Slashdot Mirror
Michael Dell Sees Future In Linux Desktop
Robert McMillan writes: "Linux Magazine has just published a pretty interesting interview with Michael Dell -- not exactly widely considered to be a Linux booster. But he is keynoting at LinuxWorld in San Jose tomorrow and he does talk about why Dell is now interested in Linux. Interestingly, he also says he sees good things for Linux as a desktop OS."
Your grandmother also wouldn't have used the PC with DOS 3.3, probably not even with Win 3.x. The advent of WinME and Win9x and even Win2k hide the ugliness of the inner workings behind a reasonably comprehendable Interface. So as soon as people need not worry about the gory details of the system any more (and have their grandchildren help them with those, should the need arise), it won't matter to them. Make it easy to install and maintain and you're ready to go!
Telakin.
Is there a word for simultaneously misquoting and misattributing?
Anyway, I think P.T. Barnum was one of our finest presidents for leading the slaves to the Great Egress.
LM: Have you spent much time with Linux developers? For example, have you met Linus Torvalds?
Dell: Yes.
So, Mike, which is it? Did you spend time with some Linux dev guys or did you meet The Man himself?
Hmm.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
Ok, I'm showing my age.
I haven't used a mainframe for over ten years.
Sorry!
But he/she did say "Unix was designed to run on mainframes" and that sounds like he was talking about Mainframes when they were just a bunch of dumb terminals attached to a centralized unit.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
I have only really seen this "inherent problem" when visitng porn sites. As I am more interested in other things, this isn't a mjor problem. I have never seen a frame-bomb or popup-bomb when browsing /., for example.
You could use your browsers GUI prefs dialog to disable java and javascript just prior to accessing your porn or sleazy commercial sites and then restart 'em when you move on to other pursuits...
Just a thought and YMMV...
Time to identify correct drivers and settings to use with each single model produced by Dell: x. Resources provided by Microsoft to help Dell with configuring Windows on Dell machines: y. Resources provided by Red Hat to help Dell with configuring Linux on Dell machines: z. Expected sales of Dell machines with Windows: a Expected sales of Dell machines with Linux: b. (x-y)/a (x-z)/b. The cost of supporting the hardware with the environments is spread out over the number of predicted orders. That's the essence of an economy of scale.
As it happens, under the usual criteria for judging server OSes (scalability, reliability, security) Linux is not a particulary good server OS - it's just that Windows NT makes it look good.
OTOH, it's cheap and easy to get hold of. There's loads of support available on the Internet and there are lots of applications available which are also cheap or free.
On the desktop, Linux has a big achilles heel in that you don't always have the latest hardware support. Hardware manufacturers put a lot of effort into writing drivers for Windows as 90% of the units they sell will end up in Windows boxes, but with Linux you are reliant on somebody in the Linux community coming up with a driver unless you are a systems programmer.
When I got my new Dell CSx laptop, it came preconfigured to install Windows when I first switched it on. Ok, the process requires four reboots and takes about an hour and a half, but at the end of that the PC and all of its peripherals were functioning perfectly.
Then I came to install RH Linux on the same laptop. The install took about an hour with two reboots (the first one being so I could restart the install in text mode because the RH install usually starts an X-server so that it can look pretty, and the X-server refused to talk to my graphics card). However, at the end of this I had no GUI. XFree86 absolutely refused to do anything with my graphics card as it was too new. I estimate I took about 16 hours or more to get it working. Is the average person going to spend that length of time getting their PC to work? I don't think so. He/she'll format c: and reinstall Windows.
However, in the corporate environment where the IT dept can control both the hardware standards and Linux config, I think it would make an extremely good desktop OS.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
This is a bogus argument... you know that have images laying around for all possible hardware configs and they just slap a disk image on the drive and push it down the assembly line.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Thank you for following up.
I see what you are saying about names, and I did not do it thoughtlessly.
My post would have no potential to have any sort of positive impact without this information. I honestly believe that no one
else will be able to figure out who these people are.
Said another way, I would be okay with using full names if I were saying this stuff to anyone who could possibly figure out
who they are, based on the abbreviations I used.
Frankly, I truly believe that these people are harming Dell by there incompetence (or possibly failure to follow M. Dell's
direction) and, beyond forcing me out of the job, the are harming me, and my fellows, by dragging the stock down. This
being the case, they need to be called on the carpet. Clearly they would have to be called by name.
-Peter
You can find lots of linux hardware here - preconfigured with Linux and with support
There is Linux links on the sidebar in the biz sections, but not in the consumer section.
As a matter of fact, I tried to look at your web-site yesterday. But not only did it not have any obvious Linux-system links, it was configured to work with Javascript-enabled browsers only.
Not only do I regard active content such as Javascript to be a security risk, I have also had too damned many denial-of-service attacks disguised as Javascript web pages!! Too many web designers regard it as an opportunity to "one-up" frame-bombs. For this reason, I categorically refuse to run Java or Javascript.
So either clean up your act or else forget about me -- and my friends who consult me -- as a customer.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Isn't it fairly obvious? Dell likes Linux because it's the "next big thing". Just like dot-com startups and MP3 companies, it doesn't matter whether something's actually profitable. As long as they have the flimsiest idea on how to make money off the deal, investors are going to throw money at them for talking about the latest hype.
I like linux. But I don't think companies are going to be able to get used to it easily enough. Fortunately Dell is a hardware vendor, so they don't have to worry about open source. But still, if he says things about linux (while not offending MS), then people will like him. It's publicity, nothing more.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
Don't you just love the way he sidestepped trashing MicroSoft. Not that I blame him. He wants to sell computers, not fight a holy OS war. But couldn't you just tell by his tone that what he really wanted to say would go something like:
Q. And what about MicroSoft? How will Linux affect them?
A. I hope that piece of crap OS get's plowed under like last years chaff so that we don't have to support Gate's business model anymore. I'm so sick of supporting his closed source flotsam I could puke. Linux will let us cut our support staff in half, and with the source code we'll be able to push the envelope of what the PC can do. In a few years, you will see us shipping Dell computer that truly inovative and not just Wintel tag-alongs.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
For windoze, yes, probably not yet for Linux. They'll have to collect drivers and settings and test various configs to see which ones like Linux [see a recent Maximum PC article on how prefab systems are built for some info]. Besides, once the images ARE done, they still have to pay the support staff, which WILL cost more. So, in the end, installing Linux will cost more for a time. [Mr. Dell's statement is not false, it is merely not descriptive enough. The actual cost of actually installing the software may not be more, but the end sum costs of installing it will be]
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
Direct3D emulation under Wine is a little behind, but will probably eventually overtake Microsoft's implementation too.
How can Wine's Direct3D emulation (or Wine itself, for that matter) "overtake" Windows? It is trying to BE Windows. Can Wine really be a better Windows than Windows?
cpeterso
Linux can please all of the people all of the time, simply because there is more than one distribution of it. If you want servers, go with Debian, if you want desktop, go with Mandrake. I wouldn't use Mandrake to host a website getting 300,000 hits a day, but I will use it to play my mp3s and play games.
Converting Linux into a desktop OS is the most feasable alternative to Windows right now, if that's their aim. And the fact that there are different distributions of Linux insures that if it dies horribly, that it won't take everyone down with it, and if it succeeds, that Linux will still be able to please those who like to hack the command line and those who like to point and click.
- Wedg
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
Because tool is all that computer is. It's not a piece of art, it's not a personal friend -- it is a mere tool. Like a hammer or a pencil or anything. Only a bit more versatile.
I have a dream where you walk up to a computer (at that time rather a terminal), you touch it - and the usage of it is as evident to you as the usage of a hammer.
Mark Weiser at Xerox PARC had the same dream of ubiquitous computing. Many small computers embedded around us that function invisibly without the user having to worry about OS, software, hardware, etc.
PDAs are close, but they aren't transparent enough to us because we still have to fool around with the clumsy interface.
Tivo is closer, is acts like an appliance should-- hiding the underlying operations and recording my shows. I don't have to worry about filemanagement or any crap like that in my VCR, it just works.
In the morning, I just want to turn the knob for darker toast, I don't want to tweak the toaster kernel and recompile...(meanwhile on my PC, I enjoy the tweaking)
Back to the point: I agree that OSes should shift to make our computers more like tools, but I don't think Linux and MacOS are particularly wrong for it.
____________________________
____________________________
EOF
linux is hard to use. i tried for about six months and i still was't comfortable with it. i had been using windows for 2 years before.
any OS that is that hard to use is not meant for the desktop.
i think the biggest thing holding it back is the inconsistent interfaces... linux may be OK for geeks with nothing better to do but like, script Perl or whatever, but for people who actually have to USE them to GET THINGS DONE NOW, linux is not an option.
mmkay? excuse my blasphemy.
If multi-user isn't useful "on the desktop" why does even Windows 95 (ORS 2.5, at least) have user profiles ? and NT have file permissions ? You seem to be confusing "desktop use" with "home use", but even for home use, multi-user capabilities are useful: my brother and parents have their 98 machine set up with different profiles for different users.
I'd suggest that instead of removing command line and multi-user functionality from the system, what you really want to do is to hide it. NextStep did at least part of this fairly well, by hiding the "normal" Unix directory hierarchy, because no user ever really needed to see it.
Similarly, I'd suggest hiding the existence of different user permissions, by running as little stuff as possible as root, and never allowing root logins, but making all manipulations of the (hidden) system files dependent on a concealed "sudo". This prevents users from accidentally fubaring the system (I assume you don't always login as root, for exactly this reason), while meaning they don't have to know anything about users or permissions beyond entering their name when they start the system.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Yes, NT fails miserably on all of those, which makes Linux look good. However, that doesn't mean Linux is lacking in those areas. In fact, it does pretty well for all of them. I'm not claiming it's the best in any area, but it's far from the worst. It doesn't scale to the high end as well as Solaris, DG/UX or Irix, for example. Nor does it have the reliability of Tandem or the security of the various MAC-enabled OSes. However, for probably 80% of businesses, it's a suitable server OS for their needs. It has sufficient scalability, reliability and security to get the job done.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
"Interestingly, he also says he sees good things for Linux as a desktop OS."
Yet yesterday, 90% of slashdot readers berate AOL for providing their suite of access products for Linux
What's it to be ?
The other thing is -- by supporting Linux, they rather seem to be competing with SUN & al. then with Microsoft. A lot what he says remains unspoken (e.g. he says "Look at SUN and Microsoft", and then doesn't even mention the latter). Linux warriors may be more obsessed with Microsoft, but one conclusion I draw from that interview is that rather the big commercial Unix corporations can be the real competitor / enemy (however you state that) of Linux in the corporate market.
Best regards,
January
Still there's a great deal of desktops in education, government and so on. Their managers might want something that _doesn't_ run games...
"Direct3D emulation under Wine is a little behind"
hmmn, did you fingers slip on the keyboard ?
Shouldn't that be Wine is a little behind ?
I would like to see someone create a Framebuffer-Gnome that get rid of X completely. That would be great for embeded systems. A Configuration tool could by made from the bottom up to help user configure such a GUI instead of hacking the XFree86 file.
Linux is based off of Minix, which was based off of UNIX. And UNIX was designed to run on mainframes, not on my grandmother's PC
...they say they want to take the server market over from sun
OK, let me start by saying I love using linux, I think it can be used on a desktop if a few things happen here and there, regardless of its initial intent. I'm even using it NOW.
FYI, linux was not designed to be a server, it was designed to be a hobby for a grad student. I'm not saying that yout statement is wrong, I'm just saying Linux is already being used for more than it was intended, so why not expand it to be used the way people want to use it (ie desktop)?
As far as taking server market away from Sun. If money was not an issue, I'd MUCH rather have a Solaris server. If money was an issue, I doubt I'd be able to afford one of Dell's expensive-as-hell machines anyway. If I was tight on money, I would be able to put a machine together for MUCH less and make my boss just as happy or happier.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
Can I use Linux as a verb?
... any noun can be verbed.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Dell needs to put a link to their Linux support page somewhere on their main page. I'd settle for a link at the bottom that says "We also seel systems with Linux preinstalled". I'm looking for a new system anyway, and I am considering buying from Dell, but I need to be able to find the configurations in question.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Uhm, nope. If Joe Sixpack wants his kids to play games, he'll get them a PlayStation or DreamCast just like all of their friends have.
Nope again. Games existed for DOS/Windows long before DirectX and related goodies in huge numbers. Games are written for Windows because of the huge installed user base. Developers put up with DOS's terrible memory model (I was about to say memory management but reconsidered) and built drivers for every sound and graphics card from scratch for every game or line of games. They put up with this because people used DOS and were going to buy games for DOS, and didn't care much about how easy it was to develop for it.
The availability of "productivity" apps, like an office suite, is a much more important factor in swaying users to Linux. Conquering the home market is hard, and not the first priority. Conquering the small- and mid-size workstation market in the office is a much more likely target.
Give a monkey half a brain and still he's bound to fry it - Placebo
I don't believe Dell is really committed to Linux on the desktop. I searched their web site for home systems & found one hit on Linux - and it was a year old. If Dell was serious about this we would have seen an announcement on the first day of Linux World that Dell was going to start bundling Corel Linux on their systems. When I see that happen I'll be the first in line with my checkbook in hand. Until then its all just a bunch of hot air.
>Sorry to burst your bubble, folks, but Linux >just isn't designed to be a desktop OS. Linux is >based off of Minix, which was based off of UNIX. >And UNIX was designed to run on mainframes, not >on my grandmother's PC. Even Windows is based on old user-undfriendly systemts like VMS and CP/M. Just because the underlying concepts are the same, it doesn't mean that the important part in this perspective (the user inferface) hasn't evolved. Rumours say that Ken Thompson designed Unix to play Space Wars. Thousands of people have worked on Unix since then, and the original objective seem to have been far away from the result.
Actually I think it is, completelly.
Ubiquitous computing needs a paradigm shift. No filesystems, no procesors, no configuration files. Forget it. It just works. Somehow. It is simply stored. Somewhere. It runs. Who cares whether it's stored at your drive or on a fileserver in Japan. You only expect the data to be available to you (and fast) regardless of you being in New York or in Delhi. The same aplies to CPU power (which can be quite revolutionalized by things like ProcessTree), configurations (wisely estimated from your previous options in other programs you used elsewhere) and many other things. And I am quite sure when ubiquitous computing will start being take seriously this will not even scratch the surface of desirable behavior.
To the points that others have raised -- about computers being orders of magnitude more complicated then hammers and toasters -- well, no doubt they are. Many things in life are. But they can be made so easy you do not know about it. Music CD player is a really advanced peace of laser-optics physics, quite a lot of electronics (audio filters etc.) -- and you do not know a bit of it when you use it. The point with the car was actually quite good -- yes, you do have to learn a lot before you drive a car. But you are actually required to, because by driving a car in a wrong way, you are probably going to cause much more damage (including damage on lives) then with a mere rm -R / on your system. With that, you are only going to hurt yourself. If cars would be the same, not many people would take care to learn driving actually. You just sit, turn the wheel and press some pedals -- and hopefully it will move.
The latest batch of Dell notebooks look pretty good and have me thinking about them as a real option. However, I wonder how much support this will really translate into. Any *NIX variant demands a good deal of expertise to troubleshoot when something goes wrong. It demands a higher level of Technical Support knowledge than I usually see from most big manufacturing houses.
Will Dell just give you the option and not help you if the OS and the hardware don't play nice or will they back up the kind words with corporate action?
ACK
thank you for proving my point. computers are not the Way, my friend. I used to think they were. turn off your computer and go outside. Windows runs Photoshop, Diablo II, ICQ, E-mail, an FTP client, UltraEdit (a text Editor), Quake III: Arena, and Unreal Tournament. Yeah, it crashes, no big deal. It does what I need it to do. I don't really want to spend all night messing around with something in another OS to get it to work. oh, and windows runs 3dsmax. :>
Look at ditherati for 8/16/00 (today's as I post).
-jpowers
-jpowers
It worries me slighhtly that so many companies these days are focusing on Linux as the only alternative. Sure, this is great for Linux, but is it good for computer users in general? Bear with me here...
Out of all the available Operating Systems out there, how many are based on just two standards? There is Win32 (Windows 9x/ME, WinNT), and POSIX (All *nix variants, most BSD's, BeOS, QNX etc). Only two standards? Where is the choice? Where is the inovation?
It seems to me that all anyone is interested in is twisting and squeezing Linux into ever more bizarre and improbable situations (Linux on palm tops, Linux for embedded devices, Linux for games consoles etc.) Is the market stagnating, where no one dares break away from the pack and try something new for a change?
Maybe it's envy on my part, but why can't we have an Open Source project that isn't based around some form of Linux or a POSIX kernel? Is there any room for innovation in OSS these days?
Just had to get that off my chest, sorry.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
osOpinion has an article by Tom Nadeau which gives a rather different take on Dell. http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/TomNadeau/TomNad eau50.html
Mark Summerfield http://www.perlpress.com http://www.ourobourus.com
Rather than that constantly remake Linux in order to compete with Windows, it would make a great deal more sense for the FSF to create a brand new operating system designed from the ground up to be a desktop OS. Not only would this OS include all the necessary components for a desktop OS (GUI support built in from the beginning, no CLI, journaling file system, plug-and-play devices, advanced multimedia support, etc.), it would eliminate all the problems seen in current desktops -- licensing problems with KDE; feature bloat with GNOME. And right now, there's simple no free OS that does this -- sure, there's BeOS, but it's only free as in beer, not as in speech.
Um....I'm not sure I follow. First, Linux is a kernel, nothing more. Repeat after me: Linux is a kernel, nothing more.
Second - Builing the GUI into a kernel has some severe disadvantages. Just ask the users of Windows about any stability issues they might have. Many people view this as a bad thing. Perhaps a more modern X server that is designed for the needs of the modern desktop and modern hardware, yes that might be a good thing.
Third - No CLI.. uh... why? I'm typing this response on Win2K and guess what... I'm just a few clicks away from a CLI (they call it a Command prompt now, no more Dos prompt)and it's very usefull. Do I have to use it to get around Win2K..no. Do you have to use a CLI to get around Linux...no. You can configure X to start up when you boot and you can do whatever you want to do without ever looking at a CLI if you so choose. But again, why would you want to eliminate the choice. That makes zero sense.
Fourth - Your premise is that by following your bizzare specs for this new desktop os you will have no feature bloat. Uh...why? Feature bloat is everywhere I look, Gnome, KDE, windows, etc... I'm afraid that it's our nature and not really a function of a specific desktop environment.
Fifth - JFS already ships with Mandrake 7.1. You are welcome to use it if you wish. Also, not to be anal here but a JFS is typically needed more for the server arena than the desktop anyways.
sixth - Many of the hardware support issues you speak of when you refer to PnP and "advanced multimedia" support can be directly related to the total lack of vendor support for device drivers. I'm not sure how your new desktop OS plans on dealing with these issues or if they will simply dissapear like magic.
Instead of tossing the baby with the bathwater why not continue our efforts with Gnome and KDE as they seem to be making great progress towards becoming viable desktop solutions running ontop of *nix.
Hum! Maybe I'm guessing here, but are you using Linux as your desktop? I think a lot of people are using Linux on their desktops and it works quite well.
I don't believe it's that hard to have some configuration tools that are easy enough for the beginner. The other necessity is a good unified environment, things look nice on the gui front (KDE and Gnome are quite good, but perhaps it would be good if one won over the other and we had ONE desktop for newbies), but there are problems in the inner works...
We have some sort of distro hell here, because different distributions work in different ways, put their config files and things in different places, and that is a big tech-support problem. I used to work on this and, believe me, it's good to tell someone to do start->run->winipcfg to learn about their IP address.
Linux needs some standards, at least for config files and directories. One simple way to set up dial-up, for starters!
I don't think we need more OS's, though I would welcome them; laying my hopes on the new Amiga, even; but it's quite difficult to catch up on the established-I find it surprising that Linux has come to this level of popularity.
Wow, he realized Linux was a good thing from people searching the site.... This might be a good way to persuade hardware manufacturers to start supporting Linux. Everyone, let's go out and start searching for Linux on the sites of your favorite hardware manufacturer! :-)
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
If you look at Slashdot history of Dell, you'll see Dell was interested at Linux at least for 2 years as of now. So, that's not right to say that Dell is not exactly Linux booster. Maybe he is :)
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Dell: The question really is does Linux create new users or does it take users away from Sun or Microsoft. I'm not sure I'd know the answer. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I really care, as long as they use Dell.
not much of a true believer is he?
As has already been mentioned in this thread, writing an entirely new OS would be a fairly large scale project. I think this is the reason you see Linux being squeezed into everything is because it is a good OS relative to everything else (end user or no). People want to see it run everything they use. It also aids interoberability and application development, the two things that are probably the biggest obstacles for a new system. Linux has a huge following and there is still no strong competitor to MS Office. In particular, there is no strong competitor that will work seamlessly with Office files.
I would agree that rather than trying to make a handheld run X effort would be better directed toward app development, but that is why it is called the open source community, not open source inc..
Maybe take a look at Plan9 from Bell. BeOS is also good but you don't hear much about it here because it is closed. At some point an OS will emerge that has *really* innovative features rather than repackaging old concepts. I doubt it will be instantaneous process, likely a series of improvements along the lines of BeOS or Plan9. (or like X a few years ago)
Icebox
This might be a little old - but I have an intense feeling that the current OS paradigm cannot hold for long. I will make myself even more clear - MacOS does it wrong, Windows does it wrong, Linux and all UNIX does it wrong, too.
:)
OSes are still made by a bunch of programmers for a bunch of programmers. And the computers are now SO pervasive and the economical loss resulting from bad usability of these tools is so big that I believe (hope) this cannot last long.
Tool was the important rediscovered buzzword in the last paragraph. Because tool is all that computer is. It's not a piece of art, it's not a personal friend -- it is a mere tool. Like a hammer or a pencil or anything. Only a bit more versatile.
The main OS shift is probably happening today with PDAs and mobile devices. They are the first widely used single-purpose computer technology base TOOL. And more functionality will migrate from desktop PCs to tools. Bluetooth will help along this line.
I have a dream where you walk up to a computer (at that time rather a terminal), you touch it - and the usage of it is as evident to you as the usage of a hammer. (No, it's not going around and bashing things with it.
LM: Did you actually take a look at the technology?
Dell: Yeah. I have a little lab next to my office here, and I got a desktop PC and installed Red Hat Linux on it. I played around with it a little bit.
...and...
LM: OK, how much time do you personally spend thinking about or dealing with Linux these days?
Dell: I don't really have a number that comes to mind for you.
I bet he didn't even partition the hard drive himself. Granted Dell is a hardware supplier, I don't need its CEO to be a Linux efficianado, but some expressions of capability at the top sure would convincing.
His comments sound like many others these days: "We're going to support Linux because everybody else is and we don't want to be left out. But trust us, we know what we're doing."
Hardly "a new Linux evangelist" in my book. Our community needs companies that develop business units whose sole function is to support us (Linux), not just have us tacked on to rest of the OS support department. I think we'll see that the most successful companies five years from now will be those that got in to Linux with both feet today, provided dedicated service, knowledgable expertice, and serious committment from individuals that are compassionate of the cause. If anybody can spot an imposter, its going to be us.
Linux hasn't been easy until now, and we sure aren't doing this on a lark. How about showing some interest before you ask for our money? Sorry Michael, I'm not convinced.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
Do you want a desktop or a personal OS?
The purpose of the OS is to control access to parts of the computer by other parts of the computer. When you sit down at the PC, you can consider yourself just another input device. Why shouldn't the OS control input? This is done through multiple logins.
Now a personal computer would be 'personal'. It would only ever have one operator. But shouldn't the OS still protect your personal computer from unauthorized access? Unless you're planning to have the thing embedded in your brain I can only see requiring a login as a benefit.
Get rid of the CLI? The most productive interface available once the learning curve has been overcome? Why?
I'm glad that you have a perfect power supply where you live so that a journalling file system has no advantage, but the unfortunate fact is that the rest of us live in the real world. The journalling FS is there to protect data. I can see how it would be unnecessary to protect your saved-games, but some of us use our destops for real work.
The GUI is an incredibly heavy piece of software that is near impossible to prove correct with todays techonology. Wrapping it into the OS is stupid. What you propose is to take the most important part of the computer and wrap it with instability. Just because I'm the only person using the computer doesn't mean that I don't have jobs running in the background.
So if we design a new OS, we want have problems with licensing problems or feature bloat? Some people decided to re-write Netscape, a mere application. What do people complain about?...licenscing problems and feature bloat (whether they actually exist or not).
After replying to your post, I get the feeling that you are a troll. "Heh everybody, dump Linux and use something that looks exactly like Windows instead!" Do a little research to find out the advantages of the 'UNIX way' before posting that we should dump it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I just quit Dell Server Support about a month ago. About two weeks later, a friend of mine, who was the only
other person in the department competent to do level 2 support for Linux quit.
Dell server support has plenty of Linux "boot camp" graduates, or people who suddenly realized it is "cool,"
but all of the real experience was driven out of the department. I, really, by Michael J. and I suspect my
friend really had to leave because of Gene B.
I hate to post this, because I am a stock holder, and I am losing my ass right now, but Dell is driving good
people away because they don't "fit the mold." I want to see Dell succeed (because when Dell does well I
make money) but I couldn't, in clear conscience, recommend a Dell server with Linux factory installed
because there is no one to support it.
It seems that today Dell as all "alliances" and no substance.
-Peter
A few months ago we got a Dell server with Red Hat preinstalled. To our surprise, the "Linux" compatible system was "Linux ready". But it had a binary-only RAID controller driver, which caused much grief amongst us when the recent kernel security hole (found by the sendmail project people) was found. We had no good way to upgrade the Linux kernel to close the bug without losing access to our drives.
Note however, that this may have been Adaptec's fault; they supposively designed the RAID system, and may have been trying to keep its features private. One could also have blamed us for not researching the "Linux compatibility" further. But we were scared for a while since we heard rumors that they were having problems getting the driver to compile with the new kernel.
Since then, they have released an update (over a month after the hole was first reported), and it includes an open-source version of the binary driver, but we have to wonder what was going on in their heads when they tried such a move. The driver (aacraid) is in Red Hat's Linux's current source code as well, but I don't see it in the mainstream (or for Linux 2.4.0-test#) yet. Drivers in Linux tend to be tied to the kernel; if you don't have the source to upgrade them, you lose the compatibility. Dell only learned that their common usage of custom hardware and drivers wasn't going to work with Linux when a whole bunch of us starting screaming on their message boards.
Create lightweight desktop applications not with configurability, but simplicity in mind. Avoid redundant functionality (i.e. button bars doubling menu entries). Most of these apps are already there, just port them to a common toolkit (fltk, for example).
I'm not sure why you threw in "avoid redundant functionality," but I have to point out; duplicating functionality where convenient is a common (and wise) practice in interface design. The point is to have a consistent, easy to find location for a function (i.e. in a menu), but also have it convenient when needed.
Reduce inter-application interfaces to classic Unix pipes, sockets and libraries. Avoid bloat and slowdown through Corba and similar interfaces.
Which causes more bloat and slowdown, a component-based system where common components can be shared across applications when needed, or a system where every program needs to build its own functionality from libraries? So, what, we embody an entire HTML-editing component and interface in a library? We increase development (and package management) headache exponentially for... what?
As for pipes and sockets, I can't wait to hear how your GUI OS makes these easier to use than drag-and-drop embedded components. Or how you explain pipes and sockets to your grandmother.
"If you look 'round the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's you." -- Quiz Show
- Throw multiuser and files access permissions out of the system. have the user automatically login and work as 'root' just as in windows 95/98/me and in macos. sure, this creates a lot of security issues, but they could be tolerated on desktop machines with dialup-only internet access. by far more simple for unsophisticated users.
- Simplify the file system structure. If multiuser functionality has been removed, it is only longer necessary to have
/home, /sbin, /usr/sbin and to have both global and user-specific configuration files. Join /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, for example. Rename all system directories so that they are easily understandable in natural language: /usr/bin to /Programs, /etc to /Programs/Settings /lib to /Programs/Data. Create /Fonts, /Sounds, /Pictures, /Documents, and so on.
- Throw out X11 - since no desktop user needs its network functionality - and replace it with a framebuffer-based GUI.
- Create lightweight desktop applications not with configurability, but simplicity in mind. Avoid redundant functionality (i.e. button bars doubling menu entries). Most of these apps are already there, just port them to a common toolkit (fltk, for example).
- Reduce inter-application interfaces to classic Unix pipes, sockets and libraries. Avoid bloat and slowdown through Corba and similar interfaces.
- Adapt and simplify LinuxConf to act as the system configurator
- Standardize on one scripting language in your "distribution" (for example, Python). Avoid that several bloated scripting languages have to reside on the system just because system utilies (package managers etc.) need them.
I agree that the resulting system will have litte in common of what we know and appreciate in GNU/Linux. But it would be the perfect system for people who don't want to replace the complexity and impenetrability of Windows with yet another type of complexity and impenetrability. Hammering nice graphical interfaces on top of that complexity won't help.gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
I may be being overly cynical, but I found almost nothing of interest in that article. This is just about all I heard Dell say:
(Paraphrasing) 'Our customers want to use linux, so we're getting around to making it easier for them.'
His bottom line: to sell machines. Good for Michael Dell, but is this actually news? It's not as if he's actually annouched any big concrete push to support linux or anything...
best wishes,
Mike.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
I'm visualizing a system which is quite independent of anything else - new apps and games would have to be written specifically for it, and installation of apps would be handled from within the GUI via an installation wizard. These new programs would avoid all the headaches associated with installing software on Linux - they should be installed in a directory under the GUI system's directory, and depend on a new, stable set of libraries, to avoid problems with dependencies. Also, all programs would follow a pre-defined look-and-feel, support the same cut-and-paste features, etc. Make it cohesive from the start.
This GUI system would be written from the ground up to be an all-in-one desktop solution. X-Windows has a lot of cool features, like network transparancy, but it is too complex for the average user, and developement for it is also complex.
This would still be a monumental project, as it ignores all existing software, but it would be a lot more feasable than writing a new desktop OS from scratch.
Comments?
Well, you should learn more about UNIX history. It was NOT designed for mainframes. The first versions ran on DEC PDP machines and they were the thing most closely matching today's PCs. And yes, it was meant as a desktop OS, serving the needs of the programmers of the Bell Labs.
I DO use Linux as my desktop OS (both at work and at home) and I am very happy with it while Win9x (the supposed REAL desktop OS) keeps constantly annoying me.
My mother (well, she is not exactly a hardcore computer geek) uses Linux as her desktop OS. She is quite happy with it.
And anyway, I just see no reason to NOT to use Linux as a desktop OS. Could you mention just ONE feature that shows that it should not be used for that?
(Remember, in the old DOS days people whined about having to shut down Linux as opposed to the 'just switch it off' method of DOS - and see, what happened in Win9x)
Real life is overrated.
Dell: The question really is does Linux create new users or does it take users away from Sun or Microsoft. I'm not sure I'd know the answer. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I really care, as long as they use Dell.
But it's nice to hear someone in his position recognize the " ... powerful legitimate shift."
http://fsfeurope.org/
Rather than focusing on the tired examples of 'hammers' and 'toasters' - both which take arguably no to minimal intelligence and skill to use, treat computers like they should be treated - like cars.
You need to learn how to use one, learn the idioms behind the design, and have some experience using them before anything about them become self-evident.
--
Well Linux is getting very popular, and it takes popularity to win over companies to support another platform. Remember when IBM's PC become popular and won over the CP/M and Apple // market? Then companies found that Microsoft was the real power behind the PC as it licensed MS-DOS to Compaq and others to make IBM PC Clones. That was the start of one paradigm shift, the Linux frenzy is the start of another.
So what are our other choices? OS/2, BeOS, Freedows, MacOS, DR-DOS?
OS/2 great ideas, IBM did a good job on designing the OS and picking up where Microsoft left off. The problem ends up being third party support, or lack thereof. Once even Wordperfect bailed from the OS/2 platform, I knew things would not go well for the OS.
BeOS, the AmigaDOS of the 1990's. It has its niche market, but still has a long road to walk down before it gets more marketshare. Don't get me wrong, I like BeOS, its a fresh new technology and it is powerfull, just not popular enough to get the third party support behind it needed to get adopted by other PC companies.
Freedows, not ready for prime-time. I am not sure when they will even get an Alpha test out. Is that cache kernel done yet?
MacOS, this is going away once OSX comes out. The problem here is that it only runs on the Macintosh Platform, the most recent PowerPC Macs that is. The old 68K Macs can't run it, and there are no plans to port it to the WINTEL platform like BeOS was ported. All I see OSX as is just yet another BSD Unix hack. Might as well use BSD on PC systems then, you may not have that Aqua interface, but at least you can have multiple platforms BSD can run on and have the scalability that Mac hardware lacks.
DR-DOS, the OS that refuses to die. How many hands did DR-DOS pass over? DRI, Novell, Caldera. I don't really see this OS doing much, unless a majority of the market rejects Windows and its GUI and gets back to basics to run DOS programs.
BSD Unix (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD) would be a good alternative to Linux and Windows. I don't hear as much Hoo-Haa about BSD as I do Linux from the PC Makers. I guess maybe that GPL license makes the difference, or is it that Linux gets most of the good press from the media?
Bad idea. Even on a simple dialup PC, your chances of getting hacked while online are non-zero. Besides, what if more than one family member uses this box? How do you protect your own files from accidental, never mind malicious, damage?
Simplify the file system structure.
Why? Why not just make the interface smart enough that the user doesn't need to know about the filesystem structure? This is slowly but surely happening anyway.
Throw out X11 - since no desktop user needs its network functionality
I'm a desktop user, and I need its functionality.
Create lightweight desktop applications not with configurability, but simplicity in mind. Avoid redundant functionality (i.e. button bars doubling menu entries).
Configurability is a good thing, as long as it doesn't get in the way of simplicity. I like highly configurable applications, as long as the defaults are sane. Redundant functionality is a good thing: different users have different preferences about how they want to do things.
Reduce inter-application interfaces to classic Unix pipes, sockets and libraries. Avoid bloat and slowdown through Corba and similar interfaces.
Thus crippling any kind of useful component object model that Unix desktops are just truly beginning to take advantage of.
Adapt and simplify LinuxConf to act as the system configurator
Having a useful system configuration manager is a desirable goal. I pray that LinuxConf is never adopted as a standard though - throwing it out it what's really needed. Maybe that's me, but I truly loathe LinuxConf.
Standardize on one scripting language in your "distribution" (for example, Python).
Argh. Please no. Allow developers and users their choice of what scripting language they want to use. Sure, Python's a good language, but why Python? Why not Perl or Tcl or Scheme?
To be honest (and I don't mean to flame you), it sounds like you'd be happier using something like BeOS or MacOS. Why go to the trouble of using a complex, powerful Unix-like kernel if you're immediately going to rip out half of its functionality?
>> :) I have TweakUI setup to automatically log me in and I can do any little action as 'root' that I want. It pleases me to no end. As console, I don't want to deal with logins or multiple users or anything. I just want to get to work ASAP.
:)
Throw multiuser and files access permissions out of the system. have the user automatically login and work as 'root' just as in windows 95/98/me and in macos. sure, this creates a lot of security issues, but they could be tolerated on desktop machines with dialup-only internet access. by far more simple for unsophisticated users.
>>
You know, this is one reason I use Win98SE almost exclusively
(well, get to gaming, rather
Eric ze Kidder
And anyway, I just see no reason to NOT to use Linux as a desktop OS. Could you mention just ONE feature that shows that it should not be used for that?
Ummm, it's hard as f**k to install, configure, and maintain when compared to Windows and especially, BeOS.
How's that?
"And like that
Why are Linux articles posted under "News"? Just curious, since I don't consider Michael Dell bending over for a proper Linux-porking to be News, just Linux-related.
"And like that
However, if you keep the kernel and write good, clean, tightly integrated userspace stuff on top (like what NeXT did and what Apple is doing now), then there is no reason for it not to work.
I'd like to see something like a free NeXTSTEP based on a bare-bones open source kernel (HURD, Linux, or FreeBSD), plus GNUstep <grin>, a streamlined and efficient WindowServer, lots of spiffy tools and applications, AND the option of having the GNU toolset available from a term. It can be done and we do have the beginnings of this (Linux, GNUstep, and Berlin).
Help!!!! winipcfg isn't working!! I have Windows 2000, what do I do? :-P
"Oh, oh .... except on Windows NT it's Start --- Run --- cmd --- ipconfig"
(just being nit-picky) :-)
Actually no. Linux's sole purpose is to give Linus Torvalds a Unix that he can run on his PC. That's why it was born, and any other uses are purely coincidental. As it happens, Linux is a pretty good server OS. It is also (and here's the controversial bit) the best desktop OS in the world. No, I'm not on drugs -- I seriously believe that it is the best desktop OS in the world for me. It does pretty much everything I want, and it does it better than all the alternatives I've tried. I'm not foolish enough to claim that it's for everyone yet, but given time it will get there. The features that make it a good server OS don't preclude desktop use. Or are you going to try and claim that Win9x is a better desktop OS than NT4 or Win2K?
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
1. No poxy recovery disks (just a personal pet peeve.)
2. No WinModems
3. No M$ tax.
I can go on, but I'll stop now (add your own).
I've been running various flavors of Linux & FreeBSD (dual-boot) on my CTX-700e laptop for over 2.5 years now and it's been great for me. It gives web developers & SysAdmins more real world productivity than any Win-laptop. Checking mail, Syncing my Palm3, writing on NerdPerfect, webpage & CGI updates, writing & testing shell scripts for my servers, and network tools are what I need in a laptop. I'm not trying to sound anti-M$, but Win* can't do this.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
> I have a dream where you walk up to a computer (at that time rather a terminal), you touch it - and the usage of it is as evident to you as the usage of a hammer.
You know that you've actually been trained to use a hammer dont you? I don't mean "101 Introduction to hammering", I mean you saw people using them, or asked a parent "what's this odd thing for?" before you realised it was designed for knocking nails into wood. It isn't actually that obvious that a hammer is for hammering. It could be a doorstop (with an easy grip handle), a unfathomable agricultural tool, or something to stir lobsters when you cook them!
And when you say:
> it is a mere tool. Like a hammer or a pencil or anything.
It's really streching the truth. It's like saying a nuclear power station is a mere tool, like a bicycle dynamo. Or that 'Go' is a mere game, like Tic-Tack-Toe.
Computer are obviously tools, and they aren't as easy to use as the could, or should, be. However, there's no getting around the fact that they do perform *complex* operations for us. More complicated than hammers and pencils.
best wishes,
Mike
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
First I must say that Unix was not for mainframes (which is a centralized system) but to be more of a network (client/server paradigm).
You do have valid points, but I must say that the problem may not be with the OS but what we are doing with it. We say that Unix/Linux is not for your grandmother, and I would agree. But *nux is very good with networks. Now the problem is, we are trying to get Grandma onto a network. The Internet.
Now this causes all sorts of problems. I saw one poster a few days talking about how their wife complained about having to log in. "I own this machine, and I'm the only one on it". But that my not be the case if you have an Internet access. You see when you take single user methodologies and put them with network ones, you get things like virus and privacy compromises.
So, we need to educate the average user and maybe tweak the OS a little. But I really think that if you are going to have a connection to the internet, you should have basic knowledge about how to use a computer. The normal analogy is to compare computers with cars. You may not know how a car works, but you definitely know what to do and not do with it before you drive. That's why we have licenses, (although I would say there are those that don't know how to drive). A computer is no different (except for being less dangerous). You should have a basic knowledge before surfing the net. And I'm tired of hearing how Joe Schmoe doesn't want to know anything before using a computer. If all you want to do is play games, that's fine, but if you accept email and go out onto the net, then either learn or accept the consequences.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Want to add obscure nifty features like ACLs and Roles? You can do that, kind of like the LIDS guys and the Linux ACL project.
Want to rip underlying kernel out but keep the rest of the look and feel? Kind if like Debian/HURD maybe?
Want to keep the underlying kernel and get rid of the look and feel? Like all the embedded Linux projects like the Tivo do? Go for it!
Want to do something else? You're free to.
This isn't so much a Linux phenominon as an Open Source one. People have said inventions don't happen until we're ready for them. The world wasn't ready for Open Source until everyone got wired via the Internet. Then it just exploded and companies started to realize that with the playing field level everyone can profit.
Something radically better than Linux may come along at some point (Though I rather doubt it'll come out of Redmond) and people will start switching at that point. Innovation will still happen, but now it'll be a lot more people controlling the direction we go.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
dell (and all companies) are only interested in linux because it is free beer.
I was at a Linux gathering a while back and someone had some words about VIA: He said "They said they want to be the Dell of the Linux world. Well I think only one company will be the Dell of the Linux world, and that will be Dell." Insightful man. I think it was one of the SGI guys.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I'm running the world's finest desktop OS (NT4) and complaining about how poor it is as a server OS. I'd much rather be trying to run a desktop on a good server OS.
Windows is a "desktop OS". Everything is built around that message handling loop (painfully so on Win9x). This makes for a whizzy and responsive single task desktop, and it's horrible for anything that's also running server stuff simultaneously. As we're increasingly in the scenario where the box is doing more invisible "serving" than it is running the foreground (except for gaming), then a server-tasked OS is a much better starting point.
We know what a "desktop OS" would look like, and let's not go there ! It's not where we want to be now, and it's going to become even less so in the future.
PS - Yes X sucks mightily. Fix that if you want to.
PPS - I'm no Linux expert, but I did sweat through Tannenbaum all those years ago. Does Linux use any of Minix ? I didn't think so. As your "Unix was for mainframes" comment was so misinformed, I'm unlikely to believe you on this either.
PPPS - Mod 4 "Informative" on this comment is what meta-moderation is for ! Give the moderators a clue to go with all that karma !
WTF does it matter who he's met?
How does that make any difference to his assesment of Linux, or should you judge an operating system, not on its merits, but on the personallity of the main developer?
Linux runs nativly on an IBM s/390 thanks to the hard work of the people at IBM and Marist University in porting it over. In fact, I'm running Linux on a mainframe right now :)
But the previous poster's point still stands, Unix on a mainframe didn't exist until a few years ago. It certainly wasn't written for a mainframe.
Finkployd
And then spaketh the lord, "Let there be unix companies galore, each different from the other, so that the standards can multiply and compete amongst each other."
And the companies thus arose, and they fought each other, with various wondrous types of software, none of which worked with the other. And everyone saw that there was competition, and it was good.
Thus began the ten years of drought, when application developers moaned, "Wherefore am I to write my software? None shall buy it, for each is on his own little island, each separate from the rest." And Gates said to them, "Come to me, ye fools! And ye shall be happy, for all my denizens live under one roof. It leaketh sometimes, but ye shall earn gold selling yer stuff." And the developers all flocked to Gates, and the unix companies continued to fling dung at each other, and it was all as it had always been.
w/m
My anecdotal evidence is that my room mate's Windows machine (Which I have as little to do with as possible) seems to become increasingly unstable as time progresses. My Linux machines seem much more resistant to this, assuming you can get the software and install it in the first place. If I were to religiously install everything from RPM, I think it would be a lot more stable. The problem with Linux of course is that my room mate can't get all those games she wants and I'd end up having to set up her 3D card and networking and stuff. And not every average person wanting to run Linux can find a guru to room with.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Pare down the kernel to a reasonable point.
Make Berlin robust and efficient.
Make GNUstep robust and efficient.
Write a Berlin backend for GNUstep.
Write well integrated top-of-the-line system software (a new sysinit, better daemons, etc) and user applications for GNUstep.
Market it well.
Go buy yourself a drink--you deserve it.
It takes more time (and hence money) to set up Linux than it does to set up Windows. Flame away, my brethern, if you must, but 't is a fact, that is to say, 't is fact if you want to set up Linux as a desktop OS (which it was not exactly meant to be).
Let's compare:
Windows:
1 man-day to install.
2 man-weeks to actually get everything working
1 man-hour to make a disk image
Linux:
1 man-day to install
2 man-weeks to actually get everything working
1 man-hour to make a disk image
Where is the extra time for Linux?
Note: Dell doesn't run an install from CD on each machine seperately. They create a master image and copy that to thousands of disk which each go into one of thousands of identical machines. If they didn't do it that way, Linux would win hands down, because you would do the install and then run "Dell's Install Script", while the Windows machine require fiddling with the GUI seperately.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
What does that last fatuous statement translate as? My translation would be "I'll say any damn thing as long as you buy my slightly overpriced machines". Yes, he's supporting Linux, but only in the most cynical way possible, by jumping on a hot PR bandwagon.
I have problems seeing that as a feature :)
BTW, my experience shows that installing/maintaining a Win9x system is much harder than my Debian (DLL hell, anyone?)
Real life is overrated.
When you put together some of the things Dell has been saying lately, it's pretty clear he has problems with Microsoft, even if he cannot discuss them openly.
Dell (from this interview, with emphasis added): "I think it definitely has the potential for a lot of change -- and disruptive change. Not so much on our business models, but on other business models. The whole open source movement has the potential to really change the way value is created and distributed in the software industry -- the speed at which applications and tools are developed and deployed. And Dell's the perfect hardware platform to do that on."
Dell (from a Charlie Rose interview at a conference in Paris): "If you had a business that was based on tricking your customer -- which, in fact, a lot of businesses were fundamentally, assumed that the customer didn't have much information and the customer was, in fact, uninformed -- well, that's going away."
When you put these together, it seems to me that Dell is inching away from Microsoft because he sees a big fall in their future. And why not? Look at the MS business model from Dell's point of view:
He can remember the days when PCs sold for $3,000 and the OS cost $15. Today he sees computers selling for $500 to $800 with an OS that costs $85 to $250. And the vendor selling the cheap box has to provide support for the OS, even if it turns out to be a piece of crap.
Somebody's getting squeezed here, and Dell knows who it is (even though he probably has a really sweet deal with Microsoft). He knows the main reason he has to keep selling MS OSes is because of the ignorance of its users. But that doesn't mean he has to like it. And he sees the Internet as working against software vendors who rely on the ignorance of their users.
Sure, he dare not speak its name. But Microsoft clearly fits his description of software companies whose business models will not survive in the Internet economy. We should not be too quick to doubt his sincerity since his conversion (though late) seems to be based on solid values and genuine interests (that's interests as in business-type interests, not curiosity-type interests.
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
News stories seem to be focusing on the importance of providing a nice interface to Linux. But hasn't Microsoft moved beyond the issue of what's pretty and how easy it is to click your way someplace? Components and the .NET initiative is where they're trying to make a difference now. And Bonobo may be the biggest contribution of GNOME in making a desktop that's right for this decade.
Actually, you don't have to remake Linux to be a desktop OS. All you have to do is put a "desktop layer" on top of Linux. That has the following advantages over remaking or starting from scratch -
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
Even the samurai
have teddy bears,
and even the teddy bears
get drunk
I saw his humorous reference to mainframes too. From what I remember of mainframes, their memory capacity at the time had several kilobytes of RAM. Also, I remember Linus hacking out a new kernel for his 386, because DOS just didn't do it for him. When maddog mailed him a very sweet Digital Alpha, cross platform compatibility then became a priority. But I have never heard of Linux running on an intensive I/O machine such as a mainframe, except in emulation.
And what makes Linux exciting to most if us is the DIY stuff involved. If MD really want to listen to the first generation of Linux users he should take this into account and then deliver OS-less laptops (servers, etc.) instead of ones with specific OS installed.
How much money is MD expecting to charge his customers for a Linux enabled laptop ?
Let's evaluate
- Internal R&D rentability, including eventual driver development and staff training
- Technological survey and distribution optimization
- possible prices raises on the Windows-powered side as Bill might raise his prices because of such a lack of fidelity. As MD didn't especially speak about a divorce, he might not want to lose its existing customers and then amort these raises by increasing the Linux machines prices.
- Supplemental advertising
- etc.
So, if you want my 0.01$ guess, I'd say that the Linux laptop might be as expensive as the NT/2000 or at least ME ones.--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I personally beleive that the problems lie with X11 rather then the Linux kernal. The kernal can be cut down easily however X11 does not preform the functionality as well as other GUI's (Like BeOS and MacOS X). A new GUI program designed especialy for the end user would make linux more accessable then the layers and layers of workarounds that currently used in X11. Just my Personal POV.
because OSs are layered things, and the lower levels (the kernel and drivers) are not anymore "designed to be a desktop OS" than designed to be anything else. The Linux kernel can be the foundation for a perfectly good destkop OS, it's just all the Unix command-line and /etc/configuration stuff that's historically tied to it. No-one's preventing YOU from making a desktop OS on top of the Linux kernel, that doesn't even use /bin/sh. For that matter, no one's preventing you from writing your own kernel either, but you'd better have some really good new ideas to put in it, to be worth the effort.
In the meantime, GNOME and KDE are moving forward, and doing the right thing: putting a pretty user interface on the whole system (which means that the average user ultimately doesn't have to touch the command line unless he actually wants to), while stayign reasonably close to the Unix way-of-doing-things, and keeping interoperability with more traditional Unix desktops (X11 + whichever wm).
> whereas D3D uses execution buffers
Only in DX3. DX5, and later, fixed that.
That'll probably be the case, but I'm pretty sure that they'd make sure that all the hardware works with Linux.
/*drunk.. fix later*/
manager: Gee, Michel, IBM is getting a lot of press for pushing this Linux thing.
Dell: Nah, Linux sux
manager: yes, but it gets a lot of coverage lately. We should really come up with something.
Dell: Nah, Linux sux.
manager: Michael, you will slashdoted.
Dell: Darn, you are convicing. Call our PR department...
If Michael likes Linux, then our day has come; we will inherit the earth. Can I go home now please.
This isn't to say that Linux is a bad OS. It's a terrific OS for servers, routers, and other non-end-user computers. But it doesn't make any sense to try to hack shiny, happy desktop features into it. Everything has its purpose right? Linux's purpose is to be the best server operating system available (whether or not it succeeds is your call), not to battle Microsoft.
Rather than that constantly remake Linux in order to compete with Windows, it would make a great deal more sense for the FSF to create a brand new operating system designed from the ground up to be a desktop OS. Not only would this OS include all the necessary components for a desktop OS (GUI support built in from the beginning, no CLI, journaling file system, plug-and-play devices, advanced multimedia support, etc.), it would eliminate all the problems seen in current desktops -- licensing problems with KDE; feature bloat with GNOME. And right now, there's simple no free OS that does this -- sure, there's BeOS, but it's only free as in beer, not as in speech.
Remember P.T. Barnum's famous quote "You can please all of the people some of the time, or some of the people all of the time?" Right now, Linux is trying to please all of the people all of the time, and that just isn't working. It's time to divide and conquer. Leave Linux to the server market and design the efficient, stable, user-friendly, and most importantly, open-source desktop OS that the world has been waiting for.
I'm pretty sure you can teach someone without computer knowledge to use Netscape, StarOffice and KMail on KDE (as an example). You show them how to log in, that there are the buttons to start the program, how to open files etc. It's a lot like Windows.
The problem is to set up the system. You must give them a preinstalled Linux and they must have someone who will fix problems for them. If they don't have a tech-savvy friend / neighbor / relative, they're screwed. And frankly, I don't think the people who need that much support (e.g. for every icon that disappeared) are able to solve the same problems under Windows.
When Dell sees that linux can help his bottom line he is ready for action.
Is it really that much easier to create games under Windows? Look at Loki. It seems like they're porting at least a half-dozen games a year to Linux, and they're a small, privately-funded startup.
LM: Do you think that'll come about in a Larry Ellison-type "NC-take-2" Linux-based personal appliance?
Dell: No. As you get more bandwidth the computing power will expand both at the edge of the network and at the center.
Larry's model is that it expands at the center, but the edge gets less and less powerful. I think that actually both will get more and more powerful and as you get a faster connection to the internet, the data streams become more and more complex and there's richer and better data that gets processed and dealt with at the client. You can kind of see this a little bit if you talk to people who have DSL connections or cable modems in the home and you say to them, "Now that you've got this really fast connection, is your computer fast enough? Will you use a slower computer now that you have this really fast connection?"
Nobody wants to go to a slower computer now that they have a fast connection; they want a faster computer because the bottleneck shifts. Right now for a lot of users -- at least in small businesses and at home -- the bottleneck is the line, not the computing power, but when you get a fast connection, the bottleneck shifts back to the computer itself.
I agree with Dell that clients on the edge will grow in power just as clients in the center do. However, I don't think that's at all incompatible with a NC view of computers - NC's will be powerful devices, but more specialized.
For instance, I would love a small computer in the kitchen to look up recipies, and a small computer by the TV to be able to look up related things during TV programs. The kinds of devices I want in each place have a fairly different set of requirements though, which would best be served by an NC type of device. I could see such devices outnumbering normal computers in most households before too long, once easy household connectivity is figured out.
Also, now that I have a DSL line I do not find my computer (only a P450!) to be the bottleneck. I think my bandwith would have to increase by an order of magnitude or more to start thinking that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When Dell says it costs more to install Linux, his nose starts to grow. My fear is that M$ gets a slice of the pie no matter what OS is installed, crafty negotiators that they are...
RM
Yeah, the chicken+egg problem gets solved when a major vendor gets behind the software, but what I find odd is how it happens. I mean, linux has >20 million users, which is about 10% of the Windows installed base. Now, if you were a CEO, wouldn't you push your company to support it, thereby gaining 10% more customers and getting an edge over your slower competitors?
From the interview:
Then I started going out on the Net and searching for "Dell and Linux," "Optiplex and Linux" "Dimension and Linux," "Inspiron and Linux," "Precision and Linux," and Boom! You'd see hundreds of thousands of user who had figured out how to use our products with Linux, and we hadn't done anything to help those people either.
In reality, though, (and this is something I find very, very surprising) many/most hardware companies are far slower than Michael Dell at catching on. Recently, I bought a logitech cordless mouse, but only after a frustrating search to find out if it works for linux. Now, logitech could hire a couple of web developers to put that info on their site, and maybe get a couple of their programmers to test stuff for linux. Bingo. You're helping out 20+ million customers you weren't before. Why don't CEOs see this?
My guess is that Michael Dell is probably way ahead of the curve, since he actually bothered looking at the search queries, installing linux himself, etc. Maybe most CEOs wait for a Gartner analyst to draw pie charts and wait for their underlings to draft a business plan before they get the point. Any idea how this works?
(As an aside, it's very revealing that Michael Dell actually saw *hundreds of thousands* of customers helping each other out before the company even realised there were all these customers using Dell on linux. Is it any surprise people prefer looking for product info from other users instead of the "official" company site? )
w/m
While the interview is interesting, finding the Linux section of the Dell web site takes a couple tries (at least for me). I'd venture to say you're definitely not going to find any systems with Linux installed if you start from the home page and travel the "home and home office" route. And of course, you still can't buy a system with no operating system, in case you wanted to try something like Mandrake or SuSE -- or even FreeBSD.
Once I found some systems loaded with Red Hat, I tried to price indentical configurations for Linux and Windows. For example, a Latitude CPx 500Mhz w/ 128MB memory and a 6GB harddrive
w/ Red Hat: $2588
w/ Win2K: $2604
So I guess my question to Micheal Dell would be "what's up with that??"
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
Reading the interview, they say they want to take the server market over from sun, imply they want the desktop market from MS, etc. What they really see, imho, is selling computers and making as much as possible, they're a business, after all. So they say linux can do desktops, partner for support or provide their own support, and the chicken and egg problem half solves itself, with linux desktops in shiny TV commericals. Poof, linux has major vendor backing, and their vison works. I'd really not be suprised if it works out this way.
Myself, I'd not mind as long as they charge less for a linux install than for a win98 install, and have options like order 1 year phone support plan or just a cheapbytes cd shipped with the box. Myself, I don't want or need linux support that way, i can get any info I need from the net. So please make it an option, Dell.
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
The real trouble with pushing Linux onto the desktop market as quickly as possible is that the infrastructure required to develop games easily is still in the process of development. Why games? Because games are where mindshare is in the eyes of Joe Sixpack buying a PC for his kids. Sure, he may claim that it's for "educational purposes", but if it doesn't run games as well then he's not going to buy it.
Whilst the latest versions of XFree86 attempt to go further in what hardware is supported and what features can be used, there is still no unified framework for the kind of features required for games and other multimedia applications. Sure, there's OpenGL and now OpenAL, but these are very much a work in progress under Linux, and even then rely on the goodwill of manufacturers in making driver code available for a system where they won't be making any kind of return.
The reason that there are so many games under Windows is that it is, relatively speaking, easy to create them. DirectX provides a unified framework for integrating graphics, sound, music, input devices, network play and more in a single package, allowing designers to concentrate on what matters - the game itself. The difference is very real, and can be seen in the amount of time it takes for Loki to port a game to Linux.
It is safe to say that the importance of games cannot be stressed enough in the public's view of how desirable a desktop system is. And until Linux delivers a unified framework for creating games a la DirectX, it's success on the desktop will always be limited.
manager: Gee, Michel, IBM is getting a lot of press for pushing this Linux thing.
Dell: Nah, Linux sux
manager: yes, but it gets a lot of coverage lately. We should really come up with something.
Dell: Nah, Linux sux.
manager: Michael, you will [be?] slashdoted.
Dell: Darn, you are convicing. Call our PR department...
Interesting point...
Are there any Windows-related news media that have such a large following that mere mention of a URL will bring down a server? I don't THINK so... (Otherwise it would be called "WinNewsing" or some such rather than "slashdotting".)
So perhaps this can be turned to Linux's advantage...
"Look, guys. There are so many Linux fans on this one news board that just the mention of your site there will bring so many hits that you'll think you're under a DOS attack. Don't you think there might be a market for a linux port of your ?"
(Yes, I know there's some *BSD, BeOS, and Mac fans here too. But I still think it's a fair characterization.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Leaving aside the fact that traditional tools have been used in art (not just to create art) and that an experienced professional craftsman does come to know "his" tools...
A physical hammer is akin to the original "word processors" (remember those beasts?) or a non-programmable calculator. Each is built for one task; you may be able to use it to do something else, but that's purely an accident of form and design. There's a reason why word processor machines are almost extinct - we (as a culture, possibly as a species) have decided that advantage of increased flexibility is worth the cost of increased complexity.
Computers are the first truly general purpose tool that mankind's invented. Imagine a chunk of matter that responded to your thoughts; if you think clearly enough, and in the right way, you can cause that chunk o' stuff to take the form of any tool you've ever seen, or any tool that you can imagine.
That's what a computer is. Not a hammer - but something that can be a hammer, or a screwdriver, or a socket wrench... as long as you know what you want, and how to turn it into the tool your interested in. The complexity is not in the use or the particular shape that the tool takes, but the fact that it can take many (any!) shape you can imagine, either perfectly or imprefectly suited for the job at hand.
Modern tools already do and will continue to incorporate elements of computers. That's progress for you. But don't confuse the technology that goes into the tool with the tool itself. Just because it's used in a simple tool doesn't mean that it's simple, or that more complex uses of that same technology are wrong.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
I bought it because all of its components were standard (and also because it was twice as less expensive as a Dell laptop)
- PIII600
- ATI Rage LT Pro
- Maestro 2E
- (and, BTW, a zone free) Toshiba DVD
- Tulip compatible Network card
I installed OpenLinux 2.4 on it and I have to say that this works.So, as I might expect most people here just spend more time choosing a laptop than a car, I am sure that having a dedicated Linux install for their laptop is not *that* crucial. BCNU
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
- the introduced the story with a big Linux logo,
- they pronounced it right^w the way I do,
- they were apparently filming at the show, though they actually focused on content rather than on the event,
- they used the de rigeur "scrappy upstart" description,
- they said it was popular because of its "amazing reliability" (sorry; forgot the exact words),
- they showed barricades labeled "Windows Free Zone",
- they showed systems running GUIs, while voice-over talking about Linux,
- they had a bite from an Eazel guy, mentioned their Appleness, and showed a bit of Nautilus,
- they said Linux was was used on 10% of servers and 4% of desktops,
- they showed an xterm (or the like) with an "uptime" display of 41 days (though I doubt that the uninitiated viewer would have been able to figure that out),
- they showed part of MD's speech (see, I really am on topic!).
CNN repeats some of these spots several times a day, so you may be able to catch it if you're inclined to.The most interesting thing about this is that it puts Linux in front of a very large audience, and they portrayed it in a very good light while doing so. You may have people asking about that Linux thingy you run, if they saw this.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> they were apparently filming at the show, though they actually focused on content rather than on the event
They didn't show any obvious drag queens.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I sent in a ask slashdot on this but havent got a response.
Here is my take on it why dont we have a
webserver distro a ftp server distro a samba distro a gamers distro.
Your sayin huh? about now.
Think about it,,,
need a file server grab the samba linux distro
install it run some simple settup scripts and
your done, Get some of the samba develpers to help with the
initial tuning and settup of the distro.
Cut out everything that isnt needed.
Why?
simple it would be more secure take up less space
and be faster to settup.
and its tuned with more tuneup tips provided by the pros.
This has been done for routers and firewalls,
How about moving the idea into other services?
This attitude really annoys me. Retailers dictate which OSes are good, and which are bad. If I'm paying a few thousand on a top-notch box, I expect to be able to have it come pre-installed with any OS I choose, whether it be Plan 9, QNX, Linux, Win2K, Solaris x86, GEOS, whatever.
The attitude that people who build and shift boxes should have some insight as to what OS is going to suit me most is pretty sickening to be honest. The market is getting more competitive, and retailers like Dell are going to have to start being more accomodationg towards what the customer wants if they wish to retain market share. In fact, I suspect that a retailer with the $$$ to be able to offer any OS required pre-installed will probably steal a lot of market share in most of North America and Western Europe. But hey, who cares as long as you get invited around to Bill's house once in a while.
Any computer related company who doesn't support Linux in some way must be working at Apple. It's almost sad to see something beautiful become so overexploited. sigh.
| Ceci n'est pas une pipe.