)

Adding an anti-feature to a product is crippling, regardless if the anti-feature is written into the specification or not.

I'm not positive, but I think you have the definition of an anti-feature backwards. At first, I thought an anti-feature meant a bad feature, or a feature that hurts users. However, note the following from the linked article:

[The availability of RAW format images from a camera] is an example of an anti-feature. Anti-features are sold to customers as features but are fundamental or unavoidable aspects of systems that can only be removed or withheld through technological effort.

After reading this, I think an anti-feature in this context would be a lack of DRM. For example, if you are offered a movie at a premium price because it has no DRM, that's an anti-feature. The publisher didn't have to do anything to provide a movie with no DRM. In fact, the publisher had to go through extra effort to take away the benefits of DRM-less media in order to create the inferior DRM'd product.

Another example of an anti-feature would be a full version of a shareware program that doesn't contain nag screens. The lack of nag screens is good, and it's an anti-feature because it's a fundamental or unavoidable aspect of the system. When you create a new program like "Hello world", it doesn't automatically draw a nag screen when you run it. That's something you have to work to add.

Sweet! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21756526)

I had been seriously considering getting a Ubuntu laptop for a while now, but held off because they were still using Feisty. Time to buy myself a Christmas present!

Re:Sweet! (1)

Bloodoflethe (1058166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756702)

I wish they cost less than a comparable windows system. They're acting like they are giving you a free OS, when they're really getting more money off of the Linux machines. Maybe they feel they incurred a greater cost finding and paying people that could support it? *shrug* Might as well continue building my own.

Too much unregistered shareware (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758286)

I wish they cost less than a comparable windows system. They're acting like they are giving you a free OS, when they're really getting more money off of the Linux machines.
Major publishers of shareware pay home PC builders to get the unregistered versions of their products installed on the system before the end user first turns it on. Some Slashdot users have hypothesized that this makes up for the entire price of a high-volume OEM Windows license. The reason you don't get a discount on the PC with Ubuntu OS is that the shareware either isn't available for GNU/Linux (and doesn't run well in Wine) or has a Free counterpart that's as good or better.

14" display (3, Informative)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 6 years ago | (#21756656)

I wish they had at least a 15" display on these things. I hate to squint.

Looks like Ubuntu 7.04 on 15" laptops, for now.

Re:14" display (1)

ls -la (937805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757266)

If you seriously need a 15" monitor, you should get your eyes checked out. I'm posting this from my laptop with a 7" screen, and I don't really have to squint on this. Really, adding a bigger screen like that is just going to make the laptop bigger and heavier, and less appealing to carry around.

Re:14" display (0, Troll)

gorbachev (512743) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759194)

Gee, thanks for assuming to know how I prefer to use my computers better than I do. Excuse me for not preferring a pecker sized monitor like you.

I guess your eyesight is just better than mine. Congratulations.

It never, ever ceases to amaze me how some idiots can't understand that people have different preferences, hence it might actually make sense for companies like Dell to give MORE choices to customers.

But hey, I'm glad you're happy with your laptop. I'm very happy with mine. It has a 17" display. Love it. Wish I could run Linux on it.

Re:14" display (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 6 years ago | (#21761956)

It never, ever ceases to amaze me how some idiots can't understand that people have different preferences.
That was well said. Thas aside, small screens would also a problem for coders who absolutely need to multi-task, and whose productivity would be hampered if we couldn't fit multiple windows on the screen at the same time. Well, I guess I should just be writing code on 40 character lines; shame on me for being lazy.

Re:14" display (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 6 years ago | (#21763668)

"But hey, I'm glad you're happy with your laptop. I'm very happy with mine. It has a 17" display. Love it. Wish I could run Linux on it." What's stopping you? Download Ubuntu and try the live CD, it won't cripple you.

Europe? (2, Interesting)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757022)

Well, it doesn't matter too much as there are other options in Sweden, but will these be sold in Europe?

Why is this news? (1, Troll)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757566)

Besides the DVD-playback, what is so important about this? Vista machines were available from day one of its release. No major OEMs are still selling Win2K. OEMs will always move on to the next OS offered by MS, Canonical, Ret Hat, Novell, etc. Ubuntu PCs being easier to find on Dell's site would be more newsworthy.

Re:Why is this news? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758604)

Besides the DVD-playback, what is so important about this?
Because it reminds us that a major PC builder is still selling PCs with an operating system not published by Microsoft or Apple.

Gee, thanks (1, Funny)

epp_b (944299) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757688)

And, as an extra added bonus, they're tossing in legal DVD-playback capability. In a word: Neat
Wow, it's great to know that I can have my computer turned against me, and for it to be legitimate.

Nvidia graphics ? (1)

klapaucjusz (1167407) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757768)

From the article:

For graphics, the 530N comes with a 128MB Nvidia GeForce 8300GS graphics card.

So it still needs proprietary drivers, right?

Re:Nvidia graphics ? (1)

StonyUK (173886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757872)

You can also get it with the Intel X3100 which has open drivers I believe.

Re:Nvidia graphics ? (1)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757968)

No, you can run an Nvidia card on FOSS drivers. You just won't get the full range of 3D capabilities that you would get with a proprietary driver. Of course, Ubuntu makes it easy to use the proprietaries, as it comes with them pre-loaded on the CD. So it's not a big deal to get them setup and loaded.

Of course, if you are one of those purists who wants only FOSS software on your machine, I doubt very much you will be buying a Dell laptop anyway, so your opinion holds no weight.

The rest of us just want our stuff to work, and Dell + Ubuntu = IJW (It Just Works)

Dell PCs probably don't use LinuxBIOS (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758376)

So it still needs proprietary drivers, right?
Virtually any Dell PC you buy will come with proprietary software on it. After you turn on your Dell PC, a piece of proprietary software called "BIOS" sets the video adapter and much of the rest of the chipset into a known state, does some checks on your RAM, and loads GRUB.

Linux Cost More? (2, Informative)

phkhd (172530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757818)

So I went through and customized the same model with Windows Vista and with Ubuntu, to the same configuration (better LCD and larger battery, but otherwise stock). The Ubuntu model was roughly $854, and the Windows Model was roughly $824 (I might be off by a few bucks). But why is the Ubuntu model more than the Vista model? grrr.

Re:Linux Cost More? (3, Insightful)

setagllib (753300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757942)

The Linux install is not subsidized with hundreds of badvertisement and spyware programs. You get a fixed, enhanced, tested Ubuntu 7.10 without any malware. To many people that's worth a lot more than Vista. Personally? I'd get the cheap Vista license and then replace the install with Ubuntu anyway, and then perform a ritual sacrifice to help a copy of Vista leave this world.

Ubuntu PowerPCs (1)

Apple Acolyte (517892) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757910)

The PPC zealot in me first read the headline as "Ubuntu 7.10 PowerPCs."

We'll even toss in a few laptop batteries (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21759456)

Duck!

I kid, I kid! Love this move on Dell's part. Get me a laptop with a working built-in webcam and I'm sold. Telecommuter? Naaa, just an expat.

In unrelated news, there's a Duke Nukem teaser. Is it April 1 already?

Dell seems to have started well (1)

leftcase (1030652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21771584)

According to 'El Reg [theregister.co.uk] , Dell has sold around 40,000 Ubuntu powered PCs. To be fair, that's not too bad for an operating system that isn't Windows or Mac....

Dell isn't a dumb company, if they're investing time and money in improving Ubuntu and making it more appealing to the user I guess they must think it can make them money.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?