digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Dear Mr. Shuttleworth, Get into the hardware business

oreillynet.com — Jeremiah Foster urges Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical (company behind Ubuntu) to get involved in the business of pre-installing GNU/Linux on computers hence getting rid of the "need to install" as one of the biggest remaining obstacles to increased adoption.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • defrysk, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7this link has been submitted earlyer: http://www.digg.com/linux_unix/Open_letter_to_Mark_Shuttleworth
  • schestowitz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+9This would never become profitable though, for a variety of reasons (includes distribution channels that are needed to keep costs low). And Mr. Shuttleworth doesn't perceive his work as charity...

    Ubuntu is not a charity: Shuttleworth
    http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9927&Itemid=1091

    Don't get me wrong, but with the exception of Apple, which is /very/ large and has been around for decades, hardware/software business mixtures don't work. It overcomplicates things.
    • KirinDave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16"Don't get me wrong, but with the exception of Apple, which is /very/ large and has been around for decades, hardware/software business mixtures don't work. It overcomplicates things."

      Actually, it seems to simplify things for everyone who tries it. One of the reasons consoles are successful as gaming platforms is because the hardware is locked and well-defined. One of the reasons Apple can develop software more cheaply and more quickly is because it has specific hardware specs. The industry is full of hardware/software combo packages, and they seem to cut costs rather than raise them.

      The trick is that it requires more expertise in-house. This costs money, but it is also grows the capability of the group.
    • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The problem is not that hardware/software combos are harder to support. It's that it ends up being more expensive for the consumer if they like to do a handful of different things. That's what's good about a general-purpose PC - you can play games, and web browse, and do taxes, and word process, and control the lights, and play music, and play videos, etc. You don't NEED a computer to do all those things. But it's great that you can, and all you had to do was buy one machine.

      The PC is increasingly becoming a convergence device where you'll do more and more tasks on a single machine. Use it for everything you do in your home.
    • Invid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@KirinDave:
      I dugg you up for an insightful post, but that doesn't change the fact that the barriers for entry are just too high. Even Shuttleworth's millions are not enough to get competitive volume discounts from OEMs.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2'Get into the hardware business'

      Yes it would be great for users but I cant think of any businessman with half a brain who wants to 'get into the hardware business'.
    • NX910a, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I can see the shiny orange hardware cases now...
    • Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4
      Shouldn't "need to install" as a barrier to adoption be addressed by Mr. Shuttleworth by an improvement in the install process and greater attention to hardware compatibility?

      If you're installing on a system that's 100% compatible with Ubuntu, an Ubuntu install is no more difficult (and some would say easier) than Windows. The 100% compatible list is growing, but it's no where (*no where*) near the number of system configurations that Windows can cleanly install on. That's not surprising or a value judgment, Windows has just been the desktop leader for so long that that hardware has adapted to it.

      So, rather than sell hardware, I'd rather see a "100% Ubuntu" certification program for individual hardware components and assembled systems, even if Ubuntu isn't pre-installed. It's not time for them to sell hardware, but it is time for them to take responsibility for it.

    • Yoshi39, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"I cant think of any businessman with half a brain who wants to 'get into the hardware business'."
      Dell
    • rhyre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I disagree that you have to break the law. If the content providers use proprietary codes, that's
      only my problem if I want to watch their video. There are FOSS (open source) audio and video codecs out there.

      All you need to do is convince hardware makers it's in their best interest to have some more flexibility.

      There are plenty of companies and/or non-profit organizations that could make 'open hardware' PCs - not
      everyone needs the latest $300 graphics card to have a functional PC without Vista and without restrictions
      imposed by DRM. The $100 laptop project is almost entirely supported with open source software, with the
      mesh networking chip being the exception.

      We just need the "$200 desktop" project to follow that up with.

      PCI slots would be the hard part, but might not be necessary in the first version. Once the PCI patents expire, it's probably possible to deploy a reverse engineered version.

      Any takers?

    • lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"So, rather than sell hardware, I'd rather see a "100% Ubuntu" certification program for individual hardware components and assembled systems, even if Ubuntu isn't pre-installed. It's not time for them to sell hardware, but it is time for them to take responsibility for it."

      I whole heartedly agree. That would solve one of , IMO, Linux's biggest shortcoming. Having to learn the OS as well as fix it at the same time.
    • bobbob1016, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Am I the only one who remembers System76? http://www.system76.com/ they sell computers with Ubuntu pre-installed.
  • baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21what would be better if Shuttleworth & Dell would collaborate on an Ubuntu/Dell OEM deal...
    • rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why would it be better than Dell?

      Because Dell has a serious conflict-of-interest and makes too much money on commissions of Windows Upgrades and on resale of other Windows software. So long as Dell remains one of the larger distributors of Microsoft Office (I suspect they have a similar stake in that Office resale business as Best Buy or WalMart) they will be very motivated to keep Microsoft happy. And keeping Microsoft happy means favoring them over competitors.

      Better would be if Canonical partnered with a company less dependent on being a Windows/Office reseller than Dell, like a Lenovo(formerly IBM) or HP.
    • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Good point. Can anyone tell me why Dell and Ubuntu aren't collaborating? I've been browsing the web for a bit now, but my lunch break is almost over. I can't imagine why this hasn't happened yet.
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well Dell might have some deals that it does not want to break, but still I'd be glad to see some constructors, like Acer, really engaging in an Apple-like model or hardware+software. If they had a *small* set of laptops that are linux-compatible but aimed at only *one* distribution (eg. all variants of Ubuntu) that could solve part of the compatibility problems ppl tend to have with linux.

      I still think too much diversity is what hinders linux adoption.
  • miahfost, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yes it would be profitable. The channels are already carrying linux, TechData supplies linux laptops as well as various software. Even if there were no channel partners the model could still be profitable, both Apple and Dell sell directly to consumers.
  • n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15System 76 has already taken the lead.

    http://www.system76.com
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Yes, they've taken the lead except for value. I looked at their Sable "Value" system. For $499, you get a basic system with a smallish 40g HD and no monitor, keyboard or mouse. A comparable system at Dell lists for the same price but includes monitor, keyboard, mouse, double the HD *and* Vista Home.
    • rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@jqp123

      It's no surprise that Vista Home doesn't add any cost to the Dell. It's basically a crippleware/reduced-functionality offering like most of the software on Dells (WinDVD/PowerDVD, MusicMatch, the Sonic and Roxio stuff, etc) - where the software vendor gives away or pays Dell to take the reduced-functionality version as a marketing/distribution program and makes money on upgrades to the full version after the fact.

      And, in fact the rest of the adware/spyware/crippleware on the Dell subsidizes the hardware which explains the bigger hard drive for the same cost.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You talk like Vista home is actually a *valuable* part of that package, when in fact, it's just Windows XP SP3.

      Meanwhile, the _entire point_ of this article is putting Linux on machines, something which defeats the purpose of buying a Dell as of now; the machines with a clean slate are actually more expensive than the machines without. Call it whatever you want, but either way, you're helping Microsoft by buying a Dell; either you're buying their OS and keeping them alive, or you're buying an OSless machine and justifying Microsoft's "buying a machine without Windows is always more expensive" FUD, even when the actual hardware costs don't change.

      Buying from an all Linux manufacturer puts money in the other camp.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@rmxz
      "... which explains the bigger hard drive for the same cost."

      You forget the keyboard and monitor also for the same cost. Regardless of how it is achieved, instead of a "MS tax", it would appear to be more of a "MS rebate".

      @geminitojanus
      "Buying from an all Linux manufacturer puts money in the other camp."

      I'd expect most people to be more concerned with putting money into their own pocket.

  • lwatcdr, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3It isn't worth it.
    To make Linux a good desktop for home use you need to break the law. Unless Shuttle worth makes a deal with Microsoft to include there codec it will not play all the WMFs and AVIs floating around the internment. DVD playback? MP3? All those issues can be fixed but it will take some doing and some money.

    Mr Shuttleworth please fix the Server versions of Ubuntu. It has a lot of potential but it is at best a work in progress.
    • Canute, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"To make Linux a good desktop for home use you need to break the law. "
      That might be true because you're an American citizen, but do try to remember that there are people outside the US. Downloading such codecs is completely legal at least where I am from. And if I recall correctly, neither Mr. Shuttleworth nor Ubuntu has his/its origins in the US.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You can legally get Windows codecs.
    • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8AVIs are not a proprietary MS format; it's the codecs that are MS's property. Xvid is the "free" codec of choice for most uses. The reasons for people to use WMV and WMA formats have always eluded me.

      The MP3 and DVD issues are definitely a concern. While the MP3 issue is legitimate (although a bit seedy), the DVD issue should fall under fair use. MP3 is owned by Fraunhofer; he waited until it became popular, then went after vendors for the royalties.

      You're right. In order to play the most common media on Linux, you have to break the law... or at least pay for DVD encryption. As painful as it may be, the current situation requires a fee for the ability to decrypt DVDs. If you're like me and want to get around the MP3 problem, simply convert your MP3 collection to OGG. You'll save HD space.

      @Canute: I don't see how Mark's location affects the US DVD legality issue. If it's illegal for us to play DVDs without the licensing fee, it'll be illegal for us to buy computers with DVD-capable-Linux preinstalled. I'm glad you're not having this issue.
    • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you're interested in DeCSS (DVD decryption) lawsuits, here are some. I'm going to shut up now:

      http://storage.itworld.com/4653/IDG011102DVDdecrypt/page_1.html
    • kypen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1bmartin: That is how YOU handle the situation. If you think most people understand a lot of what you said, you are living in a fantasy world.

      "AVIs are not a proprietary MS format; it's the codecs that are MS's property. Xvid is the "free" codec of choice for most uses. The reasons for people to use WMV and WMA formats have always eluded me."

      What eludes you doesn't matter. WMVs are very common for downloading videos and if people can't play them, they will go somewhere they can. Joe Shmoe doesn't even know what Xvid is. The truth of the matter is that most people don't ENCODE themselves, most just playback and want to be able to playback anything.

      "The MP3 and DVD issues are definitely a concern. While the MP3 issue is legitimate (although a bit seedy), the DVD issue should fall under fair use. MP3 is owned by Fraunhofer; he waited until it became popular, then went after vendors for the royalties."
      While I agree what he did is crappy, that doesn't change that you can't play DVDs nor MP3s legally under Linux yet.

      "You're right. In order to play the most common media on Linux, you have to break the law... or at least pay for DVD encryption. As painful as it may be, the current situation requires a fee for the ability to decrypt DVDs. If you're like me and want to get around the MP3 problem, simply convert your MP3 collection to OGG. You'll save HD space."
      Since when did the iPod get OGG playback? MP3 is the most compatible format around. It isn't going anywhere.
    • libervisco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5These codecs aren't illegal everywhere, as has been said. But even in US while the distributor may not want to risk installing these codecs by default it can make it easy for you to get it (like Ubuntu does and will make even easier in next version) so you can decide for yourself whether to "break the law" or not, just like you do every time you download, not-so-legally, an mp3 or a video from some p2p service (if you do of course). ;)

      Also I have to mention that these codecs, while being patented, are not all non-free software. GStreamer and ffmpeg now supports playing everything from DivX avi files, Quick Time .mov's, Windows Media (.wmv) and even many .flv files. You don't even need w32codecs package anymore.
    • rmxz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@lwatcdr: "To make Linux a good desktop for home use you need to break the law. .... DVD playback?"

      IBM sold Linux Thinkpads with LinDVD - made by the same guys who make WinDVD.

      I'd gladly pay the $0.50 to $10.00 (depending on # of channels, sales volume, etc) for the Dolby, MPEG/LA, DTS, and DVD Consortium licenses for a working and legal Linux DVD playing computer.
    • geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Which is exactly what it comes down to; instead of packaging the cost of the codecs into /Linux/ they should (as it would be more profitable for them anyways) package the cost into the /Hardware/ doing the playback, as they already do with DVD players. This means you'd be free to try out whatever operating system you want AND still be legally covered by licensing. Which is yet another reason why Shuttleworth should seriously think about building computers. Even if they can't do it cheaply, they can do it completely transparently, and give us an alternative.
    • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@kypen: I don't see how what you're saying contributes anything to anything. It doesn't matter if the files are in format X or format Y; as long as they "just work", there's no problem. I'm not an iPod advocate; there are OGG players out there. I didn't impose proprietary formats on anyone. I'm sorry that you feel the need to dissect and refute everything I said. I'm only trying to offer help and insight. I'm not looking to "attack your proprietary formats".

      @geminitojanus: The licensing cost could be bundled into the cost of the PC when it was sold at the store, if that's what you mean. You can't really "package it into the hardware". You'd need more of an EULA-type deal. Otherwise, the legality of swapping hardware components and/or reselling the computer would create hectic legal issues.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A lot of ill informed nonsense here. I'll re-iterate though. You can already get legal playback for just about all non-crippled media out there. You can legally get DVD, WMF, MP3, MPEG1/2/4, DixX, AAC, MOV, SWF, H.264 etc. The point is they are proprietary blobs so will not be installed by most distros as default and many cost money. MS only included MP3 encoding recently and bar WMF and MPEG1/2 support none of those standards out of the box. All that would have to be done is OEM A would shuffle up to Fluendo and say 'Hey Fluendo dudes, fancy selling us a license for those mad GStreamer codecs you have available'. No problem at all. When KDE4 comes out the GStreamer codecs will also work with that.

      Stop spreading the FUD that legal playback is impossible in countries that have mad software patents and other state protectionism. It is entirely possible to do things the immoral way and be coerced to pay for something that somebody else has done the work on and is prepared to give away.
  • pyrates, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1How about ubuntu support the autopackage format by default when you install it? In fact why doesn't every major linux distribution include it? It allows a software author to put his program in a install package that every linux distro out there could support without having to distribute the source. Here's a description for those who don't know what it is:

    Autopackage (.package)
    The Autopackage format is supposed to be a "Linux distribution"-neutral way of installing packages. It uses its own self-contained package management tool, which is download from the Internet and installed along with the first Autopackage you install. To install an autopackage called test.package located on user Carl's desktop, first make sure it has permission to execute in your file-system, then run /home/carl/Desktop/test.package. The installer will ask you some questions, likely what your password is.

    When this becomes a default with the major linux distro's and they stop their in fighting by trying to lock users into their own packaging format that forces every linux software developer to make an install package for distro x, one for distro y, and another for distro z. Then linux on the desktop will really take off.
    • SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When you understand the reasons behind each distribution format, you'll understand that "autopackage" is one of the most stupid ideas to ever happen in the *nix world. Look specially for Slackware's and Gentoo's distribution formats, and the reasoning behind them. Try to understand the need for dependency management and the different approaches to it (including the "root will do it as he sees fit" approach). After you understand this, you will understand that "autopackage" simply cannot, and will not, ever be adopted.
    • lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"When you understand the reasons behind each distribution format, you'll understand that "autopackage" is one of the most stupid ideas to ever happen in the *nix world. Look specially for Slackware's and Gentoo's distribution formats, and the reasoning behind them. Try to understand the need for dependency management and the different approaches to it (including the "root will do it as he sees fit" approach). After you understand this, you will understand that "autopackage" simply cannot, and will not, ever be adopted."

      Please enlighten us...
    • blackjack75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'll tell you something simple about packages. Look at what Apple does and copy. They are the only ones who have a unix-like system that doesn't require a package management tool to merely try software.

      I don't want ANY package manager, unless it's for installing system software (frameworks). Why the hell do I need a package (or an setup.exe on windows) just to use an IM client? On a mac, you don't have to. So just don't be ashamed and ***** copy what they do.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple doesn't even follow it's own ideas. App folders are a nice nirvana but aren't a usable reality at all, recent versions of many i*'s have Windows style installers.

      Autopackage could have worked but they went about it the wrong way. First they insulted the entire Linux world continuously. A lot of their points may have been valid (the mess with ELF and C++ was particularly fair) but they did it in a totally undiplomatic way. Secondly they actively discouraged the idea of an autopackage distro for seemingly well founded reasons but they also stalled the entire process in the meantime.

      Are the problems with dependency resolution as bad as claimed. Not really, it works reasonably well and they were talking about distro integration but work has largely stalled.
      Are autopackages always needed. No, there'd be little point in Gentoo running an autopackage unless it was a proprietary app.
      Would they have a use. Yes since some distros that have a stable release will have outdated software and an autopackage alike would be the best way to add Firefox 2 to that distro that only has 1.5 for many people.

      The main reason autopackage failed is that the major players at the time didn't need it but it would be useful with things like Ubuntu and SUSE where you can't just emerge the latest release. The only way it would rise from the grave is if someone created an autopackage distro and build the appropriate autopackage library for it. Then some users of other distros would naturally draw in the latest autopackage in place of compiling.
  • jlebrech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6The Ubuntu logo on the back of a laptop would look swell. A custom restore disk with the right drivers (ideally not proprietary)

    And maybe because of the absence of sponsored Crapware that brings the price of Windows pc's down, maybe they could do Themeware, i.e. (Coca cola theme, Ford theme, blah blah) and knock a few dollars off the price. and we wouldn't moan as they would be cool themes.
    • lilrabbit129, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The theme idea is very cool. People already spend hours trying to get their linux desktops to have an all encompassing "theme". Having corporate sponsorship, that has nothing to do with computing, such as Coke, Pepsi, Ford, Honda, etc.. could be the answer to the MS Rebate.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Best way to do a recovery disc is just make your root partition smaller than 4GB and do a dd on it and write it to a bootable cd then after partitioning dd back. It can be automated.
  • infonography, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Mrs Butterworth is already there with Maple flavored servers.

    /joke
  • saturn5, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Preinstalling Linux won't make any difference because nobody wants it except a small group of computer geeks. Apple has been doing this for many years and still has only a tiny market share. This is just trying to fill a need that doesn't exist. Dell knows this that's why they are not doing it.
    • libervisco, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You can't compare Apple with GNU/Linux computers. Apple computers are still more expensive than ordinary Windows PCs, and GNU/Linux PCs should be even less expensive, while offering more than Windows PCs.

      GNU/Linux is the one posed to go after Microsoft, not Apple. Apple is moving into the consumer electronics market and is just fine where it is in the computer market, a luxury niche. That's not what GNU/Linux is going for, as it is pretty much going for anything anywhere, from desktop to mobiles to servers, because it can work well on all of it. ;)
  • cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This is the worst idea ever. You want to turn a company that is supporting one of the most successful Linux distributions to change their business strategy into producing, marketing, and selling Linux computers?

    I can't think of a better way to break the company, and eventually lose Ubuntu. I think they should keep to what they're good at, and that's dealing with software.
    • GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There are ways to protect one from the other. They could try it for very little and firewall the two businesses from each other.
  • stupidbrowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Something many people seem to have missed in this article is that the author is suggesting Mark Shuttleworth get into the hardware business, NOT Canonical. This is a major difference. Shuttleworth has the funds to create a new company which would create hardware based around Ubuntu but not directly connected to Canonical.
    • libervisco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Good point.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Shuttleworth has the funds to create a new company which would create hardware based around Ubuntu but not directly connected to Canonical."

      Shuttleworth may have some money but so does Dell and HP. Can he compete with these two on hardware? If not, then such a move would appear to be more politically motivated rather than financial. I wouldn't count on Joe Public to buy more expensive hardware for political reasons.
  • kypen, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1bury
  • NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is the need to install such a barrier?

    With Ubuntu and Debian initial configuration is more challenging than actual installation. The main barrier for a windows user is learning to configure and work with a new UI, and the handful of applications that need some combination of dual boot, wine, or vmware. Install today often consists of putting the cd in the hardware, plugging the network cable in, and pressing enter a few times.

    The article is a bit ... short. He doesn't explain why he feels that installation is a barrier, or why he thinks anyone's idea of a default install would resolve the problem.
    • stupidbrowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're right, Installing an OS isn't that hard, especially with Ubuntu where is even more simple than a Windows install. But most average consumers have a mental block about this and will not do something so extensive. The hardest part of an install is the drivers though, and these can be awful to install under Linux if your hardware is not supported. That is the major plus of OEMs installing Linux, your hardware is assured to be supported.

      As for the UI, I am confused about your concern with learning a new system. Linux can be configured to work almost identical to Windows or Apple (a computer could even be shipped with such configurations already in place).
    • Leopards, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It took me over an hour to figure out how to get the sound working on my Shuttle sb75g2 computer! Finally got lucky on a google search and found out that alsamixer which had to be started from terminal was muting a bunch of stuff! You could use your mouse on the Ubuntu desktop forever and miss this! I'm lucky that I didn't have to roll my own driver as some others have had to do! I'm not that good at linux by a long shot, and that type of a roadblock would have been the death knell for linux on my machine!! People like me getting ready to transition to Ubuntu from XP are going to be easily discouraged by non-support for our hardware! I'm one of the lucky ones, since I had sound with Knoppix and figured Ubuntu had to support the onboard AC'97 sound also, so I kept digging and got lucky!!
  • scronline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, go ahead and shove all of those (like myself) who sell systems preloaded with Ubuntu. We haven't been supporting the community or anything by already providing this need already. let software techs and engineers work on software and let hardware techs and engineers work on hardware.

    There's a reason why there are specialists. Just like I won't buy hardware made by Microsoft (yes that means the Zune or the 360) I wouldn't exactly want a computer designed by software engineers. There's more to hardware than just sticking in a few cards here and there and calling it good.
    • stupidbrowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not hard work that needs to be added to an OEM Linux, it's finances. That's what Shuttleworth did for Ubuntu, he funded the project which quickly became the most popular distro. This author simply feels hardware needs the same financial support to get off the ground.
  • xnyhps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Damn, they still haven't fixed their first bug!

    https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1
  • deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This would be a terrible idea. There's no room for little guys to enter the PC hardware market these days.

    What I'd like to see instead is a "Ubuntu Certified" logo program. The logo program would certify that the hardware was compatible with Ubuntu -- video, wireless, sound, network, etc. The Ubuntu developers could make a special effort to ensure these machines were compatible and easy to setup. This way the customer can have the choice to buy machines from different vendors.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"The Ubuntu developers could make a special effort to ensure these machines were compatible and easy to setup. "

      Yes, let others do all the work. That's the true spirit of Open Source, I want it all ... for free!

      If it's really that important to you, why don't you start a project to develop a Ubuntu Hardware Compatibility List?
    • mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1actually, the "logo" would go to the actual hardware manufacture and would be a selling point. Frankly, the "price of admittance" would be support of the open source drivers.. or even having the full usable spec "outsourced" to one of the dozen or so companies offering free driver writing if OEMS will just put up the documentation.

      I'd like to see a "penguin" logo or "ubuntu" logo on the machines and hardware at the store. Hardware makers would want to get the logo, local shops would benefit from putting together "ubuntu PCs" quickly and easily... with low support costs.

      The next even bigger issue to tackle is media formats!!! we need "penguin friendly" media pushed hard by somebody with money. We need patent free formats pushed online and in the media... there should be a preferred set of formats that distros like Ubuntu can guarantee everybody will have... AND there should be single download open source codex packs for the big players... Windows and OSX. The idea would be to make the media the "default" online format... the current MP3 patent rush is the PERFECT TIME to strike out with this!!! Push for OGG and FLAC support, push for a free, open video support in the BIG players... iTunes, iPod, WMA. If you can't get official support, at least get a sanctioned plug-in... but get some backing and industry behind it. We need somebody that can get free publicity like Shuttleworth to make it more public.
    • JQP123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"... but get some backing and industry behind it."

      That is sort of a quandary isn't it? Believe it or not, money does make the world go 'round. The best way; perhaps the only way, to really get top to bottom "industry" support is to somehow make it financially more attractive than the alternatives. This can be a tough sell; especially if you've already staked out somewhat of an "anti-industry" position. It's kinda like trying to sell the Dixie Chicks to country radio.
  • C2H6O, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It should not be that hard (from and end user perspective) to get ubuntu to play mp3 files. There is no easy way to get the necessary software, or , it's hard to choose a source for such stuff. Not to mention that it does not come from the "official" source and it's written everywhjere that you may be asking for trouble if you install the wrong package !
  • Megatog615, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Is anyone here a graphics specialist? I'd like to see someone create an brown/orange Ubuntu laptop in 3d with the Ubuntu logo on the top.
  • raynevandunem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Someone once said that "to understand your own software, you must first make your own hardware".

    Back in the beginning of computing history, there was no GUI, no fawning over applications, no audio or graphics, none of that. Yet, they were selling computers to big businesses, and as the computers got smaller, the market for them got wider and wider.

    Then the GUI came along (Apple '84). Then software companies started selling killer apps, such as Photoshop, Postscript, Excel, BASIC, etc.

    By the 90's, the operating system became unhinged from the hardware's ROM. Suddenly, you could switch operating systems on the same hardware (on a Mac, you could switch between Mac OS, Yellow Dog, and MorphOS).

    Today, the operating systems have become the major showpiece platforms of the computing industry, with turf wars being fought over which OS is the best and brightest. Now the operating system pushes the limits of the hardware, and has been for the last few years.

    And now this? Linux, the ultra-portable wonderOS, is now seeking for a relationship between hardware and software akin to Apple's "whole widget"?

    Have the limits of operating systems been pushed that far that we now want to have an Ubuntu computer? One in which all the parts are fully compatible (certified by the OS vendor) with the operating system and vice-versa?

    Maybe we're going full circle here, I dunno.
    • NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it's more trying to find help with hardware selection. If we get some good documented volume due to driver support the business case changes for linux support from vendors and we might see more hardware support. the comments here are starting to really open my eyes to this a bit.

      Downloaded microcode and system software fragments are being downloaded to a number of important system components, including some ethernet chipsets, wifi chipsets, sound chips, and video cards. For a variety of reasons, it's getting harder and harder to get specifications for these components, and without those specs it's extremely difficult to write a kernel device driver. inn some cases without the downloaded code the devices don't have a useful interface for a device driver to use.

      In many cases it's microcode that was farmed out to a third party and the chipset designer doesn't have the license to distribute that code. Unless the business can justify the additional cost to negotiate differently, they're going to try to minimize cost. If that means the linux kernel loses, well ... the linux market isn't big enough to matter. We do need a way to prove the linux market matters.
  • matthekc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 some random thoughts, if ubuntu makes it's own hardware eventually support for other hardware would probably suffer. the ubuntu linspire deal will allow everyone to buy their codecs soon. system 76 is a bit more expensive than dell but if you go to their section in the forum you will see great customer service and its still way cheaper than apple.
  • withayanda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I completely agree that consumers should be given a choice in which OS is initially installed by the OEM. However, I seem to remember reading some of the key provisions of a Microsoft OEM agreement which makes it difficult for PC makers to deliver anything other than Windows. I vividly remember these:

    * OEM must apply the usual Windows stickers on all PCs sold AND provide a keyboard with a Windows key.

    * OEM must not advertise PCs with an alternative or no OS installed.

    * OEM must plaster all marketing material with "OEM recommends Windows XP".

    If OEMs don't comply with agreement, including these provisions, they don't accumulate as many points when purchasing copies of Windows that are to be installed on consumers' machines. So, for the sake of argument, instead of paying Microsoft $25 per copy of XP Pro, the OEM would have to pay $100. Again, just an example...I have no idea what they're paying. This is the only "deal" that Microsoft has with OEMs; all OEMs are treated the same and there are no special provisions for commissions paid by Microsoft to an OEM for selling their products.

    Given that PC makers do ANYTHING to shave their costs in order to remain competitive (why else would they STILL be shipping PS/2 mice and keyboards?), I don't think we'll be seeing OEMs start offering and advertising Linux on the desktop anytime soon. Unfortunately, they just don't have the leveraged advantage in this case.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.