Slashdot Mirror
More on Dell Dropping Linux Support
coolgeek writes: "In this previous Slashdot story, we discussed Dell's claims of slow sales as their reason for dropping Linux support. (article on c|net News.com). Today, this article on Reuters news reports: 'Citing internal Microsoft memos, the nine states also said that in 2000 and 2001 Microsoft pressured Dell Computer Corp. into dropping plans to offer the open-source Linux operating system on some machines it sells.'" Update by HNQ: eWeek got more details about the memos. Update: 03/19 12:26 GMT by M : I think Hetz accidentally changed this story's setting when he added the update above. Fixed.
...a couple of years ago -- the machine arrived with Windows installed anyway -- even though I was not charged for it. Too bad, I wanted to see how Linux ships. Then I went on and installed FreeBSD, of course...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I wonder if Dell will have anything to say. The article just has comments from the states and Microsoft.
are Microsoft's air supply. They'll battle red in tooth and claw for preloads. But if they lose them, well... Windows is dead, we all know this.
Dell is dropping most of its support staff PERIOD. I was just laid off as a Dell Outsourcer, I had been working there 2 years putting myself through college. At least 10 sites of hundreds of techs just got laid off. As outsource agents, there was no big stink on the board and among stockholders because we were contracted, they probably don't even know about it.
If you buy from those thieves (oh, the corporate memos I could recite), expect a nice long wait for tech support now..
Do their figures include machines bought without operating systems or just the ones where they shipped RedHat with the machines?
We've bought 10 Dell servers to run SuSE and I bet we're not alone.
Normally there is no point paying people like Dell to install Linux for you anyway because they don't set it up how you want it.
If you'll end up trashing it, setting up a decent partitioning scheme and reinstalling it then you might as well save a few quid on having them muck it up first.
Then instead of quietly removing Linux-support, all online-newspapers are running a story about Dell dicontinuing Linux on the desktop.
Am I the only one who thinks this is fishy?
This was about stopping Dell from shipping Linux for desktop machines, not rack mountable servers.
Microsoft knows that as long as they control the desktop they can eventually take the server market. After all, what good is a server if the clients wont talk to it? They know that the only thing that can ever imperil them is if they lose control over the desktop, because if they do lose control they're dead in a year or two.
I have bought several Dell machines through work. You know: "workstations" for engineering and scientific applications. If that isn't where you would run Linux, I don't know where you would. Dell didn't sell Linux pre-installed on those machines. Our sales rep promised to credit us for Windows and ship the machines without an OS, but they ended up shipping with Windows anyway and charging us for it as well. Going through the hassle of sending the stuff back and refusing payment would have cost more than to just pay the Microsoft tax.
If Dell has sold Linux on their PCs at all, it must have been on some low-end or mid-range machines that engineers probably wouldn't want anyway.
As far as I can tell, Dell's Linux efforts were a publicity stunt of no real value. Perhaps Microsoft put them up to it so that they could point to some supposed "competition".
I'm running an old poweredge 6300 with RH 7.2.
Under NT it is a pig to get going with juggling raid driver disks - even though this PEdge has just a standard Perc-2Si raid controller...
With RH7.2 - no problems, 30 mins after starting I had a fully working linux box, 60 mins later a fully working PDC, DNS etc - normally with NT its the best part of a day getting the OS and all patches etc installed and working together (and then put exchange on and watch the whole thing vanish into a big pile of junk).
Wonder whether Dell might reconsider and agree to provide linux on their servers given MS is such a pig to work with.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
"It will have a devastating impact on Microsoft. It will have a devastating impact on the PC ecosystem and particularly consumers," Webb said.
An 'ecosystem' implies biodiversity. The world operating system market is verging on monoculture. If anybody is the *weed* in this technological ecosystem, it would definately be Microsoft Windows. I say - bring on the devastation!
The "remedy" phase of an anti-trust case is like the "penalty" phase of other criminal trials: It's when the punishment is meted out.
So why aren't the plaintiffs seeking punishment? They should be there to punish Microsoft. Their goal is to solve the problem and prevent future violations of the law. If they aren't truly seeking punishment, then it strikes me the states might be hedging their bets: Waiting to see if the judge will enforce a harsh remedy (and face the wrath of the Bush administration and the Ashcroft goon squad.) If the judge won't do that, they'll be able to easily sell out for a cheap "PR Win" against MS where they settle and the majority of people who don't know enough about computers to care will say "Good, they took care of that Microsoft thing. Now I can go back to the net without worrying my porn will be cut off."
It's also laughable to me that MS' lawyers can argue, with a straight face, that evidence of on-going criminal conduct is somehow "irrelevant" to the penalty phase of their trial. I do my best to avoid situational logic, so the best way to decide if this isn't a completely bullshit argument is to replace Microsoft with Lenny the Mobster.
If Lenny the Mobster is charged with operating a sports book, and while out on bail on these charges (which he has since been convicted of,) he set up a NEW sports book, that would certainly seem like relevant evidence to me in considering whether the defendant had any intention of obeying the law in the future, and whether a stronger sentence might be needed to reform him.
Microsoft should not get special treatment. Microsoft has broken the law. Multiple times. They have been convicted multiple times, despite doing everything they could to worm out of responsibility including:
1) Lying (IE couldn't possibbly be unbundled)
2) Buying off the Bush administration
3) Buying off much of Congress
If it was Lenny the Mobster charged with murder, racketeering, or anything else, they could (and have, in the past) use everything including the kitchen sink against him. Why does Microsoft deserve preferential treatment?
MS is like a child, defiant to the last that it deserves no punishment. That's basically the argument they're presenting in court: They don't want to make the changes proposed by the dissenting states because those changes would end most of their monopolies in 6-18 months. MS seems to be arguing that there should be a lesser punishment simply because they say so.
When this all works itself out, and MS is over (or sold, divested, whatever) there will be a collective hangover. Things will be weird for a few months, but ultimately more healthy.
Think of it like ending a relationship with a crazy girl: Yeah, you lose great sex for a little while (millions of video games) but you also get all the heartache and bullshit of dating a crazy girl (autoexecution of VBScripts in emails, gaping web-server security flaws)...
Yeah, it hurts at first, but ultimately you're a better, stronger person with (hopefully) an open, easy to use OS with lots of games, groovy programming environments, and other fun multimedia content the likes of which hasn't even been invented yet.
In other words, the rich pageant of computing that's been prommised for the last decade, but never delivered by Microsoft.
Who did what now?
They dont have to gamble much. Take, for example, mail. 'Use Exchange. If you dont, we'll raise the price for your desktop support contracts'. Want to use Samba to reduce fileserver costs? Ooops, every time a new version of Windows is released things start inexplicably breaking. Authentication is another prime target for incompatibility... kerberos being a good example.
Protocols can be corrupted, embraced and extended, or simply blackmailed around. Not to mention if the SSSCA gets passed and we get some form of DRM integrated, in which case they can have the clients simply refuse to talk to non-DRM capable servers, and have law on their side.
Now the point is here that history has made the x86 platform as home computer because back in the days when a an XT was 5000$, the only people who could afford it were the bussiness men who wanted to do a bit of Lotus 123 at home. Of course these bought IBM machines that came with MS-Dos (I'm not kidding you...my dad was one of those loonies..tough it was a PS/2 in later times) All other computer *enthousiasts* were on Commodore 64, Sinclairs, BBC's....heck I'm probably even mixing decades here.
Later on when computers got cheaper (think 486, but were still expensive enough), people started to buy those for home use. You know the primary excuse for a home PC (bought by adults) was back then to do a bit word processing and spreadsheeting. Guess, what that is the stuff they (eventually) did at work and so the choice was clear: buy a PC. Yes, and the computer enthousiasts still used their Amiga's.
Now one could say that times have changed: now people admit they buy the computer for entertainment (surfing/games). I'm not sure if people still select at home what they use at work or if the tides have turned and home usage infuences work usage now. Now imagine businesses would massively switch to Linux (because MS gets even worse with licencing than it now is, and decision makers have the *balls* to say no...which I personally highly doubt) Woudn't this refect automagically into a higher demand for Linux home machines? I think so! People buy what they are used to, not what is good... Joe users dreads to learn about PC's.
I agree that W2k is a fine OS (tough I still prefer NT4), but I woudn't put it on a server....not anymore, I got the feeling of *BSD and for me a good Unix server is a *BSD server. For home usage W2K it's okay: you turn on the puter a couple of hours a day and it's stable enough for that: uptimes simply are not important for home usage. Win 9x kernels however were never suitable for anything... I don't know XP enough (only used one PC with drivers problems at a friends place), but it seemed very very bloated to me. (even more than W2K!)
Personally I have changed, I was an MS-Dos man, hated Win 1.0 to Win 3.xx and loved OS/2 (which died an absurd death). I had to get over to Win 95 and hated NT4 until I learned the strengths of it. Lately I have learned Linux, but I saw the light withing OSX. For me OSX is the machine for home use, if you're not into gaming of course...the only reason I now have to use a Windows incarnation are games and fortunately I'm not a big gamer.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Also, this part of the article misses the point and will confuse those "non-tech savvy" folks it hoped to enlighten:
Truth is Windows costs hundreds of dollars whether it's pre-bundled with the hardware or not, and it always has. The difference is many users don't notice that cost when they pay as a portion of their pc's purchase price rather than actually handing the cashier a product that rings up $299.99.
Who did what now?
www.lycoris.com
lycoris offer desktop LX preinstalled on machines for $449.95 and laptops for $799.99.
The pcs are HP and laptops IBM and they come with full tech support and OS support and warranty from manuf. the PC's are new and the laptops refurbished. The prices include shipping.
PC
Hewlett Packard PC
Intel Celeron 700 Mhz Processor
128MB RAM
10GB Hard Drive
8MB Integrated AGP Video
48x CD-ROM Drive
56k Modem or
10/100 Ethernet Card (NIC)
Keyboard
Mouse
Speakers
Desktop/LX Amethyst
1 Year Warranty from HP
Monitor Sold Separately
Laptop
IBM ThinkPad 600E
366Mhz Pentium II Processor
AGP Graphics
3.5 inch Disk Drive
10 GB Hard Drive
DVD ROM Drive
128/256 Std/Max RAM
Dual boot Desktop/LX Amethyst & Windows® 98
13.3 inch TFT Active Matrix Screen
56k voice/fax modem
5 lbs. w/ battery
Refurbished with 3 Months Limited Warranty from IBM
And im sure there are more out there.
PS on the Dell side i buy nothing but dell and i have never ever seen the linux links except on server products, the fact is that MS may have stopped them from doing or they may have not but from what i have seen Dell didnt exactly try hard in the first place and i suspect it was only ever an option to make them seem like they cared about choice. Dell have always been microsofts number one fan.
Oh and this may be offtopic but on lindows im sorry but i personally believe its vapour ware and will believe it when i see it - a company charging $99 for Beta testers to get it is not a good sign and i have yet to come across anyone who has ever used it. Until i see it i wont believe it -for now its a pretty web site and 2 screenshots that could easily be forged. Micheal Robinson marketed MP3's before and now hes marketing linux and so far all i have seen is a lawsuit he knew would be the result of the naming and one i personally believe he went looking for.
But more power to companies who ship linux preinstalled, i run lycoris and for a desktop OS its very very good.
I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
The way it *should* have been done was to put Linux into the OS choice drop down list with something like * Red Hat Linux (-$100).
Even now, if you go configure a Precision 340 workstation, you can't do this. You have to go to a start page like www.dell.com/linux and choose from the initial menu you want Linux. I have never seen a order page that gives a choice between Linux and Windows on the configuration screen. I'd love for someone to show me a URL to prove me wrong...
if you was in charge of a Linux software co., wouldn't you wake up each morning wishing you could get the big manufacturers to pre-install Linux instead of Windows?
If you rely on retail sales, definitely not.
Someone who buys a box with Linux preloaded will usually not pay for a box containing the same OS, and a company preloading your distribution won't necessarily pay you anything (unless you make a proprietary distribution. Yuck.)
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
(rhetoric pause)
Why do they have to ** FORCE ** you to buy Windows?
I can also buy a computer from Dell without monitor why shouldn't I be able to buy one without OS?
I assume that posting and follow-up access to other newsgroups must be only for for "internal" Microsoft users.
This is fine if he is just using it for providing support for Microsoft users in the local nz.comp newsgroup - but using it to post Anti-Linux FUD?
Does it qualify as astroturfing?
That is where "you would run Linux". That is also where a few hundred scientists for whom I work run Linux ... on Dells. For a few years now, my employer (a hard-science research institution with about 1000 employees) has been recommending Dell workstations for scientists who want to run Linux. We continue to do so, and Dell continues to ship Red Hat 7.2 on Precision Workstation models and PowerEdge servers -- up to and including the highest-end systems such as the PowerEdge 8450.
The whole "Dell quits shipping Linux" deal has applied to "some machines [Dell] sells," to quote the Reuters article. Specifically, Dell has dropped Linux on "desktop" systems such as the OptiPlex and Dimension models. It has not dropped Linux support on workstations or servers, which you can still quite easily purchase with Red Hat preinstalled -- or with no operating system at all, or even with Novell (ick) -- through Dell's online store. It's true that these workstations cost more than Dell's desktops; this is because they're faster and don't use cheap WinHardware (which doesn't work well in Linux anyway).
(Looking over the number of Dell trademarks in this post, I feel compelled to make it clear that I don't get any money from recommending Dells. I just get fewer support hassles when my clients buy the same hardware rather than going to Joe's Discount PC Clones and Bait Shop.)
I'm not sure you can really seperate the two. If the judge wishes to "correct the monopoly," it has to be possibble to get Linux on a workstation from Dell and Gateway, and other mainstream manufacturers. The reason Microsoft put prsesure on Dell (to stay vaguely ontopic here) is that (whether accurate or not) Dell is seen by consumer-level buyers as a quality PC.
Having Linux available on Dell systems could have legitimized (in the consumer-mind) something that Microsoft wished to keep on the fringe, Linux on the desktop.
Anything that "corrects the monopoly" (or at least levels the OS playing field) will destroy Microsoft since, as numerous other posters have pointed out, nobody with large amounts of money to spend on OS and hardware really wants to buy Microsoft, they just sort of have to. In fact, few people besides Microsoft want them around at all.
How else can you correct the monopoly? Keep in mind that MS has a track record of "settling" antitrust matters, only to violate said settlement when it is convenient to their business plan to do so.
Fuck it, I'm moving to the Netherlands.
Who did what now?
Dude! I'm not gettin' a Dell!
- Windows 2000
- Noell Netware
- Red Hat Linux 6.2
So yeah, they did make an effort in the server space, at least.Not so much because they ship crappy code, they can do that all decade long for all I care.
What I care about is innovation, competition and the rights of business to conduct business the way they see fit.
Unfortuantly, when you get a monopoly they conduct business in ways to make sure no-one else thrives, hence the "PC ecosystem" becomes dominated by one predator who won't let any other threat to its dominance survive. Indeed a company within the "PC Ecosystem" that starts to thrive becomes a viable meal for the predatory MSFT (the next version of Windows is then likely to feature the same or similer product bundled within its confines, nbecause its proven itself to be popular). As for bundling, well this goes without saying; the PC ecosystem employed by MSFT is in actuality an "MS ecosystem".
Too much damage has already been done by them, advertantly and maybe inadvertantly. Really hope the 9 states get a lot of what they want, but the release of the Windows source might be a little too much. Perhaps having every MSFT business dealing with the OEMs public and scrutinized might help, and indeed having many formats opened up with the stipulation that changes need to be documented well in advance.
We'll see what happens. But for these anti-competitive and innovation stifling measures its the only reason I dislike them.
is not so much the strong arm tactics that MS was using to thwart the growth of a competing operating system, but that they actually had memos and such concrete evidence of the fact.
I would have expected such thrusts to be communicated verbally to Dell so as to avoid this kind of embarrassment. Any written records could refer to "our joint efforts to establish a mutually successful partnership team" and other such drivel that would be understood to include the verbal tenets of the agreement.
I mean, any drug dealer knows these things.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
So let's see... buy a monopolisticOS-free computer from a megaRetailCorporation that forces locally owned businesses out of business. Gosh, where can I sign up? Do you think we can get McDonald's hamburgers on the way home?
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
Huh? What crappy browser do you use?
The "support problem" is really easy to get around.
Restructure the support options for alternate OSes such that it's a money making proposition. With Linux, there will be a high likelihood that support is not an issue for them.
People who want a "unix box with support" buy Suns, not Dells.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.