Slashdot Mirror
Why Won't Dell Promote Its Linux Desktops?
Brian McCoy writes "In this article, Steven Vaughn-Nichols proclaims "Last Thursday, when I wrote about Dell's new Linux desktop, was one of the most frustrating days of my professional life. My eWEEK colleague John Spooner and I tried our best to get Dell to confess that they really had released an honest-to-God Linux desktop.""
There are plenty of other companies that sell Linux an no-OS machines. http://www.addonshop.com/ http://www.emperorlinux.com/ http://www.ibexpc.com/ http://www.koobox.com/ http://www.linare.com/ http://www.linspire.com/ http://www.linuxcertified.com/ http://www.linuxsyscorp.com/ http://www.microtelpc.com/ http://www.outpost.com/ http://shoprcubed.com/ http://www.sub300.com/ http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm http://www.walmart.com/ http://tuxmobil.org/reseller.html http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html http://tuxmobil.org/ (general information)
They cost the same because RedHat Enterprise WS is not a free-as-in-beer product.
You get 3 years of RH support with Enterprise WS, and you pay for it. the pricing is about $180 for the OEM copy of RHEL WS, which is about similar to the OEM price for XP Pro.
Just because it's linux doesnt mean it's always cheaper.
This space for rent.
Simple. It is all about locking-in the computer vendors to Microsoft.
Microsoft says to the vendor, "If you will put this 'We recommend Microsoft Windows' line in ALL of our advertising, we will pay you $$$ out of our advertising budget." The amount paid is large - large enough to pay for a good chunk of the vendor's advertising.
However, the catch is that ALL ADS, bar none, must have this logo. So even is what is being sold is a Linux server, the "We recommend Microsoft" has to appear. Also, the vendor is STRONGLY discouraged from advertising anything else - they cannot, for example, say "We recommend Microsoft Vista or RedHat Enterprise Linux" (emphasis mine).
So, vendors like Dell receive very large sums of money for those blurbs.
In short, it is a way around the banned practice of "per CPU license fees" that Microsoft used to do before the anti-trust decisions.
www.eFax.com are spammers
It doesn't matter what version of linux you run, if it has a package manager, you can find the right package and the right executable. I can install a new version of a program just by knowing its name; tell me how Windows provides anything even remotely that easy. Running a linux distro without a good package manager? You can download the same source code as everyone else and create the "Right" executable yourself.
"something as simple as a CPU temp monitoring app, turned out to be a nightmare."
Hmm. "apt-get install ksensors ktemperature". Or do it through Adept if you want a GUI; search for "temperature", click on the package you want (it shows the descriptions), click on "install", click on "commit changes". Again, far, far simpler than installing things in windows.
"Ease of use, ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps."
If I can find and install the apps you are complaining about in less time than it took to write this comment, I think you are spreading FUD.
"MPlayer, for example: An app for watching movies, is command-line. "
You're right, mplayer sucks. Now how about Totem, VLC, Kaffeine, or Xine, all of which I have installed and all of which have nicer GUIs than Windows Media Player? This is not 1998; Linux *has* easy-to-use applications. Easier than the windows equivalents, in many cases. Examples:
K3B: CD/DVD burning, easier and more user-friendly than Nero
JuK: music collection player/manager, on the same level as iTunes, and *far* better than WMP.
Adept: package manager. windows equivalent: the "add/remove programs" dialog box, which is stone age.
Konserve: easy, simple backup tool. Windows equivalent: none?
A couple of other things: removable USB drives work wonderfully in linux (ubuntu, at least); to remove such a think I right click and choose "safely remove". The equivalent action in winXP takes at least 4 clicks through a bizarre and confusing popup that shows USB hubs. CD/DVD drives are treated just as easily in linux.
While my list is KDE-heavy and ubuntu-heavy, that is because I use KDE/Kubuntu. a Gnome user could likely list even more apps that are just as easy to use (Totem, for one).
"Most non-tech users don't even know Windows has a command line. "
Indeed, I can do everything from my GUI desktop in linux as well. Again, this isn't 1998; the linux command line is still present and is still invaluable, but in 2006, Linux *is* ready for the desktop.
But given a choice, despite all my frustrations with Windows, I simply find Windows easier to use in a number of ways.
Having recently had to start using Windows after 5 years of not touching it, I can tell you that Windows is *exceptionally* unusable from my point of view. It's just nowhere near as userfriendly and capable as Linux.
On the other hand, with Linux, you usually have to get the executeable for your specific CPU if not your CPU and flavor of Linux
Yes, whereas Windows is far better because it only supports 1 type of CPU (x86)... I'm not sure what you're complaining about here - of course you can't run a program on an incompatable CPU, nomatter what OS you're using.
ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps.
Yes, I too find typing "yum install foo" very taxing... no wait, I don't...
MPlayer, for example: An app for watching movies, is command-line.
Mplayer comes in both commandline and GUI versions. You can't tell me that giving the user a choice of whether they want to use the GUI or CLI is a bad thing.
I for one make a lot of use of the command line version.
but why don't they just include one so I don't go have to find one
They do - I get gmplayer installed with mplayer.
Most of the time I use the commandline version directly, on the odd occasion that I actually want to use a GUI version I tend to use Xine though.
Most non-tech users don't even know Windows has a command line. They don't need to know. That's a good thing.
I'm sorry, I can't see how you can complain about this stuff - if you install something that's designed to run from the commandline you can't complain that it runs from the commandline - if you wanted a program that runs from the GUI you damned well should've installed one instead.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Microsoft doesn't support OEM installs - the OEM is on the hook for all support. When I ran tech support for a major (not Dell) computer manufacturer about 8 years ago, the agreement was that we provided support for the configuration as shipped and in return, our cost per license of Windows NT was about $45. We also provided the physical media and documentation. Back then, you actually got an OS CD, not a restore image.
The rules haven't changed and, I suspect, the licensing deals are pretty similar. Microsoft makes plenty of money from OEM sales, but I wouldn't say that they soak the vendors - at least not the major vendors.
-h-