Dell loves Ubuntu.

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

Oh? Do explain.

Time spent actively preventing viruses/malware or actual dollars spent on anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Degradation of performance if neither of those steps are taken.

Time wasted hunting down all the programs you want/need with Vista, plus time spent keeping all of those programs updated. Ubuntu updates include all programs installed via the Ubuntu installer plus there's a huge repository that includes damn near every program you'll ever need.

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

Oh? Do explain.

Time spent actively preventing viruses/malware or actual dollars spent on anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Degradation of performance if neither of those steps are taken.

Time wasted hunting down all the programs you want/need with Vista, plus time spent keeping all of those programs updated. Ubuntu updates include all programs installed via the Ubuntu installer plus there's a huge repository that includes damn near every program you'll ever need.

If the person can make an informed decision between Ubuntu or Vista, your argument is moot.

A person that will actually be able to use Ubuntu well is not going to have to "hunt down" programs for Vista and more than likely knows how to use automatic updates. They will also be relatively well-versed when it comes to spyware/malware/hostile programs.

Some of the best preventative software out there is already free. Knowing how to properly setup limited accounts is even more valuable and free, and not outside the knowledge of people considering using Ubuntu as an OS. Mech has an awesome writeup in Security about this.

So it's a wash in terms of costs for those relatively knowledgable.

So we'll compare it to average Joe Schmoe user. Joe Schmoe is not going to know how to properly configure or install programs in a Linux environment without some research. There's going to be a decent learning curve doing what they were previously doing in Windows. They're going to have to either research Emulators or look up alternative programs.

So there's a substantial time cost associated with your Ubuntu environment right there.

Joe Schmoe is just going to use the standard Vista Firewall (a relatively secure firewall compared to the XP variant), use the standard AV and Spyware (McAfee Security suite) and is going to go on their merry way. They won't pay beyond the standard costs for the most part, and the guys at Dell will likely have them wipe their system in the event of a problem.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

Oh? Do explain.

Time spent actively preventing viruses/malware or actual dollars spent on anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Degradation of performance if neither of those steps are taken.

Time wasted hunting down all the programs you want/need with Vista, plus time spent keeping all of those programs updated. Ubuntu updates include all programs installed via the Ubuntu installer plus there's a huge repository that includes damn near every program you'll ever need.

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
Dell charges more because someone has to write drivers. And support people.
They do not sell the OS itself.

I wonder if drivers Dell will write for it's computers are going to be open source?
If they are, that's neat - it should be easier for volunteers to rewrite these drivers to work with non-Dell hardware and we will have more Linux drivers.

That's one optimistic way to look at it. I doubt that they are looking at it that way. I think they are just applying the supply/demand rules even though the OS is technically free. They are basically "guessing" what it would cost and then factor in the demand to come up with a price. Therefore, they are selling the OS.

And you were expecting something different? Corporations never offer anything for "free". Even the freebies/sales/good deals always make them money in the end. No point in doing so otherwise.

Either way, Linux (including Ubunut) is still free and open source. Dell making some money off of Ubuntu (in some form or other) is doing nothing to damage that. Yes, it would be nice if Dell strictly played by the rules, but once again, what do you expect? Companies as a rule skirt whatever regulations are in place until they catch flack for it, and even then they don't always stop.

Soapbox:
The media is a perfect example. The media is a corporation, and is interested in making money. Not delivering accurate news. At present, relatively accurate news makes them money, so they deliver it. There's a reason all of those retarded pundits are on the air, and it's not because of their opinions...

I think you got the wrong impression. I expected them to do that and I support it. If I were Dell, I would do it too. Please refer to my first post which started this.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: irishScott
The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

Counter:

Even though Ubuntu is fairly simple to use, how much time do you think it's going to take the average user to setup everything on a Linux environment? Coming from no background of the OS and having to research and configure Instant Messaging programs, E-Mails, learning access restrictions, etc.

The time cost is going to be exponentially more for the average user if they want to use Ubuntu.

 

[Xavier434]

Also, I think everyone needs to realize that Dell is not offering Ubantu because they believe it is the "better OS" or "the way of the future" or any of that happy horse shit. They are only offering it because their sales and marketing team is convinced that there is an untapped market out there and that there was money to be made. I am sure if you asked them they would say that they expect their usual customers to stick with Windows and all they are hoping for are new customers who prefer Ubantu/Linux.

That's it. There is nothing going on in the minds of Dell which involve how much it costs the user in either time or money unless that money is going directly to their bank accounts.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: irishScott
The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

Counter:

Even though Ubuntu is fairly simple to use, how much time do you think it's going to take the average user to setup everything on a Linux environment? Coming from no background of the OS and having to research and configure Instant Messaging programs, E-Mails, learning access restrictions, etc.

The time cost is going to be exponentially more for the average user if they want to use Ubuntu.

The "average user" as I know/define would need Firefox, OpenOffice, and a few other necessities. Ubuntu comes with almost everything a basic user would need preinstalled. It also has a nice "Add/Remove Programs" GUI frontend which is extremely simple to use and has everything a basic user could want (and then some).

Even the basic command line functionality isn't hard to pick up. When I first started screwing around with Linux in High School, I had no idea WTF I was doing. I figured out how to open firefox, did some googleing, and learned basic command line navigation in an hour. By contrast, I spent 4 hours fixing my sister's infected computer.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

Oh? Do explain.

Time spent actively preventing viruses/malware or actual dollars spent on anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Degradation of performance if neither of those steps are taken.

Time wasted hunting down all the programs you want/need with Vista, plus time spent keeping all of those programs updated. Ubuntu updates include all programs installed via the Ubuntu installer plus there's a huge repository that includes damn near every program you'll ever need.

there are a ton of free anit virus/malware programs that update themselfs

and most users who purchase PCs from dell either dont install any other software or allready have it

your arguement is bad

Finding the best free anti-virus solution can be a hassle, and most of the time you'll still have to register the product which means more spam. Don't forget the additional overhead these programs create.

Anyone who has any common sense installs numerous additional programs for additional functionality. Those that do not install additional programs are the ones who will simply pay for the apps Dell/MS offers.

I'd prefer windows
1. All my programs work with it. I won't have to throw away thousands of $$ of applications and games in the transition, learn how to use a completely foreign OS and all new programs that probably don't have the exact functionalities I expect from my windows programs.

2. Compatibility issues. How much time will I have to wase trying to get my Ipod or Zune to communicate with my PC? How about a Creative Zen? Few of my current PMPs would work under linux. I think that's just as big if not more of a hassle sine I'm sure Linux wouldn't support my MTP Zen Vision W or Zune.

3. People complain about overhead from whatever, but that doesn't bother me. With every pc coming out having dual core and multiple gigs of RAM, that 10mb overhead just doesn't mean much anymore. When was the last time I had a program that would run significantly better with a less than 0.5% increase in ram?

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

If you want to play that game....

You fail to realize that ubuntu/linux is not that much more secure than Vista, it is not virus or malware proof. No one of note uses those platforms, so the hackers writing those things target a different platform. I can assure you, if the average userbase migrated to Ubuntu, all of those things would come with them. We learned that day 1 of my network/security class (if it wasn't already common sense).

You also seem to think that people know how to use Ubuntu. Yes, it is very easy compared to older forms of Linux, and yes it is (as you pointed out) very simple to the AT tech-friendly population....but do you really think some dope off the street is going to sit down at a Ubuntu machine and know how to use it as well as they can their Windows box? That is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in weeks.

There's also the issue of off-the-shelf software. When Idiot A gets or downloads a program that doesn't work on their Linux computer, isn't that frustration worth something? Or do you assume that they know how to configure/use Wine, which they obviously don't?

Monetarily, there aren't additional costs for the Windows machine. Factoring your time as having value, there will be a CONSIDERABLE amount of time learning how to use the Linux system for the average user, and the more of them that come on board, the more "bad", time-consuming things will follow them.

Very simple logic. I'm sorry if I insulted precious Linux and said it was feasible to "break". I also apologize to myself because I said I wouldn't respond to such an absurd allegation.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: irishScott
The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

Counter:

Even though Ubuntu is fairly simple to use, how much time do you think it's going to take the average user to setup everything on a Linux environment? Coming from no background of the OS and having to research and configure Instant Messaging programs, E-Mails, learning access restrictions, etc.

The time cost is going to be exponentially more for the average user if they want to use Ubuntu.

The "average user" as I know/define would need Firefox, OpenOffice, and a few other necessities. Ubuntu comes with almost everything a basic user would need preinstalled. It also has a nice "Add/Remove Programs" GUI frontend which is extremely simple to use and has everything a basic user could want (and then some).

Even the basic command line functionality isn't hard to pick up. When I first started screwing around with Linux in High School, I had no idea WTF I was doing. I figured out how to open firefox, did some googleing, and learned it in an hour. By contrast, I spent 4 hours fixing my sister's infected computer.

And when the average user bitches and moans because the sites they like to frequent don't show up properly? Or that they don't even know what OpenOffice is? And yes, installing programs is easier, but it's still different. What about learning how to configure a brand new email program? Or finding comparable programs to their Windows counterparts?

People stick to what they know. They don't like different or doing things that they don't know already. Why do you think they hire people to install routers? Or a cable modem? They don't know and don't want to learn. If they're forced to learn or do something differently, they fight it the entire way and it takes even longer.

And you're saying we're forgetting what the average user is? Like you said, AT is not the average user. So take your hour of searching and usage and that number goes up exponentially.

How many of those 4 hours were you actually at the computer? How many was just waiting for the scanners to finish?

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
Also, I think everyone needs to realize that Dell is not offering Ubuntu because they believe it is the "better OS" or "the way of the future" or any of that happy horse shit. They are only offering it because their sales and marketing team is convinced that there is an untapped market out there and that there was money to be made. I am sure if you asked them they would say that they expect their usual customers to stick with Windows and all they are hoping for are new customers who prefer Ubuntu/Linux.

That's it. There is nothing going on in the minds of Dell which involve how much it costs the user in either time or money unless that money is going directly to their bank accounts.

Bingo.
(btw, it's UbUntu, not UbAntu - fixed)

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

If you want to play that game....

You fail to realize that ubuntu/linux is not that much more secure than Vista, it is not virus or malware proof. No one of note uses those platforms, so the hackers writing those things target a different platform. I can assure you, if the average userbase migrated to Ubuntu, all of those things would come with them. We learned that day 1 of my network/security class (if it wasn't already common sense).

You also seem to think that people know how to use Ubuntu. Yes, it is very easy compared to older forms of Linux, and yes it is (as you pointed out) very simple to the AT tech-friendly population....but do you really think some dope off the street is going to sit down at a Ubuntu machine and know how to use it as well as they can their Windows box? That is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in weeks.

Monetarily, there aren't additional costs for the Windows machine. Factoring your time as having value, there will be a CONSIDERABLE amount of time learning how to use the Linux system for the average user, and the more of them that come on board, the more "bad", time-consuming things will follow them.

Very simple logic. I'm sorry if I insulted precious Linux and said it was feasible to "break". I also apologize to myself because I said I wouldn't respond to such an absurd allegation.

I'm well aware that linux can be broken. However, it's well established the OSS community (especially in the case of large well known products like Ubuntu) are much faster at releasing patches than corporations (MS).

As for whether the average user could figure out linux, I'd say yes, as practically everything they could want comes preinstalled and the rest is obtainable without even searching the internet (via a very simple GUI frontend). It'd take some effort for "the average dope" but it's far from complex for basic uses, and it's far less time consuming and less complex than fixing a broken windows machine (generally speaking).

 

[Deeko]

Yes, they could figure it out....but I think you fail to fully realize how long it would take them to learn how to use Linux. These are people that get completely lost when upgrading from Office XP to Office 2003 - you think they can just jump right in and use OpenOffice, because it's pre installed? Highly doubtful.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Deeko
Yes, they could figure it out....but I think you fail to fully realize how long it would take them to learn how to use Linux. These are people that get completely lost when upgrading from Office XP to Office 2003 - you think they can just jump right in and use OpenOffice, because it's pre installed? Highly doubtful.

Hell, I had to teach someone to use a family tree program again after they had been using a previous version for almost 4 years. They saw the shiny new GUI and had no idea what to do.

People are literate enough when they're familiar with a program or everything is already configured for them. When change comes about, they lose their heads.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: irishScott
The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

Counter:

Even though Ubuntu is fairly simple to use, how much time do you think it's going to take the average user to setup everything on a Linux environment? Coming from no background of the OS and having to research and configure Instant Messaging programs, E-Mails, learning access restrictions, etc.

The time cost is going to be exponentially more for the average user if they want to use Ubuntu.

The "average user" as I know/define would need Firefox, OpenOffice, and a few other necessities. Ubuntu comes with almost everything a basic user would need preinstalled. It also has a nice "Add/Remove Programs" GUI frontend which is extremely simple to use and has everything a basic user could want (and then some).

Even the basic command line functionality isn't hard to pick up. When I first started screwing around with Linux in High School, I had no idea WTF I was doing. I figured out how to open firefox, did some googleing, and learned it in an hour. By contrast, I spent 4 hours fixing my sister's infected computer.

And when the average user bitches and moans because the sites they like to frequent don't show up properly? Or that they don't even know what OpenOffice is? And yes, installing programs is easier, but it's still different. What about learning how to configure a brand new email program? Or finding comparable programs to their Windows counterparts?

People stick to what they know. They don't like different or doing things that they don't know already. Why do you think they hire people to install routers? Or a cable modem? They don't know and don't want to learn. If they're forced to learn or do something differently, they fight it the entire way and it takes even longer.

And you're saying we're forgetting what the average user is? Like you said, AT is not the average user. So take your hour of searching and usage and that number goes up exponentially.

How many of those 4 hours were you actually at the computer? How many was just waiting for the scanners to finish?

I'm not saying it'd be effortless, but it's far less time consuming/complex than troubleshooting a broken Windows machine (which billions of dollars are spent on annually)

Specifically, everyone has to configure their email client the first time around. The process is negligibly different. OpenOffice might as well be MS office in terms of basic GUI layout and function. It's not that hard to learn how to click a new icon. Not much to fight...

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Deeko
Yes, they could figure it out....but I think you fail to fully realize how long it would take them to learn how to use Linux. These are people that get completely lost when upgrading from Office XP to Office 2003 - you think they can just jump right in and use OpenOffice, because it's pre installed? Highly doubtful.

Hell, I had to teach someone to use a family tree program again after they had been using a previous version for almost 4 years. They saw the shiny new GUI and had no idea what to do.

People are literate enough when they're familiar with a program or everything is already configured for them. When change comes about, they lose their heads.

So Vista is going to be a better option than Linux when it comes to learning new things? I don't know how they'll deal with Aero, and from your descriptions I doubt they'd figure out how to turn it off.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Speaking of Open Office, I really wish they would make a ribbon toolbar like in MS Office 2007. It is so seriously awesome!

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: irishScott
So Vista is going to be a better option than Linux when it comes to learning new things? I don't know how they'll deal with Aero, and from your descriptions I doubt they'd figure out how to turn it off.

Aero? Most people aren't going to be using Flip or Flip3D. Taskbar thumbnails aren't something they're going to get crazy about. Glass is another "oooohh ahhh" that most people won't notice.

The all important start menu is pretty much still the same.

The same lady with the family tree problem had no issue playing around with her (correction) grandson's new laptop with Vista when I was setting it up. Internet Explorer was right there on the desktop. Outlook Express was right there on the desktop. That's all she needed.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: irishScott
I'm not saying it'd be effortless, but it's far less time consuming/complex than troubleshooting a broken Windows machine (which billions of dollars are spent on annually)

Specifically, everyone has to configure their email client the first time around. The process is negligibly different. OpenOffice might as well be MS office in terms of basic GUI layout and function. It's not that hard to learn how to click a new icon. Not much to fight...

How long do you actually think it's going to take for the average user to learn everything they did in Windows?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

n/m

 

[Crucial]

I would attribute it to the lack of 3rd party bloatware thats not installed on the ubuntu system. Dell makes money having all that crap preinstalled and is partly why they can sell them so cheaply. I'm assuming the ubunto versions don't come with all that and therefore they aren't getting paid for the additions. I don't know if I agree with the supply and demand argument for this since they aren't making a different laptop for the ubuntu versions. it's just a different HD image.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

If you want to play that game....

You fail to realize that ubuntu/linux is not that much more secure than Vista, it is not virus or malware proof. No one of note uses those platforms, so the hackers writing those things target a different platform. I can assure you, if the average userbase migrated to Ubuntu, all of those things would come with them. We learned that day 1 of my network/security class (if it wasn't already common sense).

You also seem to think that people know how to use Ubuntu. Yes, it is very easy compared to older forms of Linux, and yes it is (as you pointed out) very simple to the AT tech-friendly population....but do you really think some dope off the street is going to sit down at a Ubuntu machine and know how to use it as well as they can their Windows box? That is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in weeks.

Monetarily, there aren't additional costs for the Windows machine. Factoring your time as having value, there will be a CONSIDERABLE amount of time learning how to use the Linux system for the average user, and the more of them that come on board, the more "bad", time-consuming things will follow them.

Very simple logic. I'm sorry if I insulted precious Linux and said it was feasible to "break". I also apologize to myself because I said I wouldn't respond to such an absurd allegation.

I'm well aware that linux can be broken. However, it's well established the OSS community (especially in the case of large well known products like Ubuntu) are much faster at releasing patches than corporations (MS).

As for whether the average user could figure out linux, I'd say yes, as practically everything they could want comes preinstalled and the rest is obtainable without even searching the internet (via a very simple GUI frontend). It'd take some effort for "the average dope" but it's far from complex for basic uses, and it's far less time consuming and less complex than fixing a broken windows machine (generally speaking).

Hell, no iTunes Linux would probably be reason enough for 50% of casual PC users to pass on Ubuntu.

I agree that Ubuntu works well for a lot of people out of the box, but as soon as you want to do something different (for example, tethering a USB phone and set up an EVDO dialup connection, I never had much luck getting this to work in Linux) good luck unless you're very familiar with the OS.

Crucial that's a good point about the 3rd party software, I never thought about that.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN
Speaking of Open Office, I really wish they would make a ribbon toolbar like in MS Office 2007. It is so seriously awesome!

:| You're liable to get your ass kicked talking like that.

 

[zhwu]

Dell is getting paid to load all the trial software on their PC. I don't think these software will work on Linux. Therefore the higher price for Ubuntu.
(Does Symantec or AOL even make software for Linux?)

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

Oh? Do explain.

Time spent actively preventing viruses/malware or actual dollars spent on anti-virus/anti-malware programs. Degradation of performance if neither of those steps are taken.

Time wasted hunting down all the programs you want/need with Vista, plus time spent keeping all of those programs updated. Ubuntu updates include all programs installed via the Ubuntu installer plus there's a huge repository that includes damn near every program you'll ever need.

If the person can make an informed decision between Ubuntu or Vista, your argument is moot.

A person that will actually be able to use Ubuntu well is not going to have to "hunt down" programs for Vista and more than likely knows how to use automatic updates. They will also be relatively well-versed when it comes to spyware/malware/hostile programs.

Some of the best preventative software out there is already free. Knowing how to properly setup limited accounts is even more valuable and free, and not outside the knowledge of people considering using Ubuntu as an OS. Mech has an awesome writeup in Security about this.

So it's a wash in terms of costs for those relatively knowledgable.

So we'll compare it to average Joe Schmoe user. Joe Schmoe is not going to know how to properly configure or install programs in a Linux environment without some research. There's going to be a decent learning curve doing what they were previously doing in Windows. They're going to have to either research Emulators or look up alternative programs.

So there's a substantial time cost associated with your Ubuntu environment right there.

Joe Schmoe is just going to use the standard Vista Firewall (a relatively secure firewall compared to the XP variant), use the standard AV and Spyware (McAfee Security suite) and is going to go on their merry way. They won't pay beyond the standard costs for the most part, and the guys at Dell will likely have them wipe their system in the event of a problem.

yup, there is a cost to switch.
basically you expend a lot of effort to end with the same result, using a web browser and perhaps a word processor not worth it. if you are a regular consumer that just wants to edit photos and video, you are better off sticking with windows or mac.
the time cost of switching to linux might be a hobby to geeks, but its not something most would consider fun. linux ability to run stably without gui for server or such tasks isn't a big plus for the general consumer.