(old)Puppy Linux Discussion Forum

According to BBC Teletext this evening, Dell has declared its Linux pre-installed experiment a success and is to sell their machines in this way upon request to all comers. Their survey indicated that 70% of purchasers wanted this option. They decline to disclose which distro they have selected.

It's Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n ... &px=NTczOQ

A Dell laptop died at work the other day. When we tried to install win2k from the old laptop's CD into a different one (not a Dell) we were greeted with a screen that said "This software is licensed only for installation in a Dell computer".
Will Dell try to make "their" Linux distro proprietary in the same fashion?

Sage wrote:According to BBC Teletext this evening, Dell has declared its Linux pre-installed experiment a success and is to sell their machines in this way upon request to all comers. Their survey indicated that 70% of purchasers wanted this option. They decline to disclose which distro they have selected.

Now that's a key turnaround that could bring the Linux desktop to the fore over M$. I can now seriously imagine a much more concerted effort to produce software for Linux that meets business' standard requirements, not that there isn't a heap of that around already if you are "in the know". This could raise the Linux profile to critical mass proportions, and is great news for all of us who favour FOSS.

Not many of us would buy a Dell or use Ubuntu (or Windows for that matter) unless we had to. Whenever I use Ubuntu and it's derivative hordes, I feel yeah - just like Windows; boring. I have used Dells, like Compaq they used to be high quality machines with proprietary 'enhancements' - m m m . . .

However, Ubuntu have done what Linspire, Xandros, Redhat and others have not been able to. Mark Shuttleworth has delivered Linux to the mass market. Bravo. Perhaps Dell will provide the $3 poor mans Windows as a CD - how many would bother installing it?



Some wish Linux to remain for the freaky, geeky elite. Maybe these programming gurus will move from operating system into application development. At long last we may find some new innovation in software . . .

Microsoft will have to eventually go open source. Perhaps cleaning out all that NSA spyware and other malware will be too much for them. Put them with the Ex box.

How does Puppy compare to the competition? Well the funny thing is for a small distro we are often innovative and cutting edge. Stay frisky.

Pioneering Puppy

Microsoft wont ever go open source, mark my words. But they may build upon a *nix core, then they'd have security.

Gekko wrote:

Microsoft wont ever go open source, mark my words. But they may build upon a *nix core, then they'd have security.

Can't remember where on the internet I read it but there is some talk that we'll see a version of Windows built on a Linux kernel as soon as 2008.

Makes a lot of sense to me. MS could port a version of Office to run under Linux. There's no way they would ever open-source that though.

People might even be prepared to pay a little something for the Office package if it was cheap enough. The OS itself would need to be free though. I wonder if they would get away with charging for the Windows GUI. Certain types of user would feel more secure if they can see a familiar Windows GUI even if it is only a front-end to Linux.

Either way Microsoft is going to have to make fundamental changes to its business model in order to try to stem the tide of users switching to Linux.

Interesting times ahead I think.

Can't remember where on the internet I read it but there is some talk that we'll see a version of Windows built on a Linux kernel as soon as 2008.

They would never build on top of Linux, but it's an outside possibility they might do as Apple did and use a Unix core. Most Unix varients which are open source have a more liberal licensing scheme and can be made closed source. Linux cannot be made closed source.

Even though I have no interest in using Ubuntu I see this a big victory. Dell will have to be sure their hardware is all supported by the Linux kernel, thus you should be able to run any up to date distro on one of these machines without too many headaches. Including Puppy. I would buy one with that fact in mind.

And no, they cannot legally make their version of Linux proprietary. This is going to be a win-win situation, as long as the machines actually sell.

Nathan

Concerning Microsoft, the most intriguing "Unix" candidate I know of, upon which the next Windows (hypothesized above) might be based, is DragonflyBSD.

According to their dot-org website, they are crafting it from the ground up as a (he takes a deep breath) lightweight, message-passing architecture with 64-bit addressing and multi-threading/SMP functions built-in at the very most basic level of kernel-primitives. (whoooooo...)

If I understand this jargon correctly, what this means is, it is ideally suited for multiple-core CPU's and rent-an-app over the next generation of ipv6, that is, Internet Two. Also, no doubt, it will be far too complex to ever hope that it be adequately audited for trapdoors. In short, just what Dr. Ballmer ordered.

Still, it would be cool if Barry could build a Puppy around it before Microsoft buys it and locks it away, if for no other reason than to give us an OS we could call "Dragon Puppy."

While I think it is farfetched that there will ever be a Puppy with another kernel, I like the sound of "Dragon Puppy".

Nathan

Ever since version 1.07, Puppy has not "just worked" as claimed for my computer. I loved how easy 1.07 was, and it was as advertised. But each time a new version comes out after that, it wouldn't work on my computer. If I want to stay current, I had to continually tweek my system, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. With Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS I haven't had to change a thing with each update. Either just worked just fine. No hastles. I know it is not as fast or efficient as Puppy, but at least they are dependable. If by "boring" you mean where a newbie (I admit it) has an OS I can depend on, I'll take boring.

It depends on what Puppy's mission is. If it is meant to bring beginners (like me) to the Linux world, it doesn't work for me. If it is meant as a highly flexible, efficient system to fine tune like a high performance car, great.

Sorry I disagree, but I think Dell has made a great choice in Ubuntu.

Whatever the distribution I applaud Dells decision to move towards open source.

Many of my Windows using colleagues has mentioned this move to me knowing that I use Puppy Linux and I have yet to hear a negative word from them.

Microsoft is slowly losing its stranglehold on the mainstream operating system market and any move towards Linux by major manufacturers and companies can only be a good thing as the profile of open source in general is raised.

Linux has been a viable alternative as a home and business desktop system for quite some time now and all that has been lacking is the publics perception of it. Now that is changing as more and more people realize that they have a choice.

I have used Ubuntu in the past and found it to be a very well developed OS with a lively community supporting it, I do not have a bad word to say about Ubuntu, it just wasn't right for me.

I have found that over the last six months more and more people have been asking me about Linux and about Puppy, from computer professionals to beginners, of course I am always happy to burn off a disk for them and let them try it out, 99% of the comments I have received have been very positive.

I am opening a new learning center in south Lincolnshire next week and one of our most sought after courses is 'An introduction to Linux' I think that says it all!

Gary

There's a reason we have so many distros. It's because one won't cut it. Puppy has worked almost flawlessly for me for years now. That isn't the case for all people. Amish comes to mind. Just last night I was reading an article about someone who had a bad experience with Ubuntu, but when given a Linux Mint cd, the lights turned green.

I'm not saying Puppy shouldn't try to cover as much hardware as it can without becoming bloated, just that nothing's perfect. What works for one won't work for another, and that applies to all the distros.

Besides, what would the world be like with only one style of clothes, one vehicle, one carpet, and one spork to eat it all? (that's the stuff of nightmares).


This Dell stuff is very good news. Actually, it's not just good news, it's funny. MS is can hardly give away Vista, which has been being hyped for years now, and one of their biggest customers is not only ignoring them and selling XP, but now helping out Linux. It's like watching Wyle E. Coyote backpedaling ten feet from a cliff as he sloooowly starts to sink towards the distant ground.

MEEEP MEEEP! *shZOOOooommm

Nathan F wrote:

Can't remember where on the internet I read it but there is some talk that we'll see a version of Windows built on a Linux kernel as soon as 2008.

They would never build on top of Linux, but it's an outside possibility they might do as Apple did and use a Unix core. Most Unix varients which are open source have a more liberal licensing scheme and can be made closed source. Linux cannot be made closed source.

Even though I have no interest in using Ubuntu I see this a big victory. Dell will have to be sure their hardware is all supported by the Linux kernel, thus you should be able to run any up to date distro on one of these machines without too many headaches. Including Puppy. I would buy one with that fact in mind.

And no, they cannot legally make their version of Linux proprietary. This is going to be a win-win situation, as long as the machines actually sell.

Nathan

1/2 of apple's mac os 10.4.8's source code is open. i personaly think m$ used the source in vista.
here

It wouldn't surprise me if $soft would bring out Winux.
After all IBM had said in the first place, they wouldn't bring out AIS on the AS/400, but they have done it also.