It is true in my experience. I have been running Ubuntu for years and have had no problems. I did have issues when running Windows without an AV and firewall, and when I started running it with an AV and firewall, I also had some issues caused by the AV and firewall.
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.
Any os that has a software repository(with sources) is going to be inherently more secure. If novice users only get their software from APT then they will be eliminating a whole slew of exploits that could infect their computer.
In this regard, Ubuntu is lightyears more secure than Windows.
Not an expert on windows security, but the traditional answer is the fundamental user handling in Unix solves a lot of problems. I admit ignorance to the validity of the claim, a detailed comparison would be appreciated.
Please forgive any errors here: Windows has never been my primary OS.
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.
Have you ever tried to use Windows as a limited user? It's a nightmare. It's "supported" but I can't imagine they actually expect people to use it that way.
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.
Really? Windows 7 still makes users Admins by default, doesn't warn you against it. Single limited users are still restricted to the point of in-usability requiring the the UI and all apps run at administrator level, defeating any security principles.
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.
Surprised Dell is so enthusiastic as some of the claims aren't quite the whole truth... Like stating that openoffice is not available in windows, or that MS Office formats are fully supported.
Regardless, I get more and more respect for Dell as they continue to embrace MS alternatives.
The layout is a bit ambiguous, but this chart may fall under reason #1, whose description contains the text "comes pre-loaded with". Perhaps Dell is claiming that this functionality is available out of the box.
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.
I think they are trying to point out the options - MS office vs. Open Office. People visually scan lists like these and ignore the rows where the both products are identical. If they checked that MS supported open office, the natural way to read this list is that Ubuntu doesn't support office of any kind, which isn't the point they are trying to make.
Is Microsoft still subsidizing windows to meet linux system price points?
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.
Comparing the Mini10, it appears to be cheaper with Windows XP, at $279 to the Ubuntu version's $299. The CPU with Windows is also a Z530 as opposed to the Ubuntu version's N450. The Z530 uses less power and has hyperthreading.
The problem is a lot of companies pay the manufacturers like Dell, HP to load on software. Google have done this, Real, and lots of less scrupulous players. So it may actually make the computer cheaper with Windows than Linux.
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.
I believe Microsoft charges OEMs $15 for XP and $50 for whichever edition of 7 which goes on netbooks. Though it wouldn't supprise me if larger vendors had a little negotiation room. Also, security companies like Mcaffee and Symatec also pay OEMs a lot to bundle their trials.
The Games checkbox was a little misleading. The vast majority of the types of games a typical Windows PC "Joe Blow" kind of user expects to play are Windows-only and/or don't run (or run well anyway) on Linux. Some games, yes. And Flash or browser-based games, sure.
I'm as big a fan of Ubuntu as anyone, and I'm glad to see Dell supporting a MS alternative. However, the absence of a fully supported Linux version of iTunes prevents me from adopting Ubuntu as my primary operating system.
Have you tried the new Ubuntu One Music store? It's not bad to start with and is rapidly improving. Plus offers cool features like cloud storage of your music collection (ultra-portable, take your music wherever you go).
Their list isn't compelling. Especially for a mainstream consumer. The list basically argues that Ubuntu doesn't suck. Most of the topics try to position Ubuntu as comparable to Windows. Being comparable isn't going to motivate a consumer to switch. Especially when they have been using Windows for xx years.
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.
The validity (or compellingness) of that list aside, the copywriting is atrocious. It makes me feel like Dell (or at least their marketing department) is only paying lip service to Linux - I could never imagine that quality of writing showing up anywhere else in their advertising.
Isn't it a little misguided to claim that AnitVirus stuff is unwarranted?? Granted you are unlikely to be infected by a virus on linux/unix machine, but that doesn't mean that you can't pass a virus along to one of your Windows buddies, or that linux/unix machines will never be targeted in the future. A non tech customer may take this as gospel and not be aware that they are actually not immune to such things.
I got a new laptop with built-in 3G modem and Ubuntu was able to connect me to the Internet without me needing to load any extra drivers, which wouldn't be the case with Windows or OSX.
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.
44 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadAnyways, 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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.