Advertisement
Front, Kernel, Security, Distributions, Development. See your byline here on LWN.net.
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com)Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com)Posted Apr 9, 2009 20:27 UTC (Thu) by leoc (subscriber, #39773)In reply to: Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com) by dbruce Parent article: Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com) the possibility of ARM-based netbooks that won't run Windows at all They could run Windows CE/PocketPC (or whatever they call it these days). The thing about that is there are not nearly as many applications for this version of Windows as there are for their regular Intel versions, so it would level the playing field quite a bit more.
(Log in to post comments)
Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com) Posted Apr 10, 2009 13:47 UTC (Fri) by mfuzzey (subscriber, #57966) [Link]
Not only that it would break the Windows consumer "grab this setup.exe and run it" reflex. Suddenly package managers and their associated repositories of already ported software which automatically get the right architecture start to look more interesting to the average joe...
Another Look At Linux Netbook Return Statistics (bMighty.com) Posted Apr 10, 2009 17:00 UTC (Fri) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Maybe, netbooks as a class of devices aren't going to be expected to be as flexible as traditional computers in terms of range of software applications. Maybe netbooks will be a platform for the web browser as middleware with the vast majority of applications will actually be run in the browser interface. Maybe netbooks really will evolve to be more like smartphones than traditional laptops.
http://texvc.com/2009/03/21/sxsw-taught-me-that-netbooks-...
I think its worth noting HP's approach to installable software in their MI interface.
Built on Ubuntu, but by default the gui package updater only exposes HP pre-approved applications, not a full range of available Ubuntu packages.
In this way HP takes control of the quality of the experience for the target user by limiting the range of applications that are "easily" installable through the designed interface. But at the same time gives more traditional linux users the ability to install a wider range of software. Are those two distinct audiences with two distinct sets of expectations?
The real question is how good of a job does HP interface do at keeping the target audience inside the walled garden (a very low wall to be sure, more like a raised patio edge than a wall) of pre-approved applications? Are the majority of of HP MI purchasers choosing to live within the functionality HP exposes by default..or in the pre-approved additional applications listing? Or are most consumers of the device hitting synaptic and piling in additional functionality that HP has not vetted? I'm not sure HP has the telemetry to really answer that, but it's an important question. Is the walled garden approach good for the less technically inclined mass audience or is it just an unneeded barrier?
-jef
|
|
||||||||||||