View Full Version : forecast

May 23rd, 2007, 05:32 PM

May 23rd, 2007, 06:06 PM
in my personal opinion, the author may have been expecting a bit too much from Dell...

did he expect Dell to include support for proprietary codecs? any and every user of Ubuntu has to enable support for mp3, dvd, etc on his or her own. don't blame Dell! are they even legally allowed to distribute those codecs with Ubuntu?

most of the article seems to be complaining about drivers. who expects Dell to write their own drivers for hardware that isn't even theirs? I'm sure they'll do their best to make sure the hardware that DOES ship with Ubuntu is fully supported. it's really up to the manufacturers of wireless cards, video cards, etc to see the demand and start pro-actively supporting linux.

and only 1% of Dell systems will be shipped with Ubuntu... well first of all, desktop linux is only 1% of the market, if that. second, Dell's order page is highly customizable, they usually let you choose from all different options to customize your pc. i think this is just their _expected_ sale. if someone marks on their order page that they want an Ubuntu pc, they'll make it. why not?

as far as i'm concerned, this is a step in the right direction, but you can't expect Dell to lead some sort of Ubuntu revolution. they make computers, and they're out to make money. i don't think they care what OS is installed, as long as there's a demand.

May 23rd, 2007, 06:07 PM
This guys really reading into a lot here. He's definitely not an optimist. He's really making a lot out of nothing with the Dell deal.

I also don't think it's a big deal that they aren't including codecs. That's really a smart move for them. They don't have to worry about getting sued, and it's pretty automatic for the codecs to get installed anyway. It's almost as good as if they were already installed with Feisty, unless the user doesn't have internet connection. With 7.04, you just double click on an mp3 file, it automatically downloads the codec and plays it for you. Not any harder than if the codec were preinstalled. That way the only one doing anything questionable is the end-user, and nobody has to pay extra for royalties.

May 23rd, 2007, 06:20 PM
I understand the article, but the author fails, to mention, windows also requires codecs, and several downloads to work.

And he is just thinking about the average user, that as usual will not have a clue, not even the will to try to figure out a problem.

everything is about bussiness and legal stuff, hey if somebody got burned with hot coffe, sued and won, what can you expect from the big companies out there?

it ocurred to me, what if they (you gotta know who) planned everything to dissapoint the normal customer (wich there are millions) from using linux, but hey!!! does the average customer knows the word linux?..
mmhh..what is this all about?

May 23rd, 2007, 07:29 PM
Ahhh, Zdnet. Though they do have some interesting articles, I found that a lot of their content is just mindless rambling. Not to mention the lengthy ditribes which're quite off-putting.

How the mighty have fallen. They used to be a lot better many years ago.

May 23rd, 2007, 07:36 PM
There's a reason why Feisty has made it extremely easy to install codecs.

May 24th, 2007, 12:09 AM
I just can not belive tha the guys at those forums , the majority, consider themselves "IT"s and looking at the way the post their opinion, they certainly look to me like 13 y/old people.....so close minded, they think it is a religion...