As promised, Dell is now offering XPS 13 laptops with Ubuntu Linux.

The Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition is available for $949 and up.

dell xps 13 developer edition

That actually makes the Ubuntu model a little more expensive than an entry-level Dell XPS 13 with Windows. But the cheapest Windows model has 4GB of RAM and an Intel Core i3 processor, while Dell is targeting the Developer Edition at power users.

So the most affordable XPS 13 Developer Edition features an Intel Core i5 Broadwell processor, 8GB of RAM, 128GB of solid state storage, and a 13.3 inch, 1920 x 1080 pixel matte display. It runs Ubuntu 14.04 software.

If you want a cheaper model you could always pay $799 for a Windows laptop and install Ubuntu yourself.

On the other hand if you want more from the laptop, you can opt for models with up to 256GB of storage, 3200 x 1800 pixel displays, and Core i7 processors. Note that Dell does not offer any models with more than 8GB of RAM, and while it’s possible to upgrade the SSD yourself, the RAM is soldered to the motherboard so there’s no way to add more memory.

Each model has a backlit keyboard, a 52 Wh battery, 802.11ac WiFi, and a case that measures a little over half an inch thick and weighs 2.8 pounds.

I reviewed the Windows version of this laptop with a Core i5 CPU and 4GB of RAM  recently and I was quite impressed with the design, performance, and price.

via Hacker News

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign


Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

22 replies on “Dell XPS 13 Developer Edition with Broadwell, Ubuntu now available”

  1. It’s awesome that Dell releases a second generation XPS 13 Developer Edition. Shows that they are committed to releasing and supporting Ubuntu for a while yet.

    2015 will be a good year for Ubuntu if the recently released Meizu MX4 Ubuntu phone is anything to go by. That combined with 15.10’s convergence feature should trigger the release of the Ubuntu super phone we are all waiting for.

  2. Is the Dell XPS 13 basic model a matte screen in all cases? Really hope so. Website does not mention it.

  3. Matte screen. Looking hard at this one. Don’t know if I can get one here in SE Asia. Thanks for the heads up.

  4. Please proof read your post. There are some typos. eg-last line, quiet->quite

  5. Does Dell provide instructions on installing fresh installing (X)ubuntu? I’d rather not go through and remove the “developer” packages and then install the Xubuntu packages. That usually ends up not the same as a fresh Xubuntu install.

  6. Hope they come out with a version that has a USB 3.1 “Type C” port eventually. More useful than this.

  7. Gah that’s tempting but the UK model is £1236 because they chose the top spec, that’s a whopping £14 cheaper than the equivalent windows model. Plus side, these models are showing up on the outlet now at about £900. I’m still waiting for an XPS 15 refresh with a new infinity display chassis and GT 950M GPU.

    1. if you read only the first 2 line of the article you ‘ll never know …

  8. I think 13″ is to small for development, imho 15″ is minimum of the display size

  9. I think it is hilarious that Dell thinks developers want to be in Ubuntu let alone are too competent to install Linux on a Windows laptop.

    Dell should do what they do best and focus on Linux enterprise. There is an actual market for non-shitty spyware ridden Linux laptops, specifically in the enterprise market. Red-hat or SUSE would be a great start.

    1. Basically they are promising driver compatibility for linux. They never said any one is not competent.

      1. Yeah but Canonical does not contribute like other distributions and are exclusively for profit. They even operate in the ethical and legal grey area by charging other free distributions a licensing fee or face litigation just to use its open source binaries.

        They are they devil. Anyone who supports them is guilty by association.

        1. Acting as a commercial entity for profit doesn’t make an entity evil. By the same argument though wouldn’t you be supporting Microsoft in the same way if you bought a windows laptop and installed linux.

          If I am not mistaken I remember Novell / Suse actually had some exclusive licensing agreement with Microsoft some number of year ago over something proprietary.

          1. SUSE and Red Hat make money on services, which is ethical in an open-source world. Canonical profits off of open-source work directly. Repackaging open-source binaries they themselves did not write for profit.

            They are the very definition of evil in a business sense and Linux sense.

          2. You’re pretty far in the misinformed corner, either by reading too much misinformation from the web or making some of it up. Canonical profits by selling a service to Dell to make drivers work in upstream kernel and elsewhere related to all the components, then delivering an OS image that includes all the fixes to give perfect out-of-the-box experience (timing wise all the latest Linux kernel patches won’t be in any distribution until many months after the new model ships).

            Also, all the free software Ubuntu consists of is built from source that is packaged in Debian & Ubuntu, zero repackaging of binaries made by someone else is being done.

          3. Wrong, Canonical can and does demand licensing fees for its open source binaries. I talk to Clem of Linux Mint weekly, and that project is a great example of how they corrupt the open-source market.

          4. Hmm. I could barely believe it, but there is something going on:
            Neither side has explained the exact claims so far, so it’s hard to discuss, but it seems Canonical’s goal is protecting its trademark, “mostly in relation to the OEM market”, it’s tool is the rarely-invoked technicality that most FOSS licenses (even GPL) allow charging for binaries.

            IMHO that’s shortsighted and somewhat nasty from Canonical but they can’t become “the devil” as long as the sources are free. Clearly Mint could evade the claim by taking the sources and building them themselves (and possibly stripping any remaining “Ubuntu” from sources; I suppose Mint already did [most of] this rebranding). Which would be somewhat similar to the RedHat / CentOS situation.

            The distrowatch article makes a good point that while many people enjoy a good controversy, in the end devs tend to cooperate. Clement is cited saying “””As negative as this may sound, this is neither urgent nor conflictual. It’s a rare occasion for Canonical and Linux Mint to talk with one another…”””. IMHO to label Canonical “evil” we should at least wait to a public statement from Clement, with details.

        2. True. And I can’t believe Dell are actually charging for the laptop. It should be free. IT ALL SHOULD BE FREE.

Comments are closed.