Why Do Commercial Offerings Use Linux, But Not Support Linux Users? 414
Michele Alessandrini writes "Having bought several TomTom One navigation systems at work, I was browsing their web site to find information about maps.
There are several pages of documentation about their devices.
In one of them, they proudly inform you that their devices use Linux, as a warranty of power and stability. They even prominently display their GPL compatibility. But, when you come to the software (the one used to manage updates, set locations, etc), they only support Windows and Mac OS. Not that surprising, and not a real necessity. Just the same, they probably saved millions of dollars using a free kernel and didn't think to support Linux users. As Linux gains ground in commercial applications like this, how often are we going to see actual users of the OS left out in the cold? Why don't more Linux-using shops reach out to the Linux-using community?"
What about server/client discrimination (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, companies which promise a linux client is "coming soon!" and then years later still haven't delivered a damn thing. (I'm looking at you ventrilo on both counts).
You think it's bad to be a user? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that I would have ever done anything like that. No, sir!
In any case, the usual justification is that the linux user community is too small to be worth the effort required to support it. Fortunately, for the company I work for, there is a serviceable, if somewhat clunky, Web-based interface that is browser-agnostic, so I can use our services no matter what OS I choose to run. There are also movements afoot to expose the services we provide through open protocols like WebDAV and LDAP, which would, in the fullness of time, allow Linux users the ability to develop their own clients.
Re:Because.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of us would be quite happy with "Here's the linux binary; we won't help you with it, but we'll maintain a user support forum and pay attention to bug reports."
Or, "Here's the Windows binary and source code; that should get you started. We won't help you with the Linux port, but we promise not to actively hinder it with malicious firmware updates." After all, for a company making a hardware device, the profit center is the device, not the computer-side software. Why not make it open?
Re:Easy Answer (Score:2, Interesting)
I am thinking that the OP wanted to highlight that a company that goes out of its way to show that is uses Linux on the back end, still doesn't support Linux users on the front end. Once the stage is set he then asks is this usual and when if ever is this likely to change?
I don't like to think that companies can court Linux users on the one hand by touting how much they use and understand Linux and then still refuse to support Linux using customers on the other without some issues arising. I don't think that this is a matter of financial problems either. If they are only concerned with a non-technical, non-Linux using customer base, then why go to the trouble of advertising their use of Linux and GPL compliance?
I, like the OP wonder if lip service to Linux customers will continue to be the normal practice, even while companies benefit enormously from Linux.
Perhaps one day the monopoly will fail and open standards will prevail, but until then, how do I get support for my Linux machines? If all of us Linux users simply roll over and say we aren't worth the trouble, then maybe we aren't. I do like seeing the question voiced though and I will be happy to add mine, ever hopeful that one day Linux users will be seen as commonplace enough to warrant support.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Interesting)
Brand Z starts to ship decent linux drivers, or at least offers up datasheets.
Geek "Y" decides that he loves this company, and recommends them to all of his friends and family, who trust him because he is the family geek. Suddenly, company "B's" sales increase even with non-geeks.
it's about their target audience (Score:4, Interesting)
When it comes to providing software for users to load to interface a computer with that device, most are still using Microsoft Windows and far far fewer using Mac. IMO, the Mac gets support because it has a long history in the industry and not supporting it pisses of some vocal users( media, etc ).
With this in mind, do you now understand why Microsoft went all out to destroy the C++ frameworks businesses in the 90s? Why they have done the same when any cross platform development tool gains acceptance in the community? If they were using Qt for their desktop app development then it would be one thing but IIRC, Qt 3.0(2001) was the first time it supported Mac and so many companies were/are still tied to other development platforms. Ones which don't easily port to Linux.
BTW, this was the same thing happening when Sharp release the Linux based Zaurus but it was worst there. Sharp wanted developers to help with application and the dev env was Linux but the QtopiaDesktop PIM/syncing application was only for Windows. How stupid is that? Trolltech did release some version of the QtopiaDesktop for Linux but there wasn't a whole lot of activity and eventually, it became outdated and unable to sync with the newer Sharp ROMs.
Hopefully, as OEMs around the world start providing Linux pre-loaded, vendors like those behind the TomTom will start porting their desktop apps to cross platform frameworks and tools so they can support Linux desktop users. Too bad they don't learn from the router companies and put a web server in the device so any browser can work with it using standard protocols.
LoB
Depends on what you're using... (Score:4, Interesting)
It's the hardware (Score:5, Interesting)
Because supporting your own embedded version of Linux that no-one outside one small room in the basement of your offices is going to modify, on your own hardware, the spec of which isn't going to change, is relatively easy once you've got the thing working - in fact it's probably easier than supporting a proprietary embedded system. On the other hand, supporting any of a dozen major linux distros running on a thousand different hardware setups, using different sets of drivers for each and every peripheral, with the choice of at least two desktops and millions of permutations of modules, before the user started customising and recompiling, and no standard way to distribute your software to all distros apart from a tarball'd set of source files, isn't easier than supporting Windows or Mac end users. Especially given that at least some linux users are going to be more interested in proving they are smarter than the helpdesk team than in getting the product to work, and that a lot of linux fans will use a OSX or Windows when they have to.
And, as others have said, why would you expect one to follow the other anyway? If my company was making money from using an embedded OSS system, I might be inclined to put $$$ or developer hours into helping the OSS development community, but I really cannot see why I would be under any moral obligation to help the distributors of non-embedded distros I don't use or the desktop users who are consumers just like me.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:5, Interesting)
I had a hilarious conversation with another geek recently (Mac and Linux using one).
He buys wine on the Internet (can't be bothered to go to the shop). The wine shop recently "upgraded" their software and it stopped working for everything but Windows. He wrote to their tech support and asked why. He got the well known answer - that they do not have the resources to support the development and verification for 3% of the Internet user base.
3 months later they called him with a prolonged and sincere apology and asked him to come back and that they have fixed the shop.
Guess what - 97% of the population that buys wine on the Internet by the case at 20+ quid a pop does not run Windows. More likely - windows is under 40% and even that runs firefox or opera. Rest are MacOS and Linux users.
The decision to cut off all non-Windows users was taken by some moron with an MBA who read some "industry press" and did not even bother asking the operations to run browser stats on the logs. As a result their revenue nosedived by 60%+.
So when someone quotes me 97% numbers I usually ask "Which population"?
If the population under discussion is "Buying luxury goods online" - bollocks.
If the population under discussion is "Geeks buying the latest must-have gadget" - bollocks.
Or even if the population is normalised by its buying power - still bollocks.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.ghostwheel.de/viftool/ [ghostwheel.de]
It is indeed very fun and does make my chuckle - at last "She" can read a Map. Also it is fun to have Knife and Fork instead of Right and Left.
Sounds Good but it's Wrong. So's the Question. (Score:3, Interesting)
To save money. For most companies, linux is too small of market to be worth devoting development time to.
They just wrote the interface in GPL'd code, so you know they already have devoted the development time and might be keeping someone on staff that knows what they are doing.
Their GPL'd code is already "supporting" the user. Using reasonable interfaces and releasing specs is a good first step. Sooner or later this will make it's way to the distribution of your choice and your distribution will have a better copy than anything you can put in a box with the product. One of the great things about free software is the ability to get away from physical distribution and all of the version incompatibilities that plague the non free world. That saves money too. The best support will eventually be telling the user what distribution will be able to use the device without further effort. Next best would be for them to tell you what packages you need to install. The very worst kind of support they could provide is a boxed binary that's obsolete by the time it's bought.
The tide has turned, it won't be long before you are swimming in good desktop interfaces.
lies, damn lies, and statistics. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been trying to find - anything - on Google that backs this up.
Personally, I'd chance a modest wager that anyone buying wine "by the case at 20 quid a pop" is running Windows.
Re:Easy Answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Are Linux/GPL advocates being hypocritical? (Score:3, Interesting)
We can debate the merits of this approach, but it is incorrect (and possibly dishonest) to state that putting BSD code under the GPL increases the freedom of the original code in any way.