HP UK pulls Linux from all new netbooks

The Register ^ | 6th February 2009 12:17 GMT | James Sherwood

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

HP has decided UK consumers don't want Linux-based netbooks. Actually, it appears to believe business buyers don't want the open-source OS either.

It emerged today that the company will not now be bringing its Mini 1000 netbook to the UK - at least not with Linux on board.

Nor will it release the more business-oriented Mini 2140 with Linux.

HP's Mini 1000: no Linux option in the UK

HP already offers the Mini 1000 Vivienne Tam Edition, along with the Compaq 700, which is the Mini 1000 rebadged with the alternative brandname. The various versions of the 700 and the Vivienne Tam 1000 all come with Windows XP pre-loaded.

[ThomasThomas]

We had server running novell in the back corner of the sever room. I guess the department that used it had left and never shut it down. It had been running for over 7 years with out a boot when a electrical worker took out all power to the server room.

[dayglored]

> No one ever migrated through all those dissimilar verions, you're getting farther and farther off point.

Valid criticism, granted -- not EVERY version. Okay, here's my personal (not counting work) history of migration with Windows, with the versions I didn't migrate to marked with an 'X':

X Windows 1.x (never used it myself)
Windows 2.x (I forget, might have been 2.1)
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.11WfW (very different from 3.0)
Windows NT 3.1 (first NT release)
Windows NT 3.5 (first stable NT release)
Windows 4.0 (Win95)
Windows 4.1 (Win98)
Windows 4.9 (WinME)
X Windows NT 4 (only used at work)
Windows NT 5 (Win2000 Workstation)
X Windows NT 5 (Win2000 Server) (only at work)
Windows NT 5.1 (WinXP)
X Windows NT 5.? (Win2003 Server) (only at work)
Windows NT 6.0 (WinVista)
X Windows NT 6.? (Win2008 Server) (only at work)
Windows NT 6.1 (Win7)

That's ummm, a clean dozen, if you count Win7 (which I'm experimenting with -- my main machines still run 2000, XP, and Vista). Without Win7, call it 11.

Of course these migrations often included upgrades or replacements of hardware platforms. But I guarantee you I've used and migrated my personal data and programs to/from every one of those above without an 'X', except Win7.

I don't think I'm going off-point. I think you're trying to salvage your original statement, which might apply to a lot of relative newbies, but for us old-timers, no. That's all.

As a peace offering I'll say this: Any Windows user in the past 8 years has only had to deal with one version -- WinXP -- which is arguably the most successful operating system of all time, and one which I personally have come to like and depend on. The only "migrations" within XP's history are the service packs, and even SP2 wasn't -that- bad in my experience.

Compared to that longevity, the Linux distros are chaos. ;-)

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Damn...good story.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Don’t forget Service packs...

[dayglored]

> Don’t forget Service packs...

I don't count service packs as separate versions, although it's fair to say that some (such as XP-SP2) contained considerable new features and technology, and perhaps should be considered their own version. I try not to open that can-o'-worms argument.

For instance, was Win98SE a different version from Win98, because it included the first real working support for USB, arguably the most important technology to come to Windows since networking? Opinions differ, and YMMV.

On the other hand, some folks are calling Win7 "Vista-SP2" which I think is kinda funny, since compared to what Windows 7 was originally supposed to be, is pretty much true. Even Steve Ballmer described Win7 as merely an upgrade of Vista, rather than something significantly different (he was trying to deflect the incompatibility problems, and managed to admit that Win7 was Vista with a few things fixed, "Vista" crossed out, and "Win7" written in crayon).

So I don't get into whether service packs are versions. In this context, I don't count them.

[ShadowAce]

[papasmurf]

That’s a load of crap.

HP doesn’t want to support .nix for the masses.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Meant to say 10, versions are changing so fast it's hard to keep up (plus watching a good replay of CSI Miami).

You were right the first time OpenSuSE 11.1. It's their Enterprise Linux that is at version 10.2.

When you start factoring in all the different flavours of Vista, (which all taste like dirt), it evens out.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

BTW, i’m waiting anxiously for Windows 7 to come out. My understanding is that it is everything that Longhorn promised to be (before it got castrated and turned into Vista). Much as i love Windows XP, my understanding is that Windows 7 is so far more stable and faster.

[papasmurf]

Your argument is technically correct, .nix distros do have more rapid and numerous version upgrades. However, consider the upgrade process compared to Windows.

With most .nix distros when an upgrade or update is offered, you merely click the “OK” button, type in your password, and {maybe} reboot. All done. All of your data and programs are right where you left them, and still, fully functional.

Can’t say that about any Windows version I’ve ever used. Or Mac.

Just for the benefit of anyone reading this...
(I know you know this-LOL)
Ubuntu has LTS versions. LTS stands Long Term Support. That means a Desktop version will not be upgraded or changed and it will be fully supported for FREE for three years, and a server version for five.

Can’t say that about any Windows version I’ve ever used. Or Mac.

Ubuntu also has an upgrade version every 6 months, if you like to have the bleeding edge versions and capabilities that go with it.

Can’t say that about any Windows version I’ve ever used. Or Mac.

Most .nix distros have a software installer package, in Ubuntu it’s called the Synaptic Package Manager, that you simply click to place a check mark in the box next to the software package you’d like, then click ok, and it installs all by itself.

And it’s FREE, as in FREE beer, too.

Can’t say that about any Windows version I’ve ever used. Or Mac.

Really, it’s all about choices. Windows, Mac or .nix. But the point is, it’s great to have so many, and fun to learn with each experience.

[dayglored]

> i’m waiting anxiously for Windows 7 to come out. My understanding is that it is everything that Longhorn promised to be (before it got castrated and turned into Vista). Much as i love Windows XP, my understanding is that Windows 7 is so far more stable and faster.

Win7 is NOT "everything that Longhorn promised to be (before it got castrated and turned into Vista". That major overhaul is waiting for (yet) another release.

The Beta of Win7 is indeed faster and may be more stable than Vista. It has many features removed and/or relocated to Microsoft's cloud service (Windows Live), to reduce its footprint. Most people who panned Vista seem to like Win7 so far.

System-wise, Win7 is essentially Vista with some fixes. Steve Ballmer said as much -- it's minor changes, not an overhaul.

[Tribune7]

There are two scary things about that picture:

--The guy in the background with the beard and propellor cap

--Everybody seems to have the same hair color

Actually, it looks like a pretty neat event.

[zeugma]

Another thing I'd point out is that even if you do decide to do a clean install of Linux, it's much easier to keep your user preferences and user data intact. On my desktop, I have multiple disks / is a separate disk from /home, so I can do a full install of / without touching the /home partition. When I login after the upgrade, my desktop still has everything intact and where I left it before the upgrade. Can't do that with Windows because of registry crap.

At work, I have a script that backs up /usr/local, /home, and /etc to another server using rsync. This script runs daily, and takes about 3 minutes.  If, for whatever reason I need to recover my home directory (or any file or directory inside my home, it's a matter of a simple rsync command to bring me back to exactly where I was as of my last backup. 

Granted, I'm a power user so it's fairly easy for me to do this, but using the standard tools available with the operating system, I was able to do the same thing for my mother-in-law's laptop, and have it automated so she doesn't need to do anything to make it happen, and can drag and drop from my desktop to her laptop easily using konqueror and the fish:// protocol (which is just a bookmark in her browser to her). Also, because I'm backing up her homedir to my desktop, if she sits down there and logs in, it looks exactly like her laptop to her.

There is a lot of power available in Linux to do some cool things if you know what your're doing.

[Still Thinking]

Big deal. All HP is doing here is, instead of pre-installing Linux, it’s forcing customers to download Linux for free and install it themselves.

Well, and forcing them to shell out some about, say $25 for an OS they aren't even going to use.

[Still Thinking]

What we had was a (now admitted) Debian user complaining about all the versions that Windows users had to migrate through, which really isn't that many when compared to SuSE Linux another poster had already specificaly mentioned.

Actually, it's you trying to beat down an argument he wasn't making. Refer to his next post (after he said he used Debian):

Also, please note that I did not mention upgrades. I was referring to the unfortunate feature of Windows which results in having to occasionally reinstall it to get it to run right again.

[msnpatriot]

Wasn't it Acer who reported the high rate of Linux netbook returns with their particular version of Linux? I read that the Linux version on the eee pc’s is popular, and that their returns are close to the number of XP one’s.

Have been running an eeepc 900 since last summer with Xandros using Celeron processor and 1gb ram. People who have used it comment that it's pretty fast, never complain. This OS & netbook have performed flawlessly, I'm impressed.

BTW, I used this netbook as a ‘test pc’ for Windows 7 Ultimate. It runs pretty smooth with the minimal processor. I think W7 is faster than vista and uses less resources. It seems to work well. I read that one of the 6 versions of W7 will be used for netbooks.

***The Beta of Win7 is indeed faster and may be more stable than Vista. It has many features removed and/or relocated to Microsoft's cloud service (Windows Live), to reduce its footprint. Most people who panned Vista seem to like Win7 so far. ***

[N3WBI3]

LOL thats great...

[N3WBI3]

“Yes because Sun and Novell were the pinnacle of financial health before they got in the Linux Market.”

RedHat which is a Linux only company is doing just fine. IBM makes a good mint off of their Linux line of business as well. As always you confuse correlation with causation..

[Incorrigible]

Thank you for being a such a good, loyal Microsoft customer for all these years.

I hope you’re also using Office 2007.

Are you in need of any Microsoft chochkas? T-shirts?

[dayglored]

> Thank you for being a such a good, loyal Microsoft customer for all these years. I hope you’re also using Office 2007. Are you in need of any Microsoft chochkas? T-shirts?

Thank you for that laugh. Really truly, I laughed out loud.

Now please read this: http://www.freerepublic.com/~dayglored/, specifically the part at the bottom labeled: "Computer-tech Full Disclosure Section"

Oh, hell, here it is:

I participate in a number of tech (computer) threads, so to save the effort of posting a "Full Disclosure" comment in each one when somebody wonders where my comments or opinions are coming from, here's a summary of my tech background and creds:

I started as an audio electronics hobbyist in 1964, and was designing and building tube amplifiers by 1968 (for my elec. guitar). I entered college in 1970, learned Fortran and PDP8 assembler, earned a BS in Physics, and started working as an engineer designing microcomputers (hardware and software). I've never stopped since (that's 38 years of programming and 34 years of hardware engineering as of 2008).

During my engineering career, I've designed, built, programmed, and delivered spacecraft attitude control electronics, high-power multi-phase inverters, industrial process controllers, home computers and peripherals, and embedded controllers. Mostly I've worked for small companies, but I spent half a dozen years as an independent consultant and still do some consulting on the side.

Computer-wise, I used (and hacked) IBM-PCs starting in 1982; Macintoshes in 1984; got my first Unix system in 1985, learned C, and it's still my favorite language. Both BSD and Sys5 are like family. **I've used every version of Windows from 2.0 onward.** Built a network of Unix workstations in the early 90's. Started playing with Linux in the late 90's, built my first Linux workstation in 2001. Windows systems have provided my income more than any other. Had a break though -- designed and programmed peripherals for Mac OS-X systems starting in 2001.

I'm currently Director of System Administration for a software company with offices networked around the globe, and have learned a few things about security, though I don't consider myself an expert in that field.

I work every day -- and play at home every night -- in OS-X, Windows, Linux, NetBSD. I love 'em all, and I hate 'em all. I have them all running at home (mostly in VMware VMs) as well as in the network I administer professionally.

I don't take sides in religious tech arguments. OSes and hardware architectures all have their strengths and weaknesses. That said, OS-wise I'm more of a "Unix-head" than anything else. Hardware-wise, I prefer Apple's products (currently have MacBooks and Minis). That's subject to change, of course...

Really? ME??? A loyal Microsoft customer? Hardly. I've just run Windows for a long time. But I've run Unix and Macs for considerably longer.