Why Dell Won't Offer Linux On Its PCs 628
derrida sends us to an article in the Guardian by Jack Schofield explaining why he believes Dell won't offer Linux on its PCs. In the end he suggests that those lobbying Dell for such a solution go out and put together a company and offer one themselves. Quoting: "The most obvious [problem] is deciding which version of Linux to offer. There are more than 100 distros, and everybody seems to want a different one — or the same one with a different desktop, or whatever. It costs Dell a small fortune to offer an operating system... so the lack of a standard is a real killer. The less obvious problem is the very high cost of Linux support, especially when selling cheap PCs to naive users who don't RTFM... and wouldn't understand a Linux manual if they tried. And there's so much of it! Saying 'Linux is just a kernel, so that's all we support' isn't going to work, but where in the great sprawling heap of GNU/Linux code do you draw the line?"
Seems to make sense to a degree. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, while slightly OT... I wouldn't want to be the IT manager at a company that I allowed everyone in a 10,000 person company to decide what distro and software they wanted to run. I mean if someone has a problem with something... supporting (as the acticle says) 100+ different distros, different kernel versions, different package/install systems, different windowing systems... hell even different text editors. It would be HELL for an IT department to support, so i could see how Dell would have a similar issue. Even simple things would become nightmares to support. Even asking the users what version they are using would confuse many.
Settle on one distro (Score:5, Interesting)
Existing Open Source Series? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with the existing open source [dell.com] series from Dell, provided there is a genuine reduction in price for the absence of MS software?
If Dell is hesitant about offering Linux what the Free Software community forming a third party company and approaching Dell with a proposal that Dell simply contract the entire Linux support operation out to them?
Calling Mr. Obvious.... Dell on line one (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, they won't have to do the image build nor support it. Just let the Linux distro folks support it.
Example: The Ubuntu group could build the image for Dell to put on each line of machines they want to sell with Ubuntu Linux. The Ubuntu group provides software/configuration support, and Dell supports the hardware. Once the Ubuntu group provides a pre-built image, Dell doesn't have much left to do but burn it on the machine and ship.
Sure, there is a bit more to it, but that's it in a nutshell, and it is about open source support. Dell gets to sell the hardware, the OSS community supports the software, and everyone is happy. Current support for Linux comes from the OSS community anyway. Dell is just trying to limit their exposure when they shouldn't even try to expose themselves to support issues. Simply sell the machine as OSS supported software.
When it comes down to hardware issues, I'm certain that each Linux distro group will support tools to determine that it is hardware vs. software. Once that is done there is no reason not to ship boxes with Linux installed. Dell doesn't have to choose which distro to suppport. Let each distro sign up and if they don't, don't sell boxes with that distro installed.
To me it seems just too simple to be this difficult.
Pick one and outsource the support (Score:2, Interesting)
Its not about supporting distros, stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
Then Toyota showed up, and made cars that stopped breaking down. Gradually, nobody was hyper-opinionated about the internals of cars, till we get to the point today where nobody but Toyota dealership can actually understand the internals.
Same with Linux distros. We've been so starved of turnkey solutions for so long, that we're all hyper knowedgable distro experts! Just like the early auto operator/mechanics. Of course these people are going to have fine-grained and diverse favorites.
When someone gets a new laptop and figures out that its "good enough", they'll stop worrying that it doesn't have Slack (or whathaveyou), and just appreciate its "good enough"ness. This can't happen from the demand side, the supply side has to lead the way. Then the userbase of Linux will change. Then we'll start to complain bitterly. Remember when AOL happened and the Internet started to suck? That fate awaits Linux too.
______
And anywho, nobody's asking them to support every possible distribution for their computers. They're asking for two things:
1) support SOME distro, it doesn't matter what it is
2) open source any hardware wierdness you control, stuff like sleep/suspend, software volume control buttons, and whatnot. Just put that stuff out there and all the big distros will automatically move to support you. That's what distros do.
We're not asking, say, Toshiba to create a huge linux compile farm and put out Toshutils for every distro. Just expose the API, create a reference implementation, and let the community do the rest.
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I could be way off base, so feel free to point it out if I am.
sell without operating system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:FreeBSD (Score:5, Interesting)
The BSDs are all different operating systems, with diferent designs, different objectives, different philosophies, differet kernels, different stregths and weakness and different purposes. The diference between on BSD and another is far greater than say ditro X ad distro Y, where asidefrom the package manager and default packageset, its the samething under the hood. Take FreeBSD vs. OS X for example. They're indeed both BSDs, but they'recompletely different OSes, not distributions of BSD4.4.
Back to the point:
Ruling out OS X, FreeBSD is the only BSD geared explicitly to desktop/workstation/server use, as is developed primarily on x86. The rest focus on uber-specialized roles (OpenBSD = paranoid security, netBSD = it'll run on anything under the sun, but since they only need it to run on Dells, who cares?, MicroBSD/PicoBSD = embeded devices and boot floppies, OpenDarwin isn't developed anymore, MirOS/PCBSD/DesktopBSD are all FreeBSD spinoffs, and still in their early infancy, e.g. also ruled out).
Ergo, GF is right. FreeBSD does solve the "distribution sprawl", since its the only one built for the role in question.
Re:Good point (Score:4, Interesting)
My Ubuntu system tells me when updates and fixes are available, and I just click yes to install them. Everything works on my system, nothing has ever broken. When I run across something I want to try out, I install it with Synaptic.. couldn't be easier. When I decided a year ago that I wanted a new printer I researched the models I was interested in on Google to see what problems there were with Linux (was running Debian at the time). I'm not saying it was a snap to get the printer working, but I figured it out. So yes I'll give you the printer thing, but not "nightmare to maintain".
Why Won't It Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect the problem is economic.
For starters I bet people demanding linux are far more willing to voice demands than they are to put up money. I bet tons of the people who asked dell to offer a linux PC wouldn't really buy one. They might like linux but when it comes time to buy a new computer they decide to dull boot and realize it's cheaper just to buy the computer preloaded with windows. Even if this isn't the case the possibility that linux advocates make more noise than they would buy computers is something Dell must consider.
Secondly Dell doesn't have apps to sell people who buy linux only boxes printer ink and all sorts of other high margin items. If anything the problem is they realize the people who buy linux boxes wouldn't buy extended support, at least not the sort of support it was economical to offer. Dell probably has a nearly zero margin on the basic PC and makes up their money on the extras. Why bother selling a linux PC if the purchasers are smart enough not to buy any of the high margin extras?
Finally there is the concern of pissing off MS. Whatever anti-trust rulings MS is constrained by why risk pissing them off unless it would bring you a high margin business?
The issue isn't offering support it is making money!
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless that user wants to use a graphic tablet, a second mouse with some additional buttons, a different refresh rate for his monitor, a multi-monitor setup or a ton of other things. There is a lot of things that one can do with GUI tools in Linux, but I still have to visit xorg.conf *far* more often then I would like. And unless there one day comes a proper GUI configuration tool for said file that won't change, doing configuration changes without restarting Xorg would be a nice thing to have. Beside the lack of a standard cross distribution package format xorg.conf is among the ugliest show stopper issues for Linux on the desktop.
kernel compatibility is all that matters (Score:4, Interesting)
NO (absolutely none what-so-ever) ATI cards unless ATI decides to at least produce a binary driver that works (prefereably source, but at the very least, something that actually works as advertised and works in linux, not just for Toms hardware under the most fully patched version of WinXP)
NO (absolutely none what-so-ever) Phoenix BIOS unless they're willing to release every single last detail about ACPI, etc. to the kernel devs ... ditto for any other BIOS manufacturer.
Basically if Dell could do that, it wouldn't matter what distro they put on (I said Ubuntu because it's nice and flashy and is free and has left most of the libraries reasonably unmollested, unlike some distros ... I use Slackware myself)
This much should not be hard for a company with resources like Dell or Gateway or Toshiba to pull off ...
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This has been answered many times (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:sell without operating system (Score:2, Interesting)
I would already be happier, if there was the option to buy systems without operating system. Dell could sell such systems cheaper not only because of the lacking windows system but also because they would not have to offer support for OS issues.
I work at a PC manufacturer that sells PCs and I know the rules of the game. One problem is that there is a contract with Microsoft that says "you're not allowed to ship any PC without operating system" of course because they didn't want that you ship hardware to run pirated OS versions on it. The other side of the medal is that of course customers don't want to pay the Microsoft tax, so if someone doesn't want to order an OEM windows, then we will ship the box with a Linux-DVD. So the contract is not violated since we always ship with an OS, even if its probably not what MS had in mind.
Besides that the question is if it will be really cheaper to ship without Windows. I don't know the conditions that Dell has when buying OEM licenses, but I know from the past long ago that MS is defending themselves against firms that officially say "We offer an alternative to MS". Long ago there were shops that offered OS/2 on their systems and the result was that they didn't get the boxes from MS any more or if then at a higher price than before. So the risk is that Microsoft is rising the price for an OEM license and you gain nothing.
Lets see the support issues. As I told you we ship an "alibi DVD" with the explicit note that we don't offer support for that and its just an OS to fulfill the "do not ship without os rule". Even for that we get a lot of support questions. The problem is, that a PC without OS is like a car without fuel, it may look nice, but it is useless. So you have at least to do some statement on which OS can run on your PC, and people tend to see a support agreement in that. Face the facts: There is no official support for openSUSE from Novell and there is no official support for Fedora from Red Hat. So if people use that "free distributions" then they expect their system to work with those distros, if problems show up then they want the support from the system vendor. Of course you could recommend RHEL or SLED, but then you get support only if your box is "certified" and even worse, the Microsoft tax is replaced by a Red Hat or Novell tax.
Personally I know that Linux is fine for the desktop, but in a profit driven world the problem of system vendors is that they have to invest in ressources for an OS that has a market share below 5%. That is the real problem with it. If Linux desktop market share would be 20% then nobody would complain that offering Linux boxes means investing money for support and engineering.
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:4, Interesting)
A better example is what happened when I migrated my parents to Red Hat Linux 6.1 (back in 1999). They had been using Windows 95 at the time. I installed it, configured it, made sure everything they needed was accessible, and set it up next to their Windows system. The tech support calls practically stopped, and they started using the Linux system more than their Windows system.
Linux isn't hard to use. There are things people are not used to ("How come Comet Cursors doesn't work?") bit in general, non-techies I know who have made the jump are fairly unlikely to go back.
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
I think Ubuntu would work quite well for the average "grandma" user...setting up simple things is very easy, and there's even an update reminder thing like Windows and OSX so you don't fall behind on updates.
I think you want a mac. (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree with you. The command line is very scary.
Also,
if books are ever going to return to mainstream, they need to replace all those words with pictures.
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
But sometimes you have to do that under Windows too. Like editing %WINDIR%\System32\Drivers\etc\hosts to work around a flaky WINS server, or edit %SystemDrive%\boot.ini to set "/usepmtimer" if you have an AMD64 X2 where the core TSCs aren't in sync.
Not to mention editing the dreaded registry. Editing a text config file is often peanuts compared to that; at least most config files are annotated with comments.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen lots of Windows boards like that, though. And lots of Xbox/game sites like that.
Strange.
Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action (Score:3, Interesting)
If people start taking their Linux PCs to shops to have them fixed, the "experts" will learn how to deal with linux.
Re:Stop it! (Score:3, Interesting)
I AM tired of hearing sophomoric arguments from people who aren't in business themselves - including the idiot who wrote this article.
The variety of Linux distros is utterly irrelevant to anybody, including Dell. If Dell wants to sell Linux, they will deal with one of the top two or three Linux companies and that's it. It's an insignifant issue in all other respects. If there went fifty versions of Windows, does anybody expect Dell would try to support them all? Hardly - they would turn that whole thing back to Microsoft to do the support - and rightly so. In fact, they and the rest of the industry SHOULD do that - make Microsoft RESPONSIBLE for supporting their own crap, rather than laying it off on everybody else while Bill reaps the savings.
One moron on another site commenting on this issue suggested that Dell would be put off because some morons would buy a Linux box expecting to get a Windows box and then complain to Dell.
Gimme a break... While certainly there WILL be such morons, Dell is not SO stupid that they wouldn't be able to deal with this irrelevant issue. Dell has morons buying the wrong box NOW for whatever reason and bitching about it. What's so special about some moron buying the wrong box with Linux on it?
Dell can certainly offer preinstalled Linux if they want to - figuring out how to offset the negative aspects isn't rocket science.
Where people go wrong is when they suppose the fact that Dell is selling Linux laptops and desktops will make all that much difference in the uptake of Linux on those platforms.
Obviously a few new Linux users will buy the boxes. But mostly people who are already Linux users will buy them if they believe Dell has certified the OS to run ALL the hardware - thus eliminating the main issues of poor support of wireless cards, touchpads, and special keys.
The REAL issue for Dell is whether they can attract some large corporate business with this move. Reportedly, HP has made some very large deals for Linux desktops - involving thousands of units per sale. THIS is what Dell will be looking at - not whether some individuals want Linux on the desktop.
The ONLY issue for Dell is will it cost them more to set that market up than they make on those larger deals to do it - and only Dell can know that.
If there ARE large corporate Linux sales to be made AND Dell can figure out how to provide that service to those corporations, it MAY help Linux in moving to the desktop. But that's a chicken-and-egg issue - which came first, the corporate desire for Linux or Dell providing Linux? Obviously the demand has to be there, so the entrance of Dell into that market will not really improve Linux's chances for being on the desktop. The only way that would be true is if major corporations aren't moving to Linux because they can't get major hardware supplier support - and that isn't a proven fact.
The one BIG advantage Linux users may get from Dell supporting that market is that at least some peripheral manufacturers may then be motivated - or requested by Dell - to provide driver support. And that will be good for all Linux users.
Re:The answer's pretty simple (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the average Joe buying a Linux box, he/she will use what is given. I doubt they care much what distro they get, or if they even know what "distro" means. If it breaks, they will ask their friendly neighbour (who used to help them out with the windows machine) anyway, not go to Dell.
So, again, how difficult is to choose one distro that will work with the peripherals and get done with it? All I see is excuses.