Dell’s commitment to service could be that they would provide drivers and configuration directions based on whichever system you’ve got, list products that are agreeable with their Linux configuration, and in the process become the darling of Open Source folks everywhere.

http://www.openoem.com

Their value-add is not trivial and not free. But, there you are.

Excellent place to get a machine!

So, there is an acting entity called Linux who is or should be sorry about “most people” who, thanks to the lack of skill, have problems as in

“I’m willing to put up with that in return for the benefits I get working off a Linux desktop; most, however, would not be. ”

or worse, aggravated by the lack of initiative, as in

“Most people don’t care about how their computer works. They just want to use a few, standard applications. At this point, there just isn’t any solution for those people.”

I cannot understand that kind of thinking. Even now, Linux is a cooperative effort. People who do not contribute to Linux are welcome to get the benefits anyway, but they cannot have any say. That is, if you do not have skills necessary to contribute (cannot read man and configure, cannot compile, etc.), then shut up and pay for Windows.

There is and always will be a limit to what one can get for free. If you still want Linux and do not know how to configure your hardware – buy a distro with tech support and call it, period.

There is no “Linux” to play the Apple card. There are hardware vendors and distributions vendors. Let them think if it is time to cooperate and preinstall a distro of one vendor on the hardware of another vendor. As far as I know, Dell will do exactly that as soon as it makes business sense.

i meant, instead, what you suggested; tightly partner with an existing supplier to deliver an offering optimized for the Linux experience.

fwq2_lee: nothing wrong, precisely, you just got moderated – but here’s your comment.

anyhow, respectfully disagree that i’ve “missed the point of open source.” i’m not talking about an exclusive arrangement, merely a further, more specialized partnership. no reduction in choice, just a special focus on one.

billg: i get that it’s about choice, but the point is that we have that now and it works suboptimally. so how do you remedy that without negatively impacting available choice? tight partnerships are one option.

as for being exclusive, i don’t think that’s necessary. if Lenovo, say, worked with Ubuntu and Intel on the work that combination would itself be fairly unique without being exclusive.

Vincent: agree that most folks don’t care about administering their machine, but disagree that Google should maintain its own library of apps. we have too many of those already; one more would be needlessly redundant.

Most people don’t care about how their computer works. They just want to use a few, standard applications. At this point, there just isn’t any solution for those people. It just takes one virus to ruin their computer and have them go back to the store to have XP reinstalled from scratch.

Others who want total freedom can do it on their own.

It’s obviously easier to develop better software if you control the hardware on which it runs. A relationship with a hardware vendor might provide that kind of control. But, I doubt any vendor would want to participate unless the software ran only on their hardware.