Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 20:59 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu When Dell announced a shift in its Linux strategy last week, accompanied by a new netbook, many wondered why Dell insisted on pre-loading Ubuntu 8.04, instead of newer versions of the popular Linux distribution such as 8.10 or 9.04. BetaNews contacted Dell about it, and Dell replied explaining their rationale behind opting for 8.04.
Thread beginning with comment 364700
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
bousozoku
Member since:
2006-01-23

This is a sign that Linux (Ubuntu)is ready for Desktop.
Many people can say the opposite because they did not use the right distribution.
If Dell supports Linux and Dell is a computer manufacturer, guess what will happen next...
An OS can only survive if it has Hardware and application support.
Those who predicted the end of Linux can read this. Linux has longer life than Vista (Longhorn.)


It's getting there but no. The constant beta quality of Linux distributions (I use Ubuntu) keeps it from a major distribution to the public.

Dell will sell it but they will also hide it, in favour of Windows. Windows Vista really isn't dead. It's just been finished and renamed for public relations' sake.

Reply Parent Score: 4

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

...The constant beta quality of Linux distributions (I use Ubuntu) keeps it from a major distribution to the public....


You have obviously never used Debian. There ARE stable and generally bug free distros out there, Ubuntu just isn't one of them. Please don't generalize and assume that Ubuntu is the benchmark 'linux'. I shudder at the thought.

As gets repeated over and over again; Ubuntu ≠ Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23


You have obviously never used Debian. There ARE stable and generally bug free distros out there, Ubuntu just isn't one of them. Please don't generalize and assume that Ubuntu is the benchmark 'linux'. I shudder at the thought.

As gets repeated over and over again; Ubuntu ≠ Linux.


Are you a non-technical user? I believe that the answer is "no".

Debian could never be distributed to the general population and achieve great success. It's great for enthusiasts and professionals, but not for grandma. There are very few distributions that are trying to reach the average person but they're still a bit undercooked.

Just because you're thrilled to deal with surprises doesn't mean that the non-technical person is. Besides, a distribution relies on applications, not just system utilities. You might never have to employ your skills to run a Linux distribution, but if you do, you have the skills. What happens to the average person when it doesn't work? Do they dive into the XWindows configuration to fix the resolution problem?

Reply Parent Score: 2

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Excuse me, but Microsoft never was hampered by constantly releasing software of beta quality.

Why do you think, businesses only upgrade to a new Windows version after the first service pack?

I am typing this on my business machine, and when I started my own business 5 months ago I had to make a VERY tough decision: Redhat, Fedora or Debian?
I was feeling adventurous that day and went for Fedora9+KDE4 (though also installing Debian on a second partition). Guess what? I still have Fedora9 on this machine.

The machine with Fedora9 is in fact MORE stable than 9 year old Windows XP.
I had to calculate some deformations of metallic parts on this machine using a finite element (FE) solver, and because time was short I had to borrow a Windows XP machine from a friend of mine to get more number crunching power. I used both machines in a 24/7 session running two separate calculations on each machine all the time.
During the 2 weeks I had to reboot the windows machine 3 times and the Linux machine once. And I did almost all of the necessary desktop work on the Linux machine, because XP cannot handle running an FE solver on all 4 cores and still leave you enough CPU cycles to do desktop work on it.

You see, people tend to think Windows were somehow better than most Linux distro's because they actually did make large steps towards stability during the last years. But they still are less stable than Linux.

My personal experience with machines that have to do calculation work and desktop work simultaneously is this:
- IRIX needs a reboot every 3 months (SGI hardware)
- HPUX needs a reboot every 3 weeks (HP hardware)
- Linux (Redhat) needs a reboot every 2 weeks (PC hardware)
- Windows XP needs a reboot at least once a week. (PC hardware)

Reply Parent Score: 2

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Obviously you haven't paid close attention to the new shiny notification system in Fedora. It actually prompts you to reboot almost every friggin' day. Ditto for Ubuntu.

This is exactly the kind of criticism stemming from a developer perspective. With each release the system is more closely tied to non-essential, desktop-related wrappers and layers. Once more things like D-BUS will require a reboot after an update, things are not really that different from Windows XP, again from an engineering standpoint.

This is not how things used to be in Linux.

If you need anecdotes, Fedora 9 was a total nightmare here. (But obviously Red Hat and Centos pulls this off much more sanely.)

Reply Parent Score: 1