HP Selling Direct All-in-One Desktop PC With GNU/Linux

“HP Pavilion 20-b101ea All-in-One Desktop PC with 2 year warranty

Highlights

  • Ubuntu Linux
  • AMD E1-1200 APU with AMD Radeon HD 7310 Graphics
  • 4 GB Memory
  • 500 GB Hard Disk Drive


see HP Pavilion 20-b101ea All-in-One Desktop PC with 2 year warranty – HP Store UK.

Only in the UK. Pity. The price? £349 VAT included and delivered.

What does it mean when the biggest legacy PC maker in the world advertises openly Ubuntu GNU/Linux? Even though HP still recommends that other OS it is proud to offer what people want, small cheap computers.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to HP Selling Direct All-in-One Desktop PC With GNU/Linux

  1. Wirth: Turing Award, SIGPLAN Programming Languages Achievement Award, Fellow of the Computer History Museum

    Edsger Dijkstra: Turing Award, Association for Computing Machinery

    Two egg-heads disagreeing with each other. Nothing new there. To be fair, Pascal was designed to teach programming to students so minimalism/conciseness is a feature, not a bug.

    Wirth provided me my favourite programming language and a compiler for the PDP11, so he’s my favourite. I built a complete control system for a cyclotron laboratory in a few weeks with a compiler for Modula-2, a variation on Pascal, also from Wirth. Great stuff. I never found a bug in that compiler unlike a lot of other software seen these days.

  2. Good fun…

    DrLoser quoted Linus: “Of course, in stupid languages like Pascal, where labels cannot be descriptive, goto’s can be bad. But that’s not the fault of the goto, that’s the braindamage of the language designer.

    Linus”

    Replacing a number by a descriptive term does not eliminate spaghetti code, either. One can, of course, use a pointer with a descriptive label and refer to is as a function or subprogramme in Pascal.

    It is entirely possible to avoid labels.

    e.g.
    program funk;
    procedure yellow_dog;
    begin
    end;
    procedure green_dog;
    begin
    end;

    begin
    if 5=4 then yellow_dog else green_dog
    end.

    There’s not even any need to waste time typing GOTO. If you want to avoid the nanoseconds of routine linkage, you can use pointers to blocks of code, but that’s pretty low-level stuff in these days of 64bit CPUs, gB of RAM and high-level languages. There might be a need for that in drivers and the like but not in applications of the user.

  3. DrLoser says:

    Just as a postscript, btw:

    On Sun, 12 Jan 2003, Rob Wilkens wrote:
    >
    > However, I have always been taught, and have always believed that
    > “goto”s are inherently evil. They are the creators of spaghetti code

    No, you’ve been brainwashed by CS people who thought that Niklaus Wirth
    actually knew what he was talking about. He didn’t. He doesn’t have a
    frigging clue.

    Mouth, meet foot.

    It was actually Edsger Dijkstra who famously claimed that “gotos are harmful.”

    Mr Torvalds wasn’t exactly on the top of his game there, was he?

  4. DrLoser says:

    Bin this by all means, Robert, but read it on the way.

    Of course, in stupid languages like Pascal, where labels cannot be descriptive, goto’s can be bad. But that’s not the fault of the goto, that’s the braindamage of the language designer.

    Linus

    Nice hero you have there. I’m sure Niklaus Wirth accepted this as a merely ironic statement from somebody who couldn’t design a computer language to save his life.

    (I rather like Pascal, too.)

    OK, I’m off. Sorry to bother you.

  5. Ted says:

    @Oiaohm;

    “The name Linus wanted was Linus Torvald’s Unix due to the filename limit of dos being 8.3 the bbs he was placing the source code on the name become shorted to Linux.”

    Absolute and complete fiction. Torvalds wanted to call it, and did call it “Freax”. The name was changed by the admin of a mirror to “Linux” and this name stuck, with Torvalds’ later consent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux#Naming

    What is it with you and being so wrong on easily verifiable facts?

  6. DrLoser says:

    In other words: either they had to sell a copy of Windows with all their shipped systems and nothing else, or they would face retaliatory measures from Microsoft, which meant that they wouldn’t be able to offer a copy of Windows at a competitive price.

    In other words, Microsoft gave them a bulk discount. It depends upon which end of the telescope you are looking through.

    There was never an obstacle to prevent a start-up OEM selling nothing but Linux boxen, but it never happened. Why? People just don’t want to buy Linux boxen in sufficient quantities to justify the effort, as compared to hiking your prices by £30 or so, or offsetting that £30 with crapware.

    You can rail all you like about OEMs being disincentivised from abandoning the Windows path, but stark facts stare you in the face. The PRC, for example, is very adept at investing tens of billios of dollars to enter a new “strategic” market: Huawei alone is proof of this.

    Even the PRC doesn’t think that the Linux desktop is capable of sustaining a “strategic” market. Or, I would assume, any sort of market at all.

  7. eug says:

    Microsoft has had PC manufacturers by the short-and-curlies for years: if integrators wanted to pre-load an OEM version of Windows on the computers they sold, then they had to discontinue all products from Microsoft’s competitors. If they wouldn’t sign such a contract to bundle a pre-loaded version of Windows with all their shipped systems, they’d face a hefty increase in Windows license fees. In other words: either they had to sell a copy of Windows with all their shipped systems and nothing else, or they would face retaliatory measures from Microsoft, which meant that they wouldn’t be able to offer a copy of Windows at a competitive price. Only in recent years the largest PC manufacturers have been allowed to support Linux to a certain degree. (Note that the above may not apply in all countries and to all OEM manufacturers. Local policies may differ, and smaller system integrators pay different prices and have different contracts with Microsoft than huge companies do. Your mileage may vary.)

    http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_4.html

  8. oiaohm wrote, “The price tag of Unix was excessive.”

    Amen. In the 1980s I tried to build a PC by wire-wrapping a 68K CPU into VMEbus modules… Of course I could not stay ahead of Moore’s Law and my stuff was totally obsolete by the time I was nearly finished. I did shop for an OS in those days and the boys wanted ~$1K for a UNIX OS for 68K, one copy. I ended up buying a dual 8-bit ROM with a crude monitor system that would boot up the system and pass control to my code, whatever it was… So, the price of the OS was going to be about half the cost of the system with UNIX. With GNU/Linux, assuming an hour or two of labour were required to install in those days, the cost would be ~$20, perhaps 0.5%. That’s enough motivation for a student. It was enough motivation for me as a professional with a computer hobby.

    I did buy an Ohio Scientific Superboard II but it was scarcely more than a programmable calculator and terminal software. The first real PCs for humans were about the time of Linux 0.x. I remember buying a DX486 with a few MB RAM and a tiny hard drive about then. It was just a few $100, if I recall correctly, with Lose 3.1. I used that sucker for about a decade until it was destroyed on a runway. My next PC had GNU/Linux from the start because that was the year I discovered GNU/Linux in my classroom. By then a nice PC was ~$700 and with GNU/Linux did a great job. I totally skipped Lose ’98, 2K and XP, personally although the little woman went that way until recently she was liberated.

    Ah, the memories. If I had it all to do over again how different my life would be. I would have gone North with a ton of GNU/Linux-powered hardware. I worked in schools for four years before I escaped M$. It took M$ a decade to sort of catch up in performance/reliability and they never matched price/performance. M$ may have undercut UNIX but they don’t stand a chance against */Linux if OEMs have to pay for a licence. M$ may yet try to be its own OEM which will open the floodgates to GNU/Linux.

  9. oiaohm says:

    –Everything else more or less capable of Unix already had Unix.–

    Unix existed for x86 before Linus.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_OpenServer
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_Unix and many others released 386 versions prior to Linus starting coding. In fact Linus priced buy these.

    This is why your arguement is so dead. The price tag of Unix was excessive.

    MINIX 1.0 was already on 386 in 1987. Linus had tried this but did not agree with Microkernel design. To be correct Linus wanted cheep Unix with Monolithic kernel.

    Linus knew exactly what he wanted. This is what makes Linux come into existence. This is why you arguement just does not fly.

    Even today you find Linux on powerpc hardware it always had Unix from IBM.

    –DOS on the PC had been around for almost 10 years by the time that anyone got going on a Unix clone, though.–
    Dos 1981 first Unix clone open source Minux 1986. So about 5 years not 10.

    First Unix clone for PC class hardware. Closed source.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherent_%28operating_system%29
    Yes 1 year before Dos comes into existence. Yes this is not an official Unix. This pre-dates IBM building the XT computer and did support the XT computer. So first computer with Dos could run Unix-like clone OS.

    This is the problem you have no clue of the proper time lines. Linux exists because Linus had a goal what he wanted. Yes its 10 years after Dos you see Linux. But this is not the first Unix on PC hardware its also not the first open source Unix clone on the PC hardware.

    Unix’s some are micro-kernels some are monolithic some are kinda hi-bred.

    Dos is a foot note to CP/M that is a foot note to Unix.

    bw this is the problem. Unix beat dos to X86 hardware along with most other processor chips. The exception is arm that Unix has not ported to. Yet Linux and other have been on arm way before Microsoft.

  10. bw says:

    “Linus wanted a cheap Unix.”

    For x86 anyway. Everything else more or less capable of Unix already had Unix. I do agree that the idea behind Linux was to get by on the cheap. DOS on the PC had been around for almost 10 years by the time that anyone got going on a Unix clone, though. The game was pretty much over then and the history of Linux has been told as a footnote regarding DOS and Windows development over the past 30 years.

    And aren’t you just a little embarrassed to grovel after the crumbs that may fall from the Linux table and shine such a minor light on GNU utilities?

  11. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog funny the agreement is for all future version of the VPx codec.

    Robert Pogson I some how suspect Google has paid MPEG-LA nothing. The licensing over VP8 and WebM codec did not allow MPEG-LA to set up a patent pool.
    http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/

    WebM and VPx patent grants did not allow MPEG-LA to operate a patent pool. Any attempt to join a MPEG-LA patent pool over VPx or WebM would have seen you in breach with Google grant. Result MPEG-LA had to negotiate of the lot with one party.

    So much for Microsoft Apple and stacks of other companies supporting other codecs saying WebM was patent blocked from use. At least it ends the arguement that webm cannot be in browsers due to question of patents.

    Der Balrog
    http://pacoup.com/2012/12/20/vp8-webm-vs-h-264-mp4-december-2012/
    Your inferior codec claim is baseless. Vp8 beats h-264 in quality when encoded from source in some cases. h-264 wins in others. So they are about equal.

    The reality as the vp8 libraries keep on improving the difference between h-264 and vp8 keep on reducing.

    Please note h-265 already has a patent pool from Mpeg-LA. I wonder after the agreement to make Vp9 patent pool free if Mpeg-LA will reconsider is position on H-265.

    Der Balrog really it will make more sense to wait for VP9 before converting all of youtube. VP9 does beat h-264 in every important metric.

    Google has managed to create a video codec and not allow a patent pool to be formed. This is something that not even Microsoft has pulled off.

    Der Balrog remember h-264 will not be around for ever as patent protected. It will be interesting to see if the migration goes to h-265 or to VP-9 and if that is with or without patent pool.

  12. “The arrangement with MPEG LA and 11 patent owners grants a license to Google and allows Google to sublicense any techniques that may be essential to VP8 and are owned by the patent owners; we may sublicense those techniques to any VP8 user on a royalty-free basis. The techniques may be used in any VP8 product, whether developed by Google or a third party or based on Google’s libvpx implementation or a third-party implementation of the VP8 data format specification. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one successor generation to the VP8 video codec.”

    At least it will be $0 to users. I see no indication how much if anything Google paid for the privilege of MPEG-LA going away. It could be they agreed not to sue each other…

  13. Der Balrog says:

    This fits in here just nicely:

    Google licenses patents for WebM from MPEG-LA

    Now every user can without worries use the inferior codec. Maybe Google can now finish their half-arsed effort of converting their YouTube library to WebM.

  14. oiaohm says:

    bw the gnu project that provided most of the core to early Linux distributions. Who were also planing on releasing there own full OS. Yes the Hurd Microkernel failure. Most of that development did not happen on x86 hardware. So has no relationship to dos at all.

    In fact 1989 with djgpp project is the first time anyone linked gnu project shows any interest at all in porting anything or even interfacing with Dos based machines. Dos based machines were too primitive for the GNU Project to bother about.

    The reality Dos existence is barely related to Linux existence.

    If anything would have stopped Linux coming into existence is if information about BSD had made it to where Linus was.

  15. oiaohm says:

    bw –Probably Linux would never have existed either since it was invented as a “pro” improvement on DOS. No DOS for clones, no clones. No clones, no Linux.–

    Odds say Linux still would have existed. Just born on different hardware. Linus wanted a cheap Unix. Now Linus was not the only one bw.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LUnix Yes some started on c64. There are many others.

    Reason for Linux starting on a x86 that was the computer Linus had. Reality it could have been anything it was luck that it was x86. Linus was more open to cpu and hardware portability than lot of other projects at the time.

    There is something that would be different bw. Linux most likely would not be called Linux.

    The name Linus wanted was Linus Torvald’s Unix due to the filename limit of dos being 8.3 the bbs he was placing the source code on the name become shorted to Linux. Yes Linus never named Linux.

    So possibly we would call Linux a cooler name today TUX. Yes TUX the Linux mascots name is in remembrance of the wanted name.

    –You should be thanking Bill Gates for having created the opportunity for Linux to exist and thereby brighten up your day! Instead you mutter and complain. Shame on you!–

    So no Bill Gates did not create the opportunity for Linux to exist. Other projects show that is not the case. Linus made Linux successful by not limited to one platform architecture. So one platform disappear would not alter Linux existence or not existence in the timeline. It would change things like Linux name but its author would remain the same because those traits of Linus is what brought Linux we know today into existence. Changing the hardware does not change the traits Linus has and had.

    The Unix/Posix environments would most likely be more diverse without the existence of Dos.

    Its a Microsoft idiot idea to think we have to be thankful to Dos. Dos is why we are stuck with the name Linux. Not the reason why Linux platform exists and is successful.

  16. bw says:

    “M$ had the OEMs in the palm of its hands.”

    Only because Microsoft was sitting on a gold mine that was created by Microsoft keeping the rights to sell their PC OS to startup cloners like Compaq and Dell. If Microsoft had not done that, these companies would never have existed. Probably Linux would never have existed either since it was invented as a “pro” improvement on DOS. No DOS for clones, no clones. No clones, no Linux.

    You should be thanking Bill Gates for having created the opportunity for Linux to exist and thereby brighten up your day! Instead you mutter and complain. Shame on you!

  17. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser to be correct if the PC bios clone never happened we don’t know what the result would have been.

    Also what you leave out of the history is Dos is a poor clone of CP/M. So if Microsoft and only sold to IBM. Competitors to IBM would have to have used something else.

    The cloning of the PC was only possible because other than the BIOS everything else IBM had used was stock standard parts with fully released open specs and most of those producing clone chips was able because when I say fully open spec they include the silicon design of the chip. Its not the dealing with IBM where the problem is its the dealing with were Microsoft got Dos from that are the most underhanded.

    Dr Loser we have not seen Open Hardware like the first IBM PC was in many years. Most of our modern hardware has more black box parts.

    IBM designed with the possibility there would be clones IBM did not think the BIOS would be copied. They thought more would just use there own OS’s.

    PC clones is the start of the mono culture. And it was only possible because IBM was so open with the hardware they used.

    Chromebooks are starting to head down a path of being as open as the first IBM XT computer was.

  18. Dr Loser says:

    This is probably going to sound like a tangent, and I’m happy if you label it as such, but I’ve just had an epiphany of sorts. (Which comes with being one of the Four Stooges, I guess. I do listen to the concerns of Stooge #4, as I say.)

    Consider M$ circa 1981, and IBM circa 1981. IBM was widely considered at the time to be a monopolist, or at least Anti-Trust. IBM had machines to sell and needed an OS. Leaving aside the Gary K stuff, they went to M$.

    Now, M$ were in essence an OEM vis-à-vis IBM. To get IBM’s business, they could have locked in to a monopoly (IBM PCs) and sold an exclusive license. They’d still have made what Robert claims is “a reasonable amount of money.”

    What they actually did was, they got greedy. They reserved the right to sell their OS to other people.

    Add in the clean-room BIOS reverse engineering at Compaq, and the subsequent clones, and this is why we have the cheap computer landscape of today. Otherwise we would still have an IBM monopoly.

    Yes, I think we can safely conclude that M$ “graciously allowed OEMs to survive.” Not only that.

    Microsoft gave OEMs the opportunity to exist in the first place.

    But what the heck, IBM is an admirable company these days, and it’s the very cynosure of the FOSS community’s eye (for reasons that escape me).

    Microsoft was wrong in 1981 and IBM was right.

    And I have bona fide photographic proof that fairies live at the bottom of my garden.

  19. Dr Loser says:

    Well done, Robert, you are finally agreeing with us. We can call you the Fourth Stooge now!

    M$ had the OEMs in the palm of its hands. Sell our stuff and we will allow you to survive.

    You are absolutely right here. (Excepting a small percentage for Macs, and even that is/was on locked-down hardware.) Microsoft did graciously allow OEMs to survive.

    To reiterate, we are all in agreement here.

    People wanted to buy PCs. People wanted their PC to have a pre-installed OS on it. People wanted that OS to support various common applications.

    Microsoft “graciously allowed OEMs to survive” by providing an OS that broadly speaking worked on all hardware. They “graciously allowed OEMs to survive” by either providing the common applications or by providing a viable platform on which to build them.

    And that’s all they did.

    No coercion. No monopoly. A degree of embrace/extend/destroy, etc, and we can talk about that if you want, but fundamentally:

    Microsoft graciously allowed OEMs to survive. And they’re still doing it. All the evidence, including Linuxen available on the Internet (where inventory is less of a concern) indicates that demand for PCs would plummet if OEMs were brought to the Free Side and could only sell the Linux desktop.

    I’m glad we all agree. It’s not often that you see this sort of amicable, well-argued discussion occur on blogs, let alone come to a near-unanimous conclusion.

    Well done us!

  20. bw wrote, “In the classic Standard Oil sense of the term, Microsoft does not control the means of production and distribution of all OS software. They do not force Wal-Mart to not sell any competing product.”

    Wrong on all counts. M$ had the OEMs in the palm of its hands. Sell our stuff and we will allow you to survive. The retailers had nothing else to sell from the name brands. M$ deliberately set out to do that not by making better products but by exclusive dealing and bribes:
    “The goal for our interactions with Intel Architecture Labs is that all of their efforts are neutral or positive for our strategic mm initiatives. I think it is unlikely that we will achieve 100% of this goal. We are working with Intel aggressively on three fronts (listed here in priority order), not including Chrome:

    • Getting Intel to drop its involvement in Interactive MPEG4 …
    • Intel to stop helping sun create Java Multimedia APls. especially ones that run well (ie native
      implementations) on Windows …
    • Intel to augment Directx rather than compete with it …


    see http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/235.pdf

    That one just a few of hundreds of projects M$ initiated that had nothing to do with making a better product. Instead they relied on locking out competition.

  21. Der Blarog wrote, “In one half of your posts you write about how OEM are finally freeing themselves of Microsoft’s shackles. In the other half of your posts you write about how Microsoft exerts such power over OEMs that they’re able to uphold a monopoly.”

    We live in interesting times. By looking back, we see the Dark Ages of IT where M$ told everyone what to do and the vast majority were slaves. By looking around we can see pockets of rebellion and a some revolutions happening today: Android/Linux, GNU/Linux being shipped by legacy OEMs, BRIC countries and others making real progress to implementing Free Software, and European governments abolishing that other OS from purchasing. Wintel is no longer the default choice. Looking forward we see the power of M$ steadily shrinking as more people stick their heads up and chart their own course. The world can make its own software cooperatively and is doing that. Where I live, retailers still haven’t seen the light but there are many countries where GNU/Linux has a good share of retail shelves.

  22. lpbbear says:

    I don’t know why you or any other of the frequent Linux using visitors here bother answering these fools Pog? They are truly the “3 Stooges”.

    You can’t reason with Stooges. You can’t debate Stooges. Just like the film versions these guys are clearly clueless clowns and only good for laughing at their idiotic slavish Microsoft adoration.

    About the only thing they understand is a good smack up side the head, a few Nyuk Nyuks, a boink in the eyes, and some Wooop wooop woooops.

    Give up trying to reason with these idiots. Better yet boot them from posting.

    One can only stand so many 3 Stooge reruns and these guys are way past interesting.

  23. Der Balrog says:

    Tell me how anyone can sell competing products if they are not presented to consumers on retail shelves.

    That’s not Microsoft’s concern.

    You have some kind of split personality. I see it clearly now.

    In one half of your posts you write about how OEM are finally freeing themselves of Microsoft’s shackles. In the other half of your posts you write about how Microsoft exerts such power over OEMs that they’re able to uphold a monopoly.

    Which is it now?

    That’s the problem with opportunism (of which you’re a master). You’ll inevitably end up contradicting yourself.

  24. bw says:

    “Tell me how”

    In the classic Standard Oil sense of the term, Microsoft does not control the means of production and distribution of all OS software. They do not force Wal-Mart to not sell any competing product. There is plenty of evidence that Wal-Mart is not under any such compulsion since they openly sell other devices, such as tablets and phones that directly compete with Microsoft products.

    Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that OEMs are under any such compulsion either. Your own cites show numerous cases of non-Microsoft OS products being manufactured.

    Your mistake is to assume that the cockamamie things you do to avoid using Windows have any broad appeal. Wal-Mart is not interested in addressing you and your fellows desires, at least in their brick and mortar stores in North America, and neither are other conventional retail outlets. At the same time, you yourself have demonstrated that it is possible for a sufficiently motivated buyer to obtain a Linux based computer from multiple outlets.

    Dictionary terms are not matters of law, either. Legions of lawyers have addressed the Microsoft situation for years and whatever juice could be squeezed from that turnip has been rendered long ago, the EUC action of late notwithstanding. Your own lay interpretation of the law disagrees with that of these expert practitioners and is certain to be totally wrong in that regard.

  25. Dr Loser says:

    I haven’t seen Babbage’s machine “presented to consumers on retail shelves,” either, but that doesn’t make Microsoft a monopoly. Whilst it is technically feasible to build a Difference Engine (one particularly mad soul built several in the 1850s), no consumer would buy one.

    If no consumer will buy a product (or at least an insufficient number of consumers to justify inventory) then it will not appear on retail shelves, period.

    Your argument makes no sense for that reason alone, Robert. And it makes even less sense when you consider the “presence on retail shelves” of Macintoshes, often side-by-side with TOOSers.

    Besides, your dictionary definition is not fit for [your] purpose. Microsoft does not have any such exclusive power. Microsoft does not have any such exclusive privilege. Microsoft does not have any such exclusive right. All of these things would require actual physical or legal coercion, which is how monopolies come about. (Physical coercion in the case of Carnegie; legal coercion in the case of Letters Patent and the like.)

    Microsoft most certainly does not have “sole command” of the traffic in anything, with the exception of their own product. The hardware on which this product sits could be built and trafficked from anywhere — say, a condominium in Austin, Texas.

    You either need to find a dictionary definition that supports your rather odd interpretation of what a monopoly might be, or you need to abandon your thesis. Maybe there’s a middle way? Maybe you could pick a different word, rather than this Humpty-Dumpty-esque tendency to make words mean what you want them to mean?

  26. Der Balrog wrote, “There is no monopoly.”

    Dictionary:“The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained;”

    Tell me how anyone can sell competing products if they are not presented to consumers on retail shelves.

  27. Der Balrog says:

    Go into Wal-mart and look for legacy PCs running GNU/Linux and tell me there is no monopoly. The monopoly is not as strong these days and GNU/Linux is growing well.

    Okay.

    There is no monopoly.

    There, I told you.

  28. bw wrote, “there is no “Microsoft monopoly” or anything like it anymore. That has been the case for over a decade now and Linux is still a footnote in most surveys. What does that tell you?”

    Go into Wal-mart and look for legacy PCs running GNU/Linux and tell me there is no monopoly. The monopoly is not as strong these days and GNU/Linux is growing well.

    The surveys are based on webstats mostly and they are extremely biased. e.g. Schools where I used to work all use NAT and show as a single ISP whether there are 1 or 100 GNU/Linux boxes inside. In homes and small businesses, that other OS is counted more closely 1:1. Same effect applies to large businesses and governments. Their huge installed base of GNU/Linux does not show in the stats.

    Fedora gets 5million hits for each new release. Does that represent 5million PCs or 50million? Ubuntu is probably much larger than that.

  29. bw says:

    “What does it mean when the biggest legacy PC maker in the world advertises openly Ubuntu GNU/Linux?”

    One thing it obviously means is that there is no “Microsoft monopoly” or anything like it anymore. That has been the case for over a decade now and Linux is still a footnote in most surveys. What does that tell you?

  30. Dr Loser says:

    Why would any self-respecting Linux proponent care, since we’re talking about “legacy PCs?” (You know, the ones that people actually use to do the heavy lifting. Unless those people are Linux proponents, of course. If Linux doesn’t dominate a market, then that market is by definition “legacy.”)

    And what does it mean? Who can say? Haruspicy is not a common skill-set these days. Maybe you should sacrifice a chicken and read the entrails …

    … I note that your link features the following, prominently:

    HP recommends Windows.

    Which is probably why they also offer a Pavilion 20 with Windows on. True, it costs £20 more, but that’s the Microsoft Tax for you. And once you’ve paid the Microsoft Tax, you get a terabyte of hard drive (not half a terabyte), an Intel chip running at 3.4 GHz (not an AMD chip running at 1.4 GHz), and 3 MB of cache (not 1 MB of cache).

    Truly, this is the harbinger of a new dawn for Linux.

  31. Der Balrog says:

    It means that they took a phased-out el-cheapo PC and slapped Ubuntu on it. To woo gullible people. Well, it worked.

Leave a Reply