Slashdot Mirror
Dell Drops Linux on Desktops and Laptops
aclute sent in a bit saying that Dell is dropping Linux from desktops and laptops. They cite low demand, and they plan to continue shipping Linux on the server. I've sworn off Dell PCs since their finance dept. tried to screw me over on the laptop I leased for a few years in college (No, we never got that laptop back. Nor can we explain why you have signed confirmation that it was delivered. You owe us a year's worth of late fees). Frankly there are much less expensive places to get a Linux laptop, but those suckers with the 1600x1200 screens and the GeForce 2 video card are still super pimp.
This is really a non-issue. The only people who could get Linux on a Dell had to know from the beginning that Linux was an option and know where to find the page that allowed them to select it. Dell only offered Linux in the first place as a flimsy token to open source people. Now Microsoft probably used that as a reason to not let Dell stick AOL icons on the desktop or something, so the option is gone. Is anyone really surprised?
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
If you have signed confirmation, then you could have a case in small claims court. Just threatening one could cause them to relent and just replace the darn thing.
Or are we going to see Taco on Judge Judy?
Now, I doubt (God forbid) that this is typical of Dell service. I think I just caught this guy on a bad day. Also, I can see the logic of not supporting a low-volume (for Dell) OS on newer models. They have to qualify it, which takes time and money. The Optiplex GX400 is a P4 with RDRAM, so it's not just a simple upgrade. Having said that, RH 7.1 really was a slam-dunk install. The 2.4 kernel also has settings for the P4. I rebuilt the kernel with that switched on, but I didn't benchmark it. But today's announcement makes clear that the lack of Linux support wasn't merely a delay, but a hint of things to come. They've decided that Linux sales on the desktop don't justify the additional expense in qualifying the hardware and supporting it post-sale. Is that Dell's fault? Partly, maybe. But I'll bet the decision made sense in cold black, white and red.
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there" - Will Rogers
I dont see any real computer company actually seriously selling Linux on their user level computers any time soon. This is not a troll, but most users dont want Linux.
I totally agree with that. It's exactly why I like Linux so much. Right now, Linux is made for people who know what they're doing and demand total control, and that's all I can ask from an OS. The only way Linux can make it into the mainstream is to become at least as dumbed-down and full of security holes as Windows, at which point I'd probably start looking for alternatives. But I don't think that will ever happen, as most Linux developers have power and security as primary design goals, not what has come to mean "ease of use" nowadays.
- Geeks buy LINUX. (Generalization, I know)
- Geeks deal with computers better than people (more generalizations), so they would order over the Web.
- Web ordering never allowed LINUX as an OS pick for desktops.
- Geeks never ordered LINUX.
Thank you. Please drive through.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
However, it really does cost Dell a lot to support Linux. They have to test and validate the OS with every hardware configuration they sell and note those configurations that don't work, they have to make changes to the manufacturing process to support the new OS, and they have to train and staff support lines for Linux customers, and so on.
My opinion differs.
One, Dell desktops are generally regarded among the best rated machines for PC hardware reliability. I know people that support a range (over a thousand desktops) of different PC machines day to day, week to week, year to year, and their experiences bear this out:
Published surveys like this and like that support the same conclusion.Personally, I also like Dell's for their low decibel rating compared to other brands.
Their prices are only low if you're restricting yourselves to Intel processors. Dell's are not dirt cheap to buy in any case. It's just that for the level of hardware reliability and reduced maintenance costs, corporate buyers like them.
If you're willing to venture beyond the safe confines of 5 year track records that corporate buyers rely upon, then much better performance and price deals can be found if you're willing to do some research and testing.
I think Dell is vulnerable sticking to Intel for processors that are overpriced for the delivered level of performance. The technically inclined that support Dells at work buy Athlons for home - at some point they might notice their home Athlons great price performance ratio is augmented with tolerable reliability.
Yes, Dell operates on the slimmest of margins, assembling to order and not enduring the 1.5%/week depreciation that applies to computer inventory that the other firms keep. Maybe their Intel-only policy gets them on the priority list from Intel to compensate for no inventory.
Also, Dell minimizes the amount of high-powered technical staff they keep on hand, so it's little wonder they're bowing out of the small-sized high-knowledge overhead of the Linux market: it's not justified on a purely business level.
While Dell is making the right tactical business decision in this case, the long-term strategic consequences are that they will lose a small but vital share of the high end x86 workstation market to HP, IBM, Compaq and any other company willing to listen to the Linux desktop customer.
Case in point.
My organization is in the middle of evaluating various high-end x86 Linux desktops to replace some aging Suns. Dell was on our first round list, mainly because the corporate PC support people have them on the "approved" list and they're reliabile.
However, Dell's Linux technical support was never thicker than 2 web clicks. So it's no surprise that we're looking only at HP and IBM at the next stage.
We'll probably buy about 200 machines at around $5K apiece, but Dell won't be getting any of that. Given their size, I doubt they'll miss it.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
"high demand" does not mean a small number of people squaking loudly. It means either a large number of people willing to pay a little, or a small number of people willing to pay a lot.
Actually, in economic terms, "demand" is a graph of what people are willing to pay for a unit vs. the number of units.
So, all you have established is one datum on the demand curve, and you haven't provided us with any information about how many units you'd be willing to buy at a given price.
Now, if Dell actually tracked requests like yours and added them up, they undoubtedly have some kind of report on some manager's desk that approximates the demand (in the economic sense) for laptops loaded with Linux.
That same report also contains a "supply" which is the price at which companies are willing to sell units vs. number of units.
The intersection of these two curves is the equilibrium price, and if Dell can't sell units at that price, and make a profit, they have no business selling these boxes.
That's all there is to it. If you don't believe me, just ask the CEO of VA Linux. :)
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Maybe there'd be more demands for Linux on Dell desktops and notebooks if I could actually select it on their website. If it was available as an option on that machine, I couldn't find it.
As it was, I was hunting around for a Dell desktop for a friend of mine. Nothing spectacular, but he didn't want to pay the Microsoft tax, and liked the look of Linux on one of my machines.
We chose the link to customize the machine, and Linux wasn't on the list. In the end, he went with a generic clone because he could get it without the liability of a copy of Windows Me. Oh, and we downloaded an RH 7.1 ISO from their website.
Wanna hire a computer geek who can configure BIND and whip out a soldering iron to hack a monitor? www.glowingplate.com
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Maybe if they actually sold to people who asked for Linux they would find that demand isn't as low as they think.
This is the height of hypocracy for Dell. They are known for custom building boxes to order and for having the lowest inventory levels in the industry (5 days). Tell me they can't slap a hard drive with Linux in as easily as they can load more RAM. Excuse me while I barf.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Oh man, this is no good. I know a lot of people are thinking "Fsck Dell, who cares what they do. I'll install it myself," but I was geniuinely happy to see Dell offering the choice between Linux and M$. When my friend was assembling his own PC on Dell's webpage he noticed you could save some cash by choosing Linux. He asked me about it, and I said I'd help him learn about the OS if he picked it. He did, and has been a huge Linux fan ever since. This is beautifully illustrative of the kind of cooperation between the open source community and OEMs that Linux needs to expand to the desktop world. I really hope that the other OEMs don't follow the lead of Dell, but since it is the largest of the pack I'm a little worried.
---
---
Hey man, can I bum a sig?
To go at a slight tangent...
To be honest, I don't think that the difficulty of installing Linux is actually a real issue. The recent Linux installations I have made (most recently SUSE and Mandrake) have been almost as easy as the last Windows install that I did (Win98). But that's not the point I wanted to make.
My real point is that I believe that there are relatively few people out there who have actually installed any form of OS. The average desktop user will be either using the OS that was preloaded on their PC, or whatever their company's IT department gave them. Those of us willing to tinker are the minority.
What people are more likely to be installing are applications -- or, more to the point, games. Once they are easy to install, people might start to convert, and PC manufacturers might see a bit more demand.