OSNews

This just goes to show how much Microsoft subsidise Windows to OEMs

Not necessarily. Does Dell support the Ubuntu installation on their own or have they outsourced that to Canonical?

If the support is done by Canonical, the zero price difference between a mini with Windows and a mini with Ubuntu could be the support fee Dell/Customer has to pay to Canonical.

Even then, it's still a good deal. You get the software @ zero cost and you only pay for Canonical's support. With OEM Windows you pay license fees and don't even get support from MS.

I don't know about netbooks, but when I bought a Dell workstation with pre-installed Linux, the answer was "neither".

It had major problems with the Intel video card driver. The X server would constantly lock up; almost any 3D application would cause the video card to run out of memory (and yet, compiz was enabled by default).

When I complained to Dell about it, they told me to call Canonical. Canonical told me to call Dell cause I did not have support from them. After about seven phone calls, I gave up and bought an NVidia video card.

Not to mention all the *important* changes in Jaunty, like out of the box support for a lot of netbook peripherals, a properly configured Pulseaudio (for the most part anyway)... etc. I can understand them going with lts releases at least initially, though 8.04 is a bit old for some.

I disagree. I think it was wise of Dell to stick with 8.04. First, it's patched longer. (3 years for all packages, 5 for important ones) and second, as much as I like 9.04, 8.04 is a well-tested and more solid release.

It's unreasonable to expect OEMs like Dell to re-verify and test not to mention support a new OS release every six months. There are just too many little changes.

One small example of this is setting the hostname in Jaunty. Sure, it's easy enough to edit /etc/hostname, but Administration -> Network no longer exists at all, so the usual place to set the hostname using the GUI simply doesn't exist. Ubuntu's 9.04 documentation still mention the old way of changing the hostname, so there is effectively no way to set a machine name using the GUI in 9.04. This is a little thing but is a byproduct of such short release cycles.

I think Canonical is doing things just right with Ubuntu. ~2 year LTS releases for corporate/OEM/conservative users, six-month releases for enthusiasts. Spot-on.

And really, as long as Dell can make the hardware work properly out of the factory, what are the real differences between 8.04 and 9.04? A newer kernel with few end-user noticeable changes, optional EXT4 support (again, most users don't care) and a slightly faster boot time.

As the owner of an HP mini running HP's MIE (based on Ubuntu 8.04) I can verify that Canonical can get boot times for 8.04 way down when they know the hardware.

The network tool is still there. It's just not installed by default. I think that in most scenarios, regular users would never need to use it, so it makes sense to be in the repositories and not in the default installation.
In the "add remove applications" search for "network". the first result is what I think you want. alternatively install the network-admin package

Actually, the package is gnome-network-admin in standard Ubuntu, not sure what it is in [KX]ubuntu..
However, this duplicates and overlaps with some of the new networkmanager config tools used in Ubuntu 9.04, and could be rather confusing to anyone who didn't realize that and who, logically, would think that right-clicking on the network applet and choosing edit connections and network from the admin menu would lead to the same screen. So, as long as the overlap is this bad, the tools are this different from one another, and the networkmanager applet cannot do everything, I agree that this network admin tool should not be installed by default. Of course, what would be better would be for the still-missing functions to be implemented in the networkmanager configuration applets.

Actually I think its better that they support 8.04 rather than 9.04. Since they support 8.04 you know pretty much any distro you want to use will work the same on it. With 9.04, there may be newer drivers, etc. that aren't available across the board yet. Some people dont like using bleeding edge stuff.

[edited: seems the 10v uses GMA 950, not GMA 500, 950 is fine on Linux]

Edited 2009-05-14 21:25 UTC

Ubuntu 8.04LTS is the "Long Term Support" edition and is the therefore the better choice for Dell than Ubuntu 9.04. Speaking of which, it's "fancy" new notifications system really isn't that fancy in my humble opinion. Further, they appear to have a rather hackish implementation. Nevertheless, Dell is finally paying due diligence to it's Linux loving customers and a real alternative to Windows.

Probably Dell has nothing in the written contracts with Microsoft forbidding them to sell Linux computers, and Microsoft would be REALLY stupid if they were sending Dell an email about that nasty little gentlemen's agreement they agreed on, when finishing the OEM license price negotiations.

Denying the biggest customer the best conditions of future Microsoft software might be even more of a give away. And I doubt Microsoft wants to be drawn before the EU Commission again, this time not only paying for virtual and therefore not quantifyable damages (remember, in the Microsoft the only prevailing party was SAMBA), but paying for actual damage done to a company. The Intel fine would be looking tiny in respect to what Microsoft would have to pay.

For close to the past decade remember Microsoft has been under the watch of the DOJ. Their ability to enter into any such contracts is limited at best, impractical to impossible at least.

What way too many do not seem to understand is that there is a difference between subsidizing and volume purchasing. The fact is with software, the initial development investment for XP has long since been recovered, and the maintaining support costs are a fraction of what they were 3-5 years ago. So selling XP at even $20 is still profitable if they needed.

In theory, at least.

which is EXACTLY what they SHOULD do, so the climate changing is working.

Dell is an integrator. And Microsoft is their primary OS vendor. Are customers (which is what Dell is to Microsoft) of monopolistic vendors subject to antitrust action? I suppose maybe if they actively conspired with Microsoft to maintain and expand said monopoly, they might be. But even then it seems like something of a stretch to go after a company which, as a Microsoft customer, is just as much a victim of any monopolistic abuse as any of the rest of us.

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. And in this case, I don't think we need to look too much further than the rather straightforward idea that Dell sees enough market and cost savings opportunities to justify the move, and doesn't want to fumble the ball though poor execution (Ubuntu. Yea! No ancient Xandros here.), poor PR (no delayed availability for the Linux models) or poor marketing (no inexplicably higher prices, lower hardware specs, or skillfully hidden product pages for the Linux models).

More succinctly, it is reasonable to think that they might have learned from past mistakes made by themselves and others.

In the past, Dell had expressed interest in selling OS X on their machines; Apple obviously won't let them do it, but Canonical is quite willing.

I seem to recall shortly before they switched to also offering AMD-based products, that Dell was chafing at being an all-Intel all-Microsoft business: Either partner could charge what they wished and Dell would be at their mercy... now Dell has its own distinctive operating system, and AMD systems.

I support any company that supports Linux and I'm glad to see Michael Dell has the balls to thumb his nose at Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure Michael Dell isn't thumbing his nose at anyone. He wants to make money. If Ubuntu helps him do that, then good. There have been lots of stories over the years of Microsoft and Intel pressure tactics over the years. Let's assume they are true. That would mean that Dell feels safer selling Ubuntu, but that there is still lots of money to be made from Windows. That's not a bad thing.

I vote with my wallet.

Don't we all. My current netbook is an Asus 901 Linux, running Debian. It is hands down the best laptop I have ever owned. I hope you like your Dells.

I know I could buy anything out there and install any distro I want, it's easy enough for me to do.....I simply refuse to support Steve Ballmer.

Just remember that your attitude toward Balmer isn't Dell's (or lots of other people's, for that matter). Microsoft hatred will only go so far. Far better is a Linux purchase completed because the person saw some advantage in using Linux.

I believe it was Patrick Henry (often miss-quoted and miss-understood) who actually said "Give Me Linux, or Give Me Death".

I'd settle for one of the BSDs in a pinch.

Personally, I'm in the market for a netbook once again, because of someone in my extended family who wants to "get on the net" and has seen a netbook and thinks that that would be ideal.

OK, since I am the family memeber she will be calling on for support, she has no problem with Linux, and she is especially pleased because all the required software will be hers for free. I have warned her that any course she takes the instructor probably won't know anything about Linx, and she is OK with that too. She says she will just ask me.

OK then, Dell Australia ... are you listening? If you are prepared to follow your parent company, and offer me a Inspiron Mini 10v netbook with Linux, then you have a sale here.

If not ... has Dell Australia considered its legal position when I know that the company has a product that I want and Dell Australia decide to refuse to sell it to Australians?

PS: Not really. I will just simply get another Kogan Agora (this time not the PRO model though).

http://www.kogan.com.au/shop/kogan-agora-netbook/

But nevertheless this IS an interesting question, is it not? Last time Dell brought out a netbook with Linux as an option, Dell Australia refused to sell the Linux version. We all know that (the company having developed the Linux version once) the difference to Dell is just which image (Ubuntu Linux or XP Home) they copy on to the hard disk. So what would be their excuse (given this recent announcement of policy from Dell), and is there a chance of getting at Dell Australia via the ACCC if they once again refuse to sell Linux to Australians?

Edited 2009-05-14 23:26 UTC

not entirely dell's fault - until recently, intel had the best drivers around. right now, they're in a rather painful transition phase

Most of the people out here aren't "Zealot"s, but even then, there's nothing wrong with a preference for free software.
I even think too many free/open source software users care too little about the freeness of software. Without the "zealots" and their often cursed licences, a lot of the software in the FLOSS universe wouldn't even be out there.

What I think Dell should do is make sure everything works 100% blob-free on any advanced free/open OS, that's all. Whether they then decide to preload a Linux OS is less important. Just give us the unused license money back Dell, that's all.

This great advice is entirely for free, by the way.

What open source software that matters would we miss out on if it wasnt for the 'Zealot's'?

We do agree on the naked computers part. Although i would'nt buy a dell even if it were to come without a OS. I've seen to many bad things with dell. Them selling a laptop with ubuntu doesnt make me wanna buy one of their machines. Give me a OS i actually want or better yet let me buy it without a OS and i might try out a dell again.

Well, "what if"-type discussions are by definition purely speculative. But I assume you are aware of something called gcc? I don't think that's the only GNU software that matters.

Yes they are purely speculative. And yes we would'nt have gcc but are rms the only one that could have writen af compiler? I'd say no gcc was just good enough so noone else had to do it.