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.""
Is there a Majority Shareholder keeping Linux support at the lip service level?
Or, do Dell's executives own Massive Stacks of certain stock?
Maybe Somebody would be Mighty Sore at Mr. Dell if he Mustered Sufficient courage to Make Significant choice available to people.
Ah, Monopolistic Speculation: gotta love it.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
It's very simple. Support will be an absolute nightmare. The few hundred bucks per machine that they're charging over Windows doesn't come close to paying the bill of the support that the "average" computer users would need if they actually bought these things. They want to make sure that people who buy them REALLY want them and know how to use them, already.
I don't respond to AC's.
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)
Just for fun and to see if it existed, I tried http://www.dell.com/linux/ and it brought up a page full of information about Dell Linux products and information.
But it is interesting to note that on the http://www.dell.com/ page, there is nothing about Linux.
Maybe Dell could add a link to Linux on their root page? Just a thought.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Novell puts out a monthly (free) magazine called Novell Connection. I just got the latest issue a few days ago and I do remember noticing a Dell / Linux Advertisement on the back cover.
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
Everyone knows you can't try to make logical conjectures from anything Dell does.
Why doesn't someone tell me why Dell screws my company out of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year selling them overpriced server equipment? Or why the Dell reps attempt to bribe our IT department with cash and free laptops if they'll continue to purchase only Dell equipment.
Or howabout why our Dell contract reads that installing any non-dell equipment on our network violates our warranties? Or how we can't put non-dell ram into our desktop machines, even when Dell has no ram available to sell us.
Dell can go fuck itself. It makes all its money by ripping off companies, bribing those that do know better and lying to those that don't. Not to mention the shit hardware they deliver...
Go ahead and order 10 identical desktops from Dell. You'll get 10 boxes that look identical on the outside, but you'll be pleasantly surprised to find they've got 10 different motherboards and ram configurations in them. This is AWESOME for imaging disks! fuck dell.
To make it more personal I'll mention that my company is one of the largest fast food chains in America, so depending on how you look at it, Dell is directly responsible for high priced fast food. Revolt!
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Look, I like Linux in a lot of ways. It's definitely a great server OS. And the desktops have come along way. I love seeing the progress and I love playing with them. But given a choice, despite all my frustrations with Windows, I simply find Windows easier to use in a number of ways.
.exe file and run it. 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. Or, God forbid, you actually have to download the source and build it yourself, which has happened with me with a number of apps because I simply couldn't get the package to install for some reason or another (maybe I couldn't find one of its dependent packages or I couldn't install one of the dependent packages). Installing apps in Linux, especially the less popular ones, can be a very trying experience.
It doesn't matter which version of Windows you run (okay, not necessarily with '95, '98 or something even more ancient) you can install the same
Just to give a single example, something as simple as a CPU temp monitoring app, turned out to be a nightmare. I spent 3 days trying to get a couple of them installed. Never managed to pull it off, despite passing tons of messages back and forth on linuxforums.org
There are other things about Linux that simply aren't ready as well. On the other hand, there are areas where Linux has excelled beyond Windows, and that's terrific, but I generally see the failings in being the areas that affect your non-tech users. Ease of use, ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps.
These issues need to be addressed and I have no doubt they will be. MS, for all of their faults, have done a pretty good job of making stuff easy to use. It comes, in part, from spending a great deal of time and money doing usability testing of their software.
Another failing in Linux is that, a lot of apps aren't terribly easy to use. Many Linux developers, especially for smaller apps, still have a tendency to focus on command-line apps. MPlayer, for example: An app for watching movies, is command-line. That makes no sense to me. Sure, I can get a front-end for it, but why don't they just include one so I don't go have to find one that: A> I can manage to get installed and B> That doesn't suck? Command-line should be the secondary method, not the primary method.
Most non-tech users don't even know Windows has a command line. They don't need to know. That's a good thing.
The interesting thing to me is that the Linux version costs the same as the identical Windows version. In past Linux system offerings from Dell, the Linux system was actually more expensive than the Windows system!
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 $180 for the OEM copy of RHEL WS, which is about similar to the OEM price for XP Pro.
Just because it's linux doesnt mean it's always cheaper.
This space for rent.
just for fun, show me where microsoft is mentioned on their root page?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
the knee jerk response is because they can't afford to lose whatever deal they have with microsoft, but I'd hope that isn't the real reason. All I know is that I tried to buy a desktop w/o an OS from them (ok, you have to have a naked drive with FreeDOS included, close enough) but of course that one was more expensive with cheaper add-ons than their 'speicals' with XP Home! SO there ya go, I paid the MS tax by saving 150$ on a better machine from Dell. It frustrates me to no end, but I don't know what I can do about it save for complain, which I have to them. I know, buy from someone else, roll your own, etc...but I've done that in the past, now I want some kinda 'just works' hardware that I can buy and trust. (and ppl wonder why I'm so excited about the new apples...dual boot osx/linux and I'll be a happy camper)
fak3r.com
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
They are a company. They can do the hell they want with their products.
Damned straight.
And we are customers, and we have demands. We have the right to demand what we want, just as they have the right to refuse us. That doesn't mean we can't write articles detailing how coy Dell is being with their Linux desktops. We can write whatever the hell we like, especially if it's the truth.
They are a company. One would hope they listen to their customers, try to keep their customers satisfied. I would further hope that people with money to spend would demand the things they want, as loudly and publicly as possible.
His right to do what he wants with his company supercedes your right to see the word "linux" on the front page of dell.com.
That doesn't mean we don't have a right to demand it.
You seem to advocate quiet, sheep-like customers. I advocate just the opposite: demanding, loud, annoying customers. Demand Linux on the first page! Demand we don't pay a Microsoft tax! Demand we get what we want to get!
Let Mike Dell do whatever he wants with those demands. That's his company's right. But don't try to silence the customer. It's not called "supply and demand" for nothing.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I'm sure you're right that Dell is keen to gently discourage the "average" user from buying these Linux boxes. Just look at the descriptions on the linked page: they're described as "workstations" (message: not one for Mom and Pop), and have suitably intimidating subtitles ("Elite", "Performance", "Advanced").
Then there are the descriptions of "ideal owner": "Demanding, price-conscious users requiring the power of a workstation over a desktop for specialized tasks". Again, it's a "get lost, n00bs" message.
>> Ease of use, ease of finding apps, ease of installing said apps
;)
I really have to say, install Ubuntu, enable Universe and Multiverse and fire up Synaptic, then come back here and say that
Plus the fact that 99% of drivers come pre-installed.
There are still areas that are unnecessarily difficult I'll grant you. Multimedia configuration for a start, but I've now reached the point where if someone I'm going to have to support, my parents for example, wants a new OS, I'll try to move them to Linux. Once it's set up right I think it'll work much better for them.
This of course assumes the apps are available, but tbh for most PC users I think they are. Open Office 2 is dandy, Firefox, Thunderbird or Evolution, media players, PDF viewers, instant messaging and so on and so on, it's all there.
Plus, as a Gnome user, I personally now find most of the apps I use to be far superior in terms of interface to the equivilent Windows apps.
It still has to catch up in some areas, but I think Linux has already overtaken Windows in many areas, and yes I do mean for the desktop user.
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.
I think this is probably one of the main reasons why a big computer company like Dell won't be more vocal about Linux. They know that the majority of folks out there, myself included, are clueless and scared when it comes to learning an entirely new OS that requires real effort to learn and master. Also, I went to Dell's website and put together an über penguin that came out over $14K (it was sweet! =] ). The base dual processor system starts at $1200 with no monitor and that's just not conducive to entry level, or highly experienced computer users for that matter, looking for a new system to upgrade from their long-obsolete 98/Millenium machines. Not that they would be looking for a dual processor machine probably, but that's where I'm headed when I'm ready for that 64 bit monster in a few years. I'll be sporting some version or another of Vista as well. =\
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
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
Why? Because Intel owns our collective asses. The only way we make a profit is from Intel paying us back (something called DPA) for every processor we sell. Without that DPA we might as well buy from retail stores and online vendors at retail price so they get the DPA's and profit. If we tried to stray from this partnership, they'd remove our DPA's and what little profit margin we have.
I'm certain Dell is under a similar partnership.
Why would Intel care then if Dell promoted Linux? That's where Microsoft comes in. For every Intel system sold with a MS OS on it, Intel gets a kickback. If the system sells without an OS or with a non-MS OS, then Intel doesn't make as much money.
All hail the freedom of choice in our capitalist Monarchic System.
What happened to your faith in the markets? If Linux desktop is truly equivalent to the Windows desktop, or even better than Windows, people will want to get a machine with it. Right?
The owls are not what they seem
This is all way too reminiscent of the whole Massachusetts-forcing-Walmart-to-carry-Plan-B, most slashdotters tend to oppose the government mindset and yet when it comes to linux they fall right into that mindset.
Where in the post or the thread did someone ask for a government bill demanding Linux marketing from Dell?