Dell's list of why to buy one with Ubuntu
dell.com
dell.com
Regardless, I get more and more respect for Dell as they continue to embrace MS alternatives.
If I were them, I would have also mentioned "easy, automatic updates of your installed programs".
In the chart, Dell includes "Microsoft Office" under the Windows column, but you can indeed order a Dell with MS Office preloaded, so that would be fair.
Too much selling features, not enough selling benefits.
Photo Editing with The GIMP is FREE on Microsoft Windows AND Ubuntu. Anti-Virus and Anti-Spyware are FREE on Microsoft Windows using Avast! (and alternatives). OpenOffice is available for FREE on Microsoft Windows. OpenOffice, while quite good, is not 100% Microsoft Office compatible.
I've used Linux for over 15 years; hate Windows with a passion. Hate lies even more.
With margins as low as any PC maker, Dell cannot risk pissing Microsoft off.
I bought an Ubuntu loaded HPMini9 and saved about one hundred dollars over the windows version. That's the real value in my opinion. Not just at the sale but the investment in linux familiarity means a free(as in beer) alternative becomes usable going into the future.
My main PC has seen 2 windows versions so far, both paid for.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42503
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35463
It's interesting to compare them
Of course, another reason to get Linux, unless you intend to re-install windows. This does suck if you want to not give any money to Microsoft.
I am pretty sure Microsoft don't charge $100 for the netbook version of XP.
No wonder people think "hacker" is a bad thing.
Seconds from when? From a few seconds before you connect to the Internet? I'm impressed.
I don't think this is true.
I just installed Ubuntu Lucid, and it detected both my built-in Wifi card and my 3G modem.
Granted ... I had to go System -> Administration -> Hardware Drivers to have the drivers installed for both (as both are considered proprietary because of firmware or some shit). But it was a painless process.
I'm always slightly embarrassed to read exclamations like this knowing it'll wind up as the laughing stock of Reddit/HN in ten years' time.
Anyways, the actual statement that Dell made (i.e., that there are much fewer viruses and exploits that get written for Linux than for Windows) is obviously true.
In this regard, Ubuntu is lightyears more secure than Windows.
Anyway, this is irrelevant. The article stated that Linux on the desktop is less frequently a target than Windows. This is objectively true.
Windows NT has had users and permissions providing similar functionality to what Unix offers for a very long time[0]. NT ACLs have actually been more sophisticated than standard Unix permissions for at least ten years.
The problem on Windows is the defaults and the behavior of third-party developers. Windows developers worked for a long time with the expectation that the system was single-user (Win9x) or that the user had administrator privileges, making doing anything else annoying at best. XP defaulted to making everybody an administrator, at least in the home edition. That has changed with Vista and Win7.
[0] I think some versions targeted at home users do not expose the full ACL functionality.
Why is the first account you create an admin account by default. If they wanted the use-case that you imply is supported, they would have you create an administrator account and then would ask you to create a regular user to use day-to-day.
Or they would more fully embrace the su/sudo routine that linux uses.
Edit: Also, UAC is basically sudo.
UAC is defective from the standpoint that every school and corporation I've been at disable it, and those that done click Accept every time without reading or considering what they're clicking on. I understand this is partly a user problem, but damn, I'll do one tiny thing before remembering to disable it and I have to Accept 30 things before I'm done.