Wall Street Journal Columnist Walt Mossberg says that Ubuntu isn't for mainstream computer users. He may be right, but I would like to know what his basis for comparison is. Though I can see based on his photo that Walt is decades older than I am and has had more access to more operating systems over the course of his career, I have to question his experience in installing, configuring, and using desktop operating systems. The issues he lists are genuine, but not unsolvable, and aren't materially different than the same initial configuration trouble that any user could have with any operating system on any modern computer.
Recently I have been looking into moving to Europe -- just for fun, really, because realistically this is not something I could financially afford to do. I was reading up on some advice for Americans moving to Switzerland when I came across this brilliant piece of advice: "If you find yourself getting angry, accusing the Swiss of what may appear as odd behavior to you, this is a good chance to analyse exactly what behavior sets this off and skillfully try to find new ways of communicating to establish good and lasting relationships. Keep in mind that you didn't really like everybody 'back home' either."
The same applies when you are a Windows or OS X user in Linux Land. Keep in mind that your traditional operating system did not always work as intended, and if you had to install or reinstall it from scratch, you know how difficult it was to find the most current drivers, apply hours worth of patches, readjust the ridiculous default settings to your preference, and reinstall all the software you pirated, er, legally purchased. This is no different on Linux, and in fact, I would say that it's much easier to switch to Linux than it is to switch to Windows or OS X after you're used to Linux. Treat this not as a reason to say that Linux sucks, but as an opportunity to learn how to properly configure and control your new operating environment.
Mossberg's conclusion does make a lot of sense, though. If Dell is supplying the operating system, it should work perfectly from the factory. After all, when Dell gives you a Windows machine, it guarantees that it works properly in its initial condition. Why should this be any different with Ubuntu Linux? I'm suspicious of this behavior; it looks to me like sabotage, like Dell is purposefully half-assing its Linux effort so that it can "prove" that Linux isn't a viable desktop OS, and the issue can be safely put to rest. More likely, though, it's a lack of funding and internal commitment to making Linux desktop systems succeed.
The thing is, Linux -- and certainly BSD -- users don't really want Linux preinstalled. What they want is a fully Linux- and/or BSD-compatible computer that they can install their preferred OS on. They want the equivalent of a sticker on the machine that says "FreeBSD 6.1 certified" or "Designed for Ubuntu 7.10." We already have Windows logos that say things like this. Why can't Dell give its customers the same benefit of knowing which of its systems works perfectly with FreeBSD and Ubuntu Linux? Based on that information, the rest of the BSD and Linux users can figure out if their preferred OS will work with it.
Articles 
