Slashdot Mirror
Dell Opens Up About Desktop Linux
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Dell explains his company's Linux desktop strategy in an interview at DesktopLinux.com. He says that it's not practical for Dell (the company) to support numerous distributions due to their incompatibilities, but that he doesn't want alienate large segements of the Linux community by selecting a favorite Linux distro to standardize on (Ubuntu appears to be his favorite, at the moment, by the way.) What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform, according to the article."
Funny, thats what most haven't-quite-switched-yet Linux users want too...
Han shot first.
he is right - Too many incompatable distros are hurting the advancement of linux in the corp marketplace. In a way having just one overweling popular distro making up 80% of the Linux marketplace would actually help with Linux's more wide acceptance.
http://www.leadmagnet.50megs.com
The guy makes sense, IMHO. After all, how many times have you seen slashdotters whining about various installers and packages, etc? As far as standardizing the core system, that's what the LSB is for, and POSIX to some extent.
C|N>K
That'd be cool
I don't need Dell to support linux in the traditional sense. And I don't even need them to sell me a PC that doesn't have windows.
All I want from Dell is a commmittment to ship hardware for which open source drivers are available -- for them to say, for example, we need open source audio drivers or we won't ue your soundcard/integrated chipset, or your graphics chipset, or whatever. If Dell leaned on vendors, they'd give open source developers the info they need to support their products.
The not having to pay for windows thing is tricky, and I know it bugs a lot of people. I understand why. But for me the bottom line is that I just want stuff to work, and a Dell with a windows license is still a good machine at a good price, even if you don't use the license.
It would be cool if Dell could make sure that dual boot people could reinstall windows in a differently sized partition, though -- if they could make sure that you get the installation CDs or whatever else you need to do that. I haven't really been following things, but I hear that some people get machines with ghost backups of windows instead of a real install CD. That sort of thing is a problem from a practical point of view for a linux guy who wants the ability to dual boot.
Why don't they just make their own distro using something such as Linux From Scratch? THey have enough money to create an entire Linux division in their corporation.
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
Just test your hardware on 1 or 2 distro's, make mention of that, and give people the option to buy a dell pc without an OS. Now you not only alienate large sections that don't want that linux distro you sell on your pc... but the whole group that doesn't want windows
Dell doesn't need to support any particular distro. What they need to do is make sure there are drivers for every piece of hardware they sell. Untill then, Dell can bite my shiny metal ass.
What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform
Does this mean that if they released this common core platform, will it be labeled as a 'monopoly'? Or, rather the most functional and easy to use of the Linux distros?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Isn't that what the Linux kernel is for?
Thats good for you. But for the other 98% of the population want a PC that is already up and running with all the apps, drivers, and configuration set. So it's the much larger market that Dell will chase to sell too. The real money is in companies that buy 20,000 identical systems with a huge service contract. Not us computer geeks that tend to build our own anyways.
http://www.leadmagnet.50megs.com
I thought part of doing business is about making the right (highly subjective) decisions at the right time. This is just another decision that they will have to make. They could have chosen to install a selected few distros depending of the type of computers. Debian on a server, or maybe strike a deal with Red Hat or Novell and install RHEL or SuSE. On the desktop, they could have installed Ubuntu or Mandriva. But hey, if they like to install something else instead, that's a good thing! It will still a start for wider support and acceptance of Linux distros. Or they could have decided to not install any Linux distros by default and maybe miss a great chance. Who knows?
For the lack of a better sig.
Ultimately, all mainstream Linux distributions could derive from the same basic base (with the exception of those which try to fit Linux in tight places, for example). There is no reason that RedHat, SuSE, Debian, et al have to have so many differences beneath user-space software. (Consider the wildly different boot-time initialization scripts in each of those distributions. Ironically, there is a modular system in place.) Consolidate the similarities and expand by extensions which do not eliminate cross “distro” compatibility. There are already efforts to this effect. This is no magic bullet for any particular problem, but it will help eliminate the throat-cutting within the community and encourage computer manufacturers like Dell to offer Linux solutions.
Join Tor today!
From the article: "People are always asking us to support Linux on the desktop, but the question is: 'Which Linux are you talking about?'"
Dell does a pretty good job of supporting different versions of Windows (at least 98, NT, ME, 2K, XP). "Support" really means "drivers that work with our hardware" -- they could easily sell Linux without providing software support. I'm sure one of the bigger Linux distros (Red Hat if nobody else) would be happy to team up with them for a co-branded/co-marketed PC.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Dell is a clever guy. In this article, I think he is just giving his best response to keep the Linux guys happy. Does anyone really believe him when he says ""Microsoft has not talked to us about Linux. If they did, I wouldn't care. It's none of their business."? Sorry, I don't believe that for a second. Companies have to go through rounds of negociation with Microsoft, re who much they are going to pay, joint marketing etc. He's saying Linux never comes up in these negociations?
The fact is, Dell is the one company that could make Linux on the desktop happen, if they wanted to.
How about you sell a computer with the drivers only, and let the user decide what OS to install? If he wants Windows, he can buy it from Dell (and probably get it at the cheaper price since he is buying it with a computer) and if he wants Linux he can download whatever. You just have the disclaimer "buy one of our computers without an OS from us and we cannot give you software support".
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
You hit it right on the head. Having Dell push hardware manufacturers to support FOSS would be a great boost for Linux. Having them try to "standardize" the Linux world would be a complete failure, and worthless to boot.
And you have heard correctly - most new systems don't come with a full install CD anymore (I buy for a medical practice). Now, you get either a "recovery" CD (most of which wipe your partitioning) or the aforementioned ghost partition (usually with an option to burn a CD backup).
It was one of the things which helped me sell Linux to the practice, when we had to buy an off-the-shelf copy of Win XP for a machine (which came with Win XP) that took an unexplained OS crap and couldn't be retored from the partition.
Using plain ol' text since 1968
After buying a Dell Inspiron 600m sometime in the summer I figured what the heck and installed Fedora Core on it. A few months down the road I've managed to get everything (including SPDIF out, TV-out, WLAN, suspend to ram) working. The only thing I haven't had a chance to play with is hot dock and undocking. If I want to either dock or undock, everything must be shut off and rebooted...anything else ends up freezing the system.
Having said that it seems perfectly Dell compatable... would just be nice if tech support would accept my linux-based diagnostic info when contacting them for tech support. I've had one harddrive completely die (replaced next day), but now I have bad sectors and htey won't help me because I'm running an unsupported OS.
Why do people keep saying this? The reason that there isn't a large price difference in a Dell system loaded with Linux vs. a Dell system loaded with Windows is that Dell uses commercial Red Hat Linux.
You will save money if you order a Dell with no OS (well, FreeDOS is usually shipped with the system) versus one shipped with XP. You just can't order every system that way.
no, but you get a free T-shirt saying 'Microsoft !(Inside)' or 'Microsoft ^(Inside)', whichever you prefer
In the end, "we see [the Linux desktop] as a customer-driven activity. If customers want it, well, Dell will give it to them."
This sums up the interview quite well: if you pay enough, they'll give you whaterver you want.
Nothing else to see here, move along.
stick to the most common chipsets, then all linuxes would run on them.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
> popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform
UnitedLinux ? (*)
Linux Core Consortium ?
Progeny ?
Can you find more ?
(*) Dead, I know.
I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
We could call it the Linux Standards Base or something like that.
What is the best distro?
Now here is the restrictions:
Must be the easiest to install and use, based on someone who has ZERO experience with Linux, but has experience with Windows. So this probably means it has to be GUI based. Then work with the most amount of applications out there.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I also immediately thought of the Linux Standard Base. Unfortunately, that relies on rpm (which Ubuntu (and others) don't use by default, but which can be supported if certain packages are installed).
I don't see what would be so bad if Dell started doing what a lot of software companies do--support the biggest few (Red Hat and/or SUSE). Hobbyists will be happy knowing the hardware works with SOME distro. If Dell finds it economically feasible, they can add support for other distros (possibly even as some pay-extra-for-support). Monarch computers and others do exactly this--installation costs for various distros depend on the cost of a license & time and difficulty of install. The support for some of these is provided through the O.S. vendor. Or you can purchase extended support at a fee (which can also relate to the time and difficulty of support).
... because I have run VMWare without *any issue whatsoever* on Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian, Mandrake, you name it.
Hell in Gentoo you just have to 'emerge VMWareWorkstation' or something as such.
typical...
and scary at least...
if [ `name -p` == "x386dell" ] ; then
;;
;;
;;
echo "Too bad, you should have bought Sun, IBM or HP"
exit 222
fi
case `uname -s` in
SunOS)
# do it this way
ubuntu)
# do it this way
*)
# most do it this way
esac
just provide the drivers... the community will deal with the rest...
This question of "which distro" is a misleading one. Pick one that you think will meet the needs of your customers. Ubuntu is a nice fit for home machines and laptops. Dell already has some enterprise Linux machines out there so they could easily offer a choice of Ubuntu or Enterprise on workstations and servers. Once one distro works on a Dell machine, the likelihood is that any other distro of choice will also work. All this talk of fragmentation in the Linux distros misses the important point that open source is more about source-level compatibility than binary compatibility. As long as software can be compiled successfully on a Linux distro, it can be used.
It is also important to track the latest stable release. If Dell produced Ubuntu-configured machines, it should attempt to make sure that the version is current with the latest stable release. This would also encourage hardware manufacturers to provide Dell with Linux-supported hardware and that might in turn help increase the number of devices that have linux support. Wireless networking is a key area where support is tricky.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Common core platform for Linux will never happen. Developers and the core user community are too afraid of standardization - just see what's holding Linux desktop GUI back: there is no standard GUI (at least when it comes to widgets, menus, style and configuration) in the same way as on Mac. Why is there no standardized desktop? Because developers and the core user community abhor any idea of such a lockdown that limits their ability to tweak the system. Imagine a situation like this: "That's a fine application there, Mr. Developer, but its user interface doesn't conform to the distribution regulations and hence we cannot include it in the distro". It's exactly the same thing with distros.
The owls are not what they seem
I think Michael Dell's, as well as other wannabe-Linux users desires to see Linux converge into one single platform are not going to happen anytime soon. In fact, I don't think it even matters at all too.
Linux and most open-source software are by nature a federated, bottom-up form of software development where multiple versions abound. This is because there is no one single entity(person or corporation) who knows which features are best for users, *and* the best way for those to be implemented. Hence forks abound which allows users, aka the free market, to decide which versions/software suit their own requirement. Compare this to proprietary software where the corporation decides which features you want, when you want them and in what form you want them.
Waiting for Linux to converge into a single platform with a market share >80% would imply that other versions have failed to see what users desire, and one company(or group of individuals) has been able to capitalize on that and advance its market share.
Now Ubuntu(I use that myself) has to an extent been reading what lay users desire from a distro and implementing many of their needs well. But as Ubuntu becomes more popular are other distros going to sit still watching it reap all the laurels? I don't think so. They will evolve too. If you think that isn't possible then ask yourself how the hell Ubuntu managed to gain so much in the last couple of years? Do you think such innovation will stop after Ubuntu?
Finally, imho lay-users are not going to want to switch to Linux in the near-term. Because switching an OS for them represents a huge task which they will undertake only if:
1. They are thouroughly dissatisfied with Windows, or
2. They are thouroughly enamoured by the benefits that Linux offers
Unlike what we may all think, on the whole most people are not thouroughly dissatisfied with Windows. Sure they may have to deal with patchy security and those occasional crashes but hey, who says Linux doesn't have issues? I've had Ubuntu lock up on me more than a few times. I've spent a better part of the first month trying to get streaming videos to play on Firefox. Did I quit? No...so why would a Windows user?
To sum up, expecting Linux to converge into a super-distro isn't going to happen. Simply because open-source by nature is designed against the formation of monopolies. Since code upto a certain point is freely available to all, a new fork can be established by a brighter, more innovative, more responsive group in much lesser time than in the prop. s/w market. So an 80%+ distro would mean that nobody else read the market and changed course.
What's so difficult to understand about that?
"If the Linux desktops could converge at their cores, such a common platform would make it easier to support. Or, if there was a leading or highly preferred version that a majority of users would want, we'd preload it."
For a company which has been supplying $300 low end machines with scrap hardware and shady driver, this doesn't make much sense to me. Even with failed venture in Linux market with Red Hat back in 2001, I don't ever recall Dell ever putting any effort in supporting customers half way decent.
Sure, they had "support Red Hat and SuSE or United Linux" logo. And because of that, Dell's association with so called "leading or highly preferred version", it treated Linux as an OS, not a kernel. and when someone states "I support Linux" normally you don't convertly support only "some portion" of GNU/Linux distro, but work with Linux kernel developers with half way decent driver support so that EVERY distro can benefit from it.
Even today, Michael Dell either can't see it or is too naive. One would think, Dell had learned their lesson and support Linux kernel developement and community and not "leading or highly preferred version" distros. However this goes to show, Dell didn't.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Like it or not, the reason Microsoft has a foothold on the desktop market is because of its relative ease of use. A worker or home user can by taught the basics of checking their e-mail, writing documents, etc. in Windows and Office via memorization. They learned Office 95 back in the day, that training investment carries over to the latest version with just a few add-ons. If you really want to see how seriously important backward-compatible trainng is, turn on the "blue screen, white text" feature in Word as well as the WordPerfect compatible function key layouts. Or the "slash" menu in Excel for hardcore Lotus 1-2-3 users. Microsoft knows they have the lock because of this. Mac OS X, for example, is much easier to control centrally than Windows is, but no one switches to it because their staff is used to Windows. Even if Office si a work-alike, relearning keyboard shortcuts and other tricks is time-consuming.
Companies do not want to invest money retraining their staff. It was hard enough getting them to learn MS Office or WordPerfect the first time. There are a few things that need to happen before Linux makes a big push for the corporate desktop:
-- Make it "just work." Windows' big strength is that I can go to CompUSA, buy any old crappy piece of hardware, plug it in, and have it work without having to load kernel modules, edit config files, etc.
-- Standardize it. Pick an office suite. Pick a window manager. Pick _a few_ of the hundreds of obscure GNU applications and bundle them as a standard tool set. Wrap in some administration and deployment tools that are brain-dead simple to use. No normal user wants three office suites, four window managers, etc.
-- Completely hide the guts from the end user unless they want to see it. Mac OS does a great job of this. I have the command line and access to the config files if I want it, but the GUI is more than adequate to tweak most items.
Dell's other big market is home users. The same rules apply, just more so. Home users do not have the patience to learn Linux internals. My advice would be to start with an Ubuntu-like base, and go to work making the OS just work for normal users.
If Dell starts shipping every box with some Linux distro, that distro will immediately become the "common core platform".
Paid Q&A/Research
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Michael Dell is right, distro wars are a major reason for large companies failing to adopt Linux. How are folk supposed to take us seriously when they see fights between KDE and Gnome, disputes about the best text editor and all out war when it comes to the Debian / KDE / Red Hat debate.
Ed Almos
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. - Tacitus, 56-120 A.D.
Support Ubuntu! ;-)
If we look back a few years, we used to have a larger number of vendors that made linux-compatible modems, sound cards, video cards, wireless network cards, scanners and so on. MS has been able to lean on these enough for them to make it hard or impossible for Linux (or BSD) support. Michael Dell could help counteract this method of MS, if he so chose.
As others have posted and will post some more, it doesn't matter which distro he chooses. Once he supports one, the others can take up the slack themselves. Debian stable, being a slow-moving target and completely unencumbered, would be my first choice, but Ubuntu or Kubuntu would give a predictable release schedule.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
so, I take it Dell won't support Vista as well since it will have many different versions?
---
==
You will save money if you order a Dell with no OS (well, FreeDOS is usually shipped with the system) versus one shipped with XP. You just can't order every system that way.
==
Yes, that is exactly the point.
Why can't you order every system that way?
Is it too much effort for too little business? Dell is good at custumizing PC's if they can upgrade the harddisk, they can also put in a blank harddisk.
Besides, you would think that it would make most sense to offer the _best selling_ PC's with freedos instead of more expensive servers.
Maybe MS and Dell did not talk about Linux, but they probably talked about the Windows license prices.
Michael Dell doesn't seem to understand the obvious:
...)
We do not need his company to support Linux distro's - what we need is Dell hardware that 1) comes without a preinstalled operating system and accompanying tax, and 2) is built using parts that are supported by free Linux distro's drivers, such as Debian.
Case in point: I bought a HP zv6025EA laptop last July, but had to work on it without X until Debian testing included the newest X.org release (by February, 15th). Now, *for me*, working without X is not much of a problem (I'm a GNU Fortran developer and meteorologist - I use the thing for *computing* - but a lot of other Linux enthousiasts might not want to buy such a lacking machine
Cheers,
Toon Moene.
You're right. The real issue is open driver support. You get that and the problem is mostly solved.
If Dell really wants to serve the Linux community then they should ensure their hardware is compatiple and they apply pressure to those they buy their components from to write good Linux drivers which they can make available for download.
I don't need them to preinstall Linux and I don't need some dude in India to tell me how to chmod this or that. Just give us hardware that works. This whole thing about not wanting to offend the Linux community by choosing a distro...I call bullshit. Grow a set of balls and tell everyone your certifying Debian to work on Dell hardware. So many distros seem to be based on Debian that it seems to be a safe choice. Throw in Suse and RHEL too for good measure and who cares if the folks down at ObscureLinux get their shorts in a knot. No matter what you do you will insult people in the Linux community so no harm done.
This, by far is one of the most frustrating things. When a piece of hardware dies they will not accept your diagnosis because it's not windows. I've had idiots even blame the hardware dying on Linux and say they won't replace it. Asus would not give me an RMA once because a motherboard wouldn't save changes I made to the bios. Their reason? Because I didn't have the latest Windows motherboard drivers. They said it can make a difference *rolls eyes*.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
Why can't they just give the option to purchase a computer without any OS on it? "Linux Ready" or some such marketing tagline. Microsoft owns them that much?
.deb -> dpkg -> Ubuntu way had all the menu's working but would segfault in a different (and more critical) area. With so many linux distros, and all being a little different, it's WAY more of an undertaking vs ONE option - windoze is windoze.
I understand not wanting to support different linux OS's, in fact I think that is a big problem in the commercial linux application area. I recently looked at purchasing MainActor for linux, and the RPM -> Alien -> Ubuntu install worked, but some menus were broken and it would segfault in one area. The
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
Which comes first? The popular distro or the market share?
Think if Dell offered Linux to the average consumer and worked with the Vendor to provide support it'd give them the market share? Of course. Dell would make colourful foldout instructions for whatever Distro they choose. Dell would make drivers specificly for the distro they choose. Just like they did with RedHat on the server OSs (try getting OpenManage to run on other distros... hell in a handbasket).
So I'd say this again- if Dell were to pick one, that'd see a big boom in popularity and familiarity with users.
-M
when you see the word 'Linux', drink!
I hate Linux. I hate its guts. But if IBM and Dell would start selling computers ONLY with Linux, and put their weight behind developing it, that is all it would take to make me switch.
He's saying "it isn't feasible to support numerous distributions due to their incompatibilities"; you think creating another distro will solve incompatibilities among the distros?
Your service hasn't been worth much since about 2001, so it's no big loss for the user. Then you can stop making bad excuses for not wanting to offer Linux because MSFT will find a way to raise your OEM license costs if you do.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Sure there is a marginal incremental support cost, but the distros are sufficiently close for the purpose of supporting the average user ("is it plugged in?"). In a shop the size of Dell, they could easily allocate dozen people in Linux (general support) and divvie up the group to be specialists in areas/distros ... the support'd be...you know, like a cummunity (novel idea, I know!) and the incremental would approach zero.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Consider this. Linux has support for LOADS of filesystems. Windows? Just a few. Most Windows users would immediately see the many fs options they could choose from, and have a panic attack. I sure as hell did my first time with Linux. I didn't know whether or not to use ReiserFS or what! Even with a GUI installer, most Windows users, I think, would shake their heads and go back to simplicity.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
We've heard this all before. I have two issues holding me back from switching:
1) Hardware support. I do not have the time to spend 20 hours configuring a system. I need it to work out of the box so I can get to my daily computing tasks.
2) Applications. If I need feature "x" in application "y" then I expect it to be there. Sure, in the Linux world the idea is to cobble together a string of 30 small apps to achieve one process but that hinders my productivity. Yes that may make Linux more powerful but it also makes it necessary to pull up "man" pages all the time.
I could switch to a Mac if I really wanted to but the problem there is cost and the lack of applications. Cost can be dealt with but I need my applications.
Dell is still clearly thinking in terms of large, impenetrable operating systems. Choosing which Windows operating system to install (ME? XP? 2003 Pro? etc,) is critical. The wrong choice will sink a line of computers.
So, what Linux operating system to pick? It doesn't matter! Choose whatever distro you think you can support the best. Preinstall Weezix (distro maintained by George Jefferson's wife) for all I care. If you can show me Weezix running, drivers and all, that means that I can copy the config to my distro of choice. Yes, that takes some expertise. But there are tons of people with that sort of expertise nowadays.
And here's the kicker: within two months, step-by-step instructions will appear on the forums and wikis of the major distros. Within six months, most distros will automatically support that machine out-of-the-box.
It doesn't matter which one you choose, it only matters that you choose! Though you can make everybody's lives a lot easier by selecting hardware with open source drivers. Too bad about the graphics card situation...
Just support Ubuntu and Fedora.
The support for Red Hat and Debian will emerge by the virtue of the process... and would covered most of the market anyway.
Oh come off this nonsense. This is not about elimating choice, this is about practical reality. It does not make sense to try to support a product across so many distributions that are fundamentally the same operating system. All features that users are interested in exist in, quite intuitively, user space. They do not care what the init scripts are doing or what kernel they are running. Not a single user noticed Apple's transition from BSDi to FreeBSD 5 when they released Panther and that is precisely how computers should operate. Why cannot we, in the open source community, offer the same thing? The answer is: we can, we just don't want to. What users do care about is their own experience, not that of the developer. If we are ever to eliminate the mind-numbing status quo, we have to be pragmatic and offer solutions to problems without introducing a swarm of new problems.
Join Tor today!
1/4 of the people who buy new Dell's (source: my ass) buy a new machine because their current computer takes them to an advertisement site whenever they try to go to Google.com -- or IE keeps crashing, etc.
The point is lots of people can't tell what's a software problem and what's the fault of the logo on the outside of the computer.
Now apply that to Linux, give someone a copy of Red Hat 9 and tell them to replace Mozilla with Firefox. You need serious knowledge to do this -- On Windows or Mac you go to mozilla.com, click download, run the program and click yes a bunch of times.
If Dell supported all Linuxes (like Red Hat 9) people would start calling Dell with 100s of (GPL licensed) variations on the same problems and Dell's already limited support would be crippled. Dell's got the right idea to wait for a real standardization between distros, between desktops, etc.
.\.\att Clare
Dell is a desktop PC vendor. They sell servers sure, but they aren't making as big gains as Sun, HP, etc who offer AMD servers. Dell's money comes from selling desktop systems to home and business users.
./installs or whatever, then this would be a moot point. But the fact is that everybody *doesn't*. In fact, I'm fuzzy on it myself, and I've put some effort into learning at least the ropes of Linux. I host my website on a Linux system, and it's rock solid and fast.
That said... Linux isn't ready for the desktop. Servers? Sure! They are solid, fast, and relatively good at memory management (though I've heard bad things about the recent kernels).
If the world understood Linux as a whole, and that everybody had common knowledge how to tar files, how to do
But on a desktop? Sorry folks... it's just not there yet. Application installations are PAINFUL. And yes, I know about UP2DATE, Yum, Apt-get, etc... but it's as stupid as saying "Hey go to Windows Update for all your software". The fact of the matter is, sometimes you find a simple piece of software that seems interesting, and it's mind boggling for the new(ish) user to get it installed. You're looking for this dependancy, then that one, then another. Then you have to compile it to run.
Right now, there's only enthusiasm to support one destop OS other than Windows -- and that's Mac OSX. And why? Drag an application in, and it's installed. Self contained. Just fucking works. Drag it out, it's uninstalled. Just fucking works. It's clean, it's intuitive, it's pretty, and it has easy to use applications. It is developed with the 'idiot' in mind.
And since most people who buy Dells for their home systems ARE computer idiots -- it's suffice to say that Linux is not a smart move to add into their repertoire of products. It's a business folks.. they are in it to make money.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Argh, here goes my karma...
Linux had a movement towards a single distribution--it was called UnitedLinux. It died due to lack of interest.
The problem is, when you put companies in the driving seat for a push to a single Linux distribution, you get crap like RPM being made part of the standard. Personally, I'm glad UnitedLinux failed to gain overwhelming momentum, because life's too short to have to deal with RPM.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yes, because choice benefits the citizens, not the corporation. We don't want the average citizen to have choice, because they are stupid money-giving machines, and not smart, or in any way able to make their own decisions.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
No doubt Mr. Dell would want all the Linux Distros to converge to ONE platoform.
WINDOWS
Dell will be gone before they support Linux. So what.
by then everyone will be using a hacked version of OS X on their Dells and it will be "what's a linux?"
(yes, that last sentence score me points indeed)
Support one distro (my suggestion is Debian, as you get a nice slow moving target, or Ubuntu, for predictable release cycles)....
;)
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES) is, by Novell's stated policy, a slowly-moving target, in order to maintain maximum stability. It also has a very predictable release cycle.
The result? Well, in my own personal experience, if the hardware will run SLES, it will run damned-near anything else.
Regards;
I can use any vendors install disks to install Windows on my Dell computer ?
Pick a Distro, you will find a way to install whatever program you want into it with whatever package manager you are using.. if not you can probably compile from source..
Whatever distro chosen would then have alot more users.. this demands attention and of course any new program would definately make an installer for that distro (probably already done anyway if a popilar one anyway)
Argument doesn't fly to me.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Nobody who takes more than a second to think about this is going to believe that partisans of a particular Linux distro are going to be more offended by Dell chosing the wrong distro than Dell not offering Linux support at all. For one thing Linux support for one distro would be driver support.
In fact, it's hard to believe that Dell cares what Linux partisans of various stripes think at all. While they probably do sell the odd machine to evangelists and hobbyists, those people can be counted on to customize the machine beyond the pale of supportability anyway.
No, for whatever reason, Dell doesn't see profit maximization in that direction at this time. <portentious music> We may not, probably are not privvy to all the reasons why this is so. </portentious music>
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Great diversionary tactic, but I'll bite.
Care to back this rather general statement up? The way I see it, the present status quo could also be the source of a great many problems. To provide an example which contradicts your claim, let me talk about Internet Explorer. With 90% of the browser market, it is both the “standard” and the source of many vulnerabilities in Windows. Replacing it with browsers that support better security features like Firefox and Opera can eliminate the problems it introduces.
Exactly! Such as consolidating the efforts of many distribution vendors into one base product such that they work together towards eliminating the “norm” rather than against each other. I knew you'd see it my way.
Join Tor today!
This is nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for not making it happen.
"doesn't want alienate large segements of the Linux community by selecting a favorite Linux distro"
Bullshit, he's just sick of arguing with the linux people.
So he spouts this to get them off his back.
It's not me, it's you...
It just smells of cow turds
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/dublinclontarf
If none of the distros in the market suit your need, build your own. Nobody prevents you from forking a distro. I welcome Google building Gobuntu, and will be happy to see a Delluntu, as long as they do not violate the open source licenses. If you can backport to the based distro, everybody wins.
Well, that's why I build my own instead of buying Dell. I know all the parts that go into a box and I've made sure that they are supported before I bought them. If Dell would do that for me, they can surely beat the price I have to pay for onesy-twosey parts purchases and they might win my business. But then there's no money in onesy-twosey customers, so I guess they'll be satisfied to do without my business.
---- As an old hardware engineer, the first thing that comes to my mind is "Why Dell anyhow". I've used Dell in the workplace for a long time. I find the hardware quality to be about what one would expect for the price (inexpensive, nah cheap). For my 2 cents, this is not good enough. Better to pay a few more dollars and have hardware as reliable and high performance as the software (Linux) than to pinch pennies and have hardware problems and poor performance nagging you until the smoke comes out (the PC or your ears ;-)). Also, as I remind friends and relatives, you frequently get what you pay for in hardware! I'm glad Dell is not a Linux house. Just try to troubleshoot bad/cheap/marriage-problem hardware someday. Without a bunch of spares, your SOL (even with a Linux OS).
---- Please Mr. Dell don't sell Linux. If you wish to do Linux a favor, pressure the hardware manufacturers to make their specifications available, without an NDA.
I think this is one of the core problems of linux users. The GUI *is* better, I don't know what you people don't get about this. Most users do not want to spend the time to learn hours of commands when a lot of the stuff could be handled better graphically. The ability to use the command line should exist, sure, but it shouldn't serve as the main way of use for most things. Many Windows users don't even know what a command-line is, do you think they want to learn? No they do not. And who can blame them? We have evolved past text now people, it's time we started acting like it. I'm a computer guy and I even realize that this stuff is the way of the past. If you can't perform nearly every function in the GUI itself, then you've lost to other OS choices by default.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
If he really cared, he would offer more machines-- such as laptops-- without windows
installed. The fact that he continues to inflict the Microsoft Tax on nearly
every machine he sells tells me he is not truthful about what he says here.
For 1) there are plenty of vendors offering pre-configured working Linux systems. Yeah, they're not Dell, but so what?
l m l
http://www.ibexpc.com/
For 2) you conveniently fail to say what features you feel are missing. I'm betting there aren't any, given that Linux has Gimp, Inkscape, OpenOffice, GnuCash and so on.
http://www.linuxrsp.ru/win-lin-soft/table-eng.htm
http://web.mit.edu/is/topics/linux/equivalents.ht
You're just rationalizing your laziness with convenient plausible-sounding excuses.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
"If you look at DistroWatch, you'll see zillions of these distributions. Which one should we do? And, everyone keeps telling us that they want different distributions. So, our conclusion is to do them all and let the customer decide."
We love Linux, and we're doing our best to support the Linux community.
Mr. Dell,
Please put your products where your mouth is. If you are so supportive of Linux, please put your suppliers on notice that you will not buy from them without Linux drivers, please design and promote your full line of PCs as "Linux ready", provide strong customer support for 3 or 4 distros (they really aren't that different under the hood) and please, oh please, sell them at a price that doesn't include an M$ tax.
Still waiting after all these years.
I was going to rant about the aches I had wedging Suse and RH8/9 in that order into my 5 year old Dell Inspiron 7.5K which was computer of the year at the time. About how I got W2K English on it and they refused to give me a Japanese version of the OS, or how I still don't know of a mousepad or internal modem driver that matches what the W2K partition had 5 years ago.
But.. I just typed linux and dell into google and found linux.dell.com. It looks like they are doing something. Not that you can trust them as far as you can throw them, but they are not deaf and if someone would just explain to the CEO he will get a lower pricepoint if he just supplies drivers and one popular distro in the box, we might get somewhere. Now if he could just lean on the printer manufacturers.. Put it this way. I depended on a few brave souls who had done what I wanted to do on the same laptop model maybe 6 months earlier, and still did a lot of homebrew hacking to make it work, mostly. Maybe their models are all so disparate in hardware that no nonprofit could keep up, but surely Dell could give a machine every 3-6 months to a nonprofit lab that would make darned sure everything worked well. Do that once per distro and he's got it solved.
But when Dell (A Hardware salesman) talks about Linux standardization maybe he's not talking about the OS (Though implied seems like a mistake hence the outrage)
More likely he is saying that Linux should standardize on a single hardware configuration as a basis for future driver development.
Windows support has made many technologies standard yet Linux hasn't laid out a base system to get it working.
All they need to do is say we like how Linksys structures their software drivers, if you follow this model we will support your hardware out of the box.
First time Linux users here is the machine you should buy, it's cheap it'll run everything and it's simple.
It sounds constrictive but it's what Mac did and it's something that Linux with an even smaller marketshare should consider.
Dell would of course LOVE it if the Linux community chose one of his lines of computers to support.
If Linux said "Allright let's do some certification, if your distro has total hardware support for the Inspiron XXXX then you get a Shiney Star (OoooOOOooo)" it wouldn't mean anything to the distro but it would be very useful for trying to sell Linux hardware AS SUCH. Computers are very much overspecced, heck just offering total support for an P2 Intel Motherboard and a couple of networking devices and printers would be a good start.
Even Slashdotters are complaining that they don't know when they pull their machine out of the box whether there will be Linux support for the hardware... Linux is approaching it as "Let the hardware come then we'll support it" but it would be more productive to support some commodity hardware and let people simply purchase it from wherever they want, imagine for a second Linux with the hardware support of a Mac OOOooooOOO0000 (Zeros added for emphasis).
Funny... If they don't want to alienate customers, why don't they sell AMD procs?!?
I thought that all the time and trouble that was put into LSB (Linux Standard Base) was supposed to basically solve this. At the very least, go with Debian Sarge, since they are totally non-profit, and let the other distros help as they can. And aren't most drivers in the kernel or compiled as modules to the kernel? That is where the really important collaboration with a hardware vendor take place. And Dell could maintain webpages with info about the hardware in each model. IBM does it. If you don't make it all flashy and stuff, it won't even take up that much room.
--Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
Why doesn't Dell offer to sell only their hardware, no operating system, and no support? Give me this option along with a discount, and I'll be happy.
I'd also hope that the hardware works with Linux, but hardware companies SHOULD be falling over themselves attempting to get as many customers as they can. They can release details required to write drivers, and the drivers will get written automatically.
I realise that hardware companies are, unfortunately, currently not falling over themselves to provide information that would result in more sales, though...
"And that", not "but that". Edit much, editors?
Advice: on VPS providers
"The Linux Community" is a globally distributed, internally disconnected agglomeration of people who happen to use the same kernels for nearly anything computing hardware can be used for. Why should these people all agree to amputate 90% of this diversity to please one bland PC box shifter?
This diversity is what makes GNU/Linux strong. We could have all standardized on Red Hat 4 eight years ago, but then we wouldn't have slick new approaches to distribution like Ubuntu, for instance. We'd have one big Red Hat Corporation being slowly crushed by Microsoft, since it would not be nimble enough to evade the FUD or interesting enough to motivate the volunteers who are GNU/Linux's lifeblood.
Dell speaks about what's good for Dell, which is monoculture. For him, even better than a single distribution would be no Linux at all. Saves time and money, which is all Dell stands for.
Granted, the FOSS would do well to court more hardware manufacturers and vendors, but the "We won't support linux because there are too many distros" line is old, tired FUD. First step, (as many have said here) is to not use hardware that doesn't have open source drivers. Second step, pick a distro, then support it. If you expect the FOSS community to come to you and address some of your concerns, you'll have to meet them halfway. You like Ubuntu? Good! Pour some money and people into the project so you can have an easily supportable distro.
Support free open source drivers! At least make the interface to your hardware public. Let the *nix community in general support the hardware if it wants. Selling a piece of hardware with a proprietary/closed source binary driver that only works on one OS and fails mysteriously sometimes is in my opinion selling a defective product, and I won't pay for it. "We don't support Linux" is not a viable excuse. You support computers. Play fair and let the OS support your widget by publishing proper documentation. If you also want to make a driver yourself to help sell the product, that's fine.
Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
is just a CEO of a big company and makes lots of money. He knows about as much of linux as most common folks know of astrophysics. There already is a "common core" platform for Linux which is the kernel. Unfortunately most uninformed, Michael Dell included, assume that linux is the whole package which it isn't it is JUST the kernel. The rest of the applications, desktop environments, dev. tools, etc... are GNU and F/OSS tools and applications that run on top of the kernel and hence the term "Distribution". So now to make it simple for Michael Dell and all the others saying that "wow he's right!".
1. Common Core = Linux Kernel
2. Package Managers, Apps, DE's,GNU tools and F/OSS apps. + "common core" Linux Kernel = Distribution (aka Debian, Red Hat, Gentoo, Slackware, Ubuntu, etc...)
SO all Dell has to do to support Linux is to write open source drivers for their hardware and that's that. Is it really THAT hard to understand?
I know, I know, to start such a thing is easy, but to keep it updated is going to cost _real_ money. But they can outsource that to their folks in India, or wherever.
Browsers shouldn't have a back button!! It's all about going forward...
We are Dell's customers. If Dell feels secure enough in market share to ignore the CUSTOMERS that buy product, well that's great from them. I'll find someone who supports Red Hat, or any other distro. It's not like the whole Linux user base would cry if Dell didn't pick thier favorite distro, we'd wipe the tears away with the support contracts for whatever distro they did pick.
Perhaps they are irked because no distro has good support for the Dell DJ yet.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think Michel Dell should suck it up, travel to 1 Inifinite Loop, bow down at the feet of Steve Jobs and say, "Oh Mighty One. You have bested me. Apple is worth more than my meager company. May I swear fealty to you by selling your illustrious operating system on my humble toys?"
Mac OSX?
Having wikis and distro support after-the-fact works great for the hobbyist market which ends up buying the systems for cheap when I'm done with them, but it does nothing for me.
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
The answer is simple. Let the customer choose. It shouldn't be all that intensive or involved to maintain a method via website ordering or even a call in to install, or at least provide a copy of whatever Linux distro the customer wants. Dell could limit the choices to Redhat, Mandriva, Ubunto and say 5 more.
I don't think anyone would totally object if Dell gave say 5 to 10 choices of which Linux distro to make available. There would of course have to be some coordination between Dell and the chosen distros to iron out any install difficulties. But once that was achieved, it would be no more painful for Dell.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
And that's why this sort of question doesn't help. What you just described is what I would judge to be the *worst* distro. It has all of the things that drove me away from MS Windows. It's the same reason I avoid Red Hat -- the things they've done to "improve" Linux are almost, but not quite, exactly unlike what I need.
And so, once again, those users who actually do care about such things like the kernel, the init scripts, etc. get fucked with a chainsaw. Precisely the reason why I use linux is because it is allows me to be concerned with these things, without jumping through 13 hoops and paying out the nose. Don't take that away from me, or the hordes of other users who want the same thing.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
People who stand by commercial operating systems seem to have a hard time grasping the idea that open source projects are based on a principle known as freedom.
I'm starting to think that most people are into bondage.
Freedom is a messy, messy thing. It's not clean, or easy, or cheap. It's not a delicate giver-goddess fashion-plate saint; it's a rough player, dirty and sometimes mean. It takes dedication to maintain, intelligence to master, and a willingness to honor others' freedoms.
I don't think most people are up to the task. Or, at least, there's a large portion of society that isn't up to the task. Leading the way are corporations, as Freedom is anathema to business. Corporations work hard to limit choice, or better, to dictate choice ("You can have any color, as long as it's black"). Second is the government, as Freedom is difficult to govern. ("You can have any choice, as long as it's mine.")
And I think most people allow that to happen, because they don't want to have to excersize Freedom. (Citizens in the US are notoriously averse to excersize.) They would rather be stupid followers instead of intelligent independents.
My evidence?
McDonalds. Budweiser. Wal*Mart. MS-Windows. G. W. Bush. Ribbon magnets on vehicles. Star Wars I, II, III. Etc.
Each of those are demonstrably crappy products, yet each is a "leader," in some definition of the word. Each is patronized by more people than competing products (well, except G.W. Bush, but he's patrionized to by more people).
I don't know what this says about society, but it keeps me up at night sometimes. I hope someone figures out how to fix it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
If you want someone to convert from what they know, and what they are comfortable with - especially considering they are not computer savvy, you need to make the transition as seamless as possible. In fact, they should wake up one morning, turn their computer on and not even realize that they are not using windows anymore...otherwise you will get a flat out "no" and Windows will still hold the market. It is a very valid question and is a big reason why many have not changed.
I wouldn't mind having my home desktop run linux (I use my laptop for my gaming). Things I concern myself, will these run:
Nero
Bearshare
ezTrust Antivirus
DVD Shrink
and others.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Nobody is advocating taking away your right to modify your operating system. What I am advocating, however, is that we eliminate the fundamental reason we are forced to choose between a dozen or so different packages on a download page for a single version of a single program.
Join Tor today!
The only way to have all Linux distributions converge on a common anything is to eliminate choice, because different people have different preferences. The Debian people believe that their favorite way is best, and the Red Hat people believe that their favorite way is best. How do you propose to get them all to agree?
That's why sensible people say "Don't bother trying to support every distribution: pick one and support that."
From the article:
One company has not played a role in Dell's Linux decisions. "Microsoft has not talked to us about Linux. If they did, I wouldn't care. It's none of their business," concluded Dell.
Followup question should have been:
So Mr Dell, has Intel talked to you about AMD?
If what I bought is just like what I replaced, didn't I just waste my money? Why would I switch if the thing I'm switching to is just like the thing I'm switching from?
So the GP's points are not moot whatsoever; they are spot-on.
The basic problem here is that much of modern Corporate America doesn't see their customers as anything but an ends to a means. Not a partner, not someone to serve; simply an ends to the next bonus. Dell is an excellent example of this; and if they truly wanted to serve their customers, they'd be providing what their customers wanted - not what Dell says they want.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I've heard this before from Mr Dell and IMO, it is a copout. Pleeeez, there are too many choices and I don't want to pick one and alienate the other.. blah blah blah. I'm sure THAT kind of indecision is exactly how Dell Computers Inc got where it is today. not!
Dell sucks up to Microsoft just like they sucked up to Intel. Because of this 'sucking up', Dell can sell their computers at closer to cost than others because they get close to 30% of their PROFITS from Microsoft and Intel marketing programs. note: The DOJ vs MSFT settlement only deals with the cost of the Microsoft Windows OS to OEMs, and says nothing about keeping marketing programs consistent.
And seeing how long it's taken Dell to bring out AMD based systems, Microsoft will have to be on the big slide down before Dell even remotely 'considers' GNU/Linux as an operating system for their computers. And even then, we'll hear for years how Dell is 'considering' GNU/Linux in the press before they actually do it( is this the beginning? ) That's because there'll be a period where THAT will get them a better price from Microsoft. IMO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
RPM, dpkg, it's all the same.
RPM's advantage is that it's based on cpio, (a little more flexible and less legacy-bound than ar or tar), and like java and "jar", they use special metadata files in the archive to encode special behavior and allow for backwards/forwards compatible format upgrades. (It's fairly trivial to strip off the RPM header and extract the cpio archive)
Well, that's not much of an advantage.
The other is that RPM uses a berkeley DB as a backend instead of flat text files. This doesn't make it easier to work with, but it's interesting because you can do things like ask rpm difficult questions... (who depends on this package? what package owns this file? what files have changed? where is the documentation for such and such?) librpm and the perl and python wrappers exist to make your sysadmin life easier dealing with that without trying to script the rpm front-end (whose syntax leaves something to be desired...)
But there really isn't any other differences. They both use a back-end dependancy database, have auto-resolving front ends, specialized build tools, and while dpkg has "control" files, RPM has "spec" files.
I think RPM not having an equivalent for dselect or APT out of the gate doomed it in the minds of many who experienced RPM hell. (I did, and I emerged all the better: now I package software for my own machines!)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Linux users are the clients for Dell computers (ok, not really, but they're a market Dell would apparently like) because Linux users can conusme Dell's product so yes, in some way the Dell is the vendor. The post way up was in reference to Dell being the client for the Linux community's product (ie, various distros) becasue they are the ones that are consuming (I don't want to say purchasing or using since they're really not doing that) and so yes, you are both making points, but need to understand the context before you disagree.
This entire article was about how Dell, in the role of client, trying to decide how best to serve their own clients, thinks that Linux needs to be more "user friendly" I guess is the term and that if Linux as a vendor of the Linux environment could make it a little more compatable, etc, they would happily jump on and that maybe, just maybe the ordinary home user, Dell's actual market, would be more likely to jump on, while what is beign argued is that Dell, as the vender, needs to offer more distros, more this, more that.
The problem is that we're dealing with two seperate user bases, the linux and the non... to please the non, Dell would have to sell more user friendly ones, easier to configure, whatever other reasons he listed and to please the linux ones he'd ahve to do the opposite and so like any business that hopes to stay alive, it tries to keep the customers it has trying to embrace new ones to the best of it's ability, thus it goes up the chain to ITS vendors asking for what it wants to serve those needs.
Just because something is both a painting and a map it doesn't mean that only one label applies or that it only serves one role.
Last I checked, I still had to pay for a Dell box myself. That makes me their client; and them a vendor.
I could care less what Dell wanted. I know what I want, and Dell doesn't provide it.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.
I couldn't care one whit for what Michael Dell does right at the moment.
They have had opportunities in the past to support Linux properly and they've discarded them for working with Microsoft- which is their right as a company. This whole sorta love it, sorta not affair with Dell has been ongoing for nearly 10 years now. I know about it because I was in the wings on parts of it all throughout.
The bulk of the argument Michael Dell's making is specious as it doesn't apply for Dell Computers as they're only really concerned about kernel support of the device buildup on a given machine- for all they care, they need only drop Debian, Ubuntu, or, god forbid, even Linspire on their product lines to "ensure that they work on delivery". If the kernel has support for the devices they ship on a given desktop and laptop, this will simply work and people can choose other distributions as they see fit for them- so long as any of their custom apps use something like the Loki Games installer or Autopackage (I'm for using Autopackage myself...).
This is all nice, but in the end, he's asking for Linux to be more like Windows (which it's not...) when he really ought to be less concerned about all of that and pick a default distribution they can comfortably support and support the devices in the Kernel however they can. It's not at all hard Michael- happens every day of the week. I've got a laptop from one of your competitors, any distribution will install on it, and the bulk of the devices (with the notable exception of the Broadcom WiFi (which there's a usable workaround, though I'd rather they didn't use that chipset...) and the silly on-board flash reader (which TI's preventing a version to be made- nifty device really, too bad TI's being stupid about it...), it all just went on and worked- with each and every distribution I put on it in 32-bit mode (64 bit modes work, but since the ATI chipset's...twitchy...it is more difficult to get 64-bit modes going. And it's nothing to do with the distributions per se, it's ATI's doing...).
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
If what I bought is just like what I replaced, didn't I just waste my money? Why would I switch if the thing I'm switching to is just like the thing I'm switching from?
The front-end is the same, the back-end is completely different. If the front-end is the same, but the back-end is better (performance, reliability, security, etc) then that is your "why".
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I don't know how this got modded insightful +5.
Michael Dell asserts that X is true about the Linux community
The Linux community responds that X is false but rather Y is true
You assert that the Linux community isn't listening to Michael Dell.
Why should the Linux community listen to Michael Dell about what the Linux community wants. That's a question of fact not opinion and a fact they are in better position to know.
once they stop producing machines with power supplies and motherboards that dont comply to ATX standards. You cant really moan about "global" standards when you attempt to make something as simple as an ATX PSU a Dell proprietry (sp?) device by flipping wires around.
People, when they talk about support, on slashdot, seem to think that support simply means having full driver support for all the hardware, released as open source so that it can be added to the kernel, and viola, all Linux distros are supported. While this would be a great step in the right direction, and would be sufficient for most current Linux users, it's not sufficient for Dell, who would potentially be introducing many more users to Linux, and then need to support them.
/etc/httpd, /etc/apache, /etc/apache2, etc; and when you find the right directory, some distros have 'traditional' httpd.conf file, while others [Debian as one example, if you have apache2 installed] have an httpd.conf file that is included by another file, like apache2.conf, but the other file is the 'real' conf file for that build of Apache, etc]).
The truth of the matter is, I think what Michael Dell is talking about is that, if they are going to have a "Linux Desktop", they presumably would be putting a distro on the desktop, at which point someone's gonna be ticked that they are 'choosing winners and losers'. Someone suggested offering 5 or 10 Linux distro images which customers can choose from. This is somewhat ridiculous too, because then their Dell call-center helpdesk agents have to be able to remember differences between 5 to 10 Linux distros when trying to assist customers with problems (e.g., if someone calls in with an Apache question, does this particular distro store the configuration in
This is what Michael Dell is talking about when he says all the distros need to converge on a common core. All the files and configuration for stuff like apache, samba, X, KDE or GNOME, etc, need to be exactly the same across all distros so that support people aren't kept guessing at where stuff is and how it's setup. Even Dell CANNOT probably really afford to support multiple distros across thousands of customers (maybe if they ever reached the point where they had millions of customers who'd bought Linux desktops from them, they could afford to support multiple distros, but not from the start).
You do realize that like every Latitude, Optiplex and PowerEdge works perfectly with RHEL 3 and 4 out of the box with all the hardware options?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Lets take an open source program, which we'll call program X. Program X's developers happily continue adding cool new features and releasing out new versions. The problem is, the only way for GNU/Linux users to get program X is 1) build it from source, or 2) hope someone has built a binary for their distribution. Option #1 is time consuming, and tracking down build dependencies is difficult and error prone. Which leaves us with option #2, the current state of GNU/Linux distributions.
/lib library naming scheme is for). But most distributions have package managers that enforce only one version per libary. Example: KDE in Debian testing/unstable breaks horribly when a new version of kdelibs comes out. Typically, half of the kde packages depend on the old version (because they haven't propegated to unstable yet or were kicked out of testing), so "apt-get update" will happily uninstall half of KDE! The package manager is enforcing an unnecessary constraint. Why can't I have multiple versions of a shared library package installed?
Binary compatibility, or lack thereof, is why the current fragmentation of desktop Linux distributions is so irritating. My #1 criteria for using a distribution is that it has best selection of software. Currently, I'm using Ubuntu because it's Debian with a commitment to a 6-month release cycle.
I've thought a lot about the distribution incompatiblity problem, because it really hurts my desktop GNU/Linux experience. It's not the Linux kernel, which has excellent binary compatibility with userspace. It all boils down to poor package and version management, especially with respect to shared libraries.
The first problem: there's no technical reason why you can't have multiple versions of the same shared library (in fact, that's what the
The other reason for distibution incompatibility is the packages themselves. There are a few different (incompatible) package formats and much worse, each distribution uses its own (incompatible) package naming scheme. Thus, I might have a package build for Fedora Core that depends on libsdl-ttf (Simple DirectMedia Layer True Type Font library), but who knows how it will be packaged or what it will be named in any given distribution?
So, it's the damned package format, package naming, and dumb handing of shared libraries that's to blame. What's the solution? Well, I think the answer is technically simple, but complex to implement. 1) package managers that are smarter about shared libraries, 2) standard package naming scheme, and 3) someone, either library developers or a standards body, needs to build "official" versions of each libary release. This would give GNU/Linux application developers a common "SDK" so they can build their application independently of their distribution.
Dell can do 3 things to improve their FOSS image:
1. Mark workstations/servers that are 100% open source friendly and list the distros they tested it on so those people who think the kernel is some guy who makes chicken know what to install.
2. Hire a couple developers to improve open source drivers that dell workstations/servers are using.
3. Unrelatded but,for the love of god, sell some AMD workstations.
I thought that all the time and trouble that was put into LSB (Linux Standard Base) was supposed to basically solve this. At the very least, go with Debian Sarge, since they are totally non-profit...
LSB is for software application compatibility, it isn't intened to address the issues that Dell claims to have. All Dell has to do is pick a distribution; it really doesn't matter which distribution is chosen or the reason that Dell would choose a particular distribution. Debian is not the only non-profit distro and a PC builder such as Dell may decide that it is better to choose a for-profit distro, it really doesn't matter.
I mean, common core, lsb, dcc, whatever, not a bad idea in itself. No, no, no stands for no, not allowing any Linux developer to follow - in concept, in design, in engineering, in development - nobody with Dell in their name.
It becomes near impossibnle for them to troubleshoot hardware problems over the phone if there's no software consistency to base any questions on. If the customer calls up and says "I can't get this thing working", what is the tech supposed to do if you are running Fred's OS? How can you even start to figure out what any potential problem is unless there's release of magic smoke involved?
I can see Dell's point, and I can also see where fragmentation and the plethora of "look mommy! Me too!" distros makes it almost impossible for any of the larger vendors to support "linux" because there's no such thing as *A* "linux". There is the current released vanilla kernel, after that, who the hell knows? You can even have two people saying they are "running distro something point something", identical sounding, yet from tweaking they have two completely different operating systems when it comes to troubleshooting. You just can't base a huge hardware vending business on that. It's hard enough for them to just keep a small handful of windows OS in their knowledgebase, everyone knows what a PITA that is, now imagine magnify that by 100 times, because that's what would happen if they even tried to "support linux" on the consumer level desktop. The only way it would work is one "blessed distro" WITH some way to remotely look at it with the tech support guys to make sure it STILL WAS the "blessed distro" as shipped and hadn't been heavily modified by the end user and turned into another "Fred's OS".
(foreword: I agree with the ggp's post)
This situation doesn't really have a well defined vendor and client. On the one hand, Dell is the vendor (producing computers) and FOSS users/devs are the clients (using computers). On the other hand, FOSS devs are the vendors (producing software) and Dell is the client (using/configuring software).
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You can drop that even farther: Gentoo is really a child of Debian, for example.
If you want, you could just say that they're all just "Linux."
An earlier post made the statement that it really didn't matter what Dell put on their boxes; as long as it works with some distro, it'll work with them all. They might want to have a standard kernel configuration online, and if they use a distro with a centralised application repository (Gentoo, Debian, the BSDs have a ports system, right?), they might want to help support that financially.
If Dell wants into the big business, they might want to go Red Hat and provide a support contract as an option.
It wouldn't be tough if someone did their research. Honestly - what is Dell going to do with the seven (that's the current estimate, right?) versions of Vista?
I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
With my Fedora 4 DVD, after an install, _all_ of my hardware is supported. Gigabit ethernet, sound on the motherboard. I don't get accelerated nvidia support, but one invocation of yum will fix that. A few more invocations of yum, and I have drivers for the TV tuner cards my MythTV machine uses.
I have an xp cd. It installed, but didn't recognise several pieces of hardware. How is that support "out of the box?" And, it takes a lot of reboots for the stupid service packs and drivers to get updated. This takes hours upon hours by smart and professional geeks. I know most people buy their machines with windows preloaded and up-to-date, so I'm trying to not be a troll here, but the point still remains, that you don't necessarily get more support from windows than Linux.
What's more, when I smoked my machine, I chose a replacement motherboard with a more recent chipset. It booted first time, all my file systems mounted, and there was zero configuration involved in getting my MythTV machine running again. By contrast, windows requires a complete re-install in that situation.
To the point about dell insisting on open source drivers, I'm totally in agreement. That's all it would take, the community could do the rest for all the distributions of Linux and for the BSDs as well.
Dell does most definately support linux? If they don't how come I have a poweredge server sitting here with linux that was factory installed on it? I must be dreaming or something then right? I like how all these dell doesn;t support linux lies are going around. Also if you dig you can find a desktop with freedos or linux installed. Dell is saying if you want a mainstream pc from them with linux they need a standard distribution. I agree with them.
Dell claims to be following Linux. I don't think they have the nads to act. We hear about how MSFT has them cornered with MSOffice licensing (OS licensing was more or less fixed by the DOJ).
So MSFT can punish Dell as soon as you see linux in the Dell flyer sent to your door.
Linux can do just fine with other vendors. If Dell wants to be significant in that play, they can start acting like leaders just like Linux and other vendors are.
The problem is, I don't think Dell is going to make a real move until they know they can drop MSFT. They talk the talk. Machines come and go on impossible to find pages. Thats not the type of vendor I want to get Linux machines from.
By the time they make a significant move, it will be too late (for them).
Oh man, a standard Linux base? What a crazy idea! We could call it Linux Standards Base. Dell could then support anything that claims to support LSB 3.0 which would quickly have distros moving to actually /follow/ the LSB. This would be great, as LSB would finally have some support, and I could finally stop digging around the filesystem on Red Hat to find something that isn't where I'm used to on Debian. (What, no /etc/apt/ directory? :P) Why wouldn't this work? LSB may have some implementation issues, but I think the concept is solid. Or is this a stupid idea?
"I've got a laptop from one of your competitors, any distribution will install on it, and the bulk of the devices (with the notable exception of the Broadcom WiFi (which there's a usable workaround, though I'd rather they didn't use that chipset...) and the silly on-board flash reader (which TI's preventing a version to be made- nifty device really, too bad TI's being stupid about it...), it all just went on and worked- with each and every distribution I put on it in 32-bit mode (64 bit modes work, but since the ATI chipset's...twitchy...it is more difficult to get 64-bit modes going. And it's nothing to do with the distributions per se, it's ATI's doing...)."
For me, trying to buy a laptop that I can run Linux on, what you say above translates into "doesn't work". Buying a 64-bit laptop that won't run stable in 64-bit mode, that all the internal devices aren't supported, that I have to plug an external wireless card into - it's not going to happen.
I have gone through a half dozen laptops trying to get one that works with Linux. Definition of works is: works. I want the processor stepdown to work, the battery save features to work, the Bluetooth to work, the FireWire to work, the wireless to work... do I have to list every component in the machine?
Not only have I been unsuccessful, but nobody can even POINT me to a machine I can buy. Everyone has their pet "my laptop works great" story, but they ALL sound like the poster above: "except for this, except for that". I've NEVER seen a response that showed all the hardware features were tested and certified supported. Even the commercial Linux laptop integrators have all these asterisks, footnotes, and disclaimers.
The value of having Dell or another vendor commit to a distro support would be that I would have the choice: I could have the distro I might prefer, and deal with the compatibility issues myself (just like now) OR, I could pick door number two and choose a laptop with a distro I might not prefer, but that at least all the hardware worked. That wouldn't be Nirvana, but it would be better than the situation today, where I have exactly one choice - buying a laptop with no guarantee as to what will or won't work, and spending huge amounts of time/effort trying to remediate the failed bits.
Given that situation, my response has been "none of the above". I use a PowerBook. I'm not a Mac zealot - it's just the only way I can get a Unix laptop that supports all the hardware. And no, I can't run Linux on it: wireless doesn't work, sleep doesn't work, etc. ad nauseum. That's on a fixed hardware target three years old.
KeS
He's thinking the same way about Linux as he thinks about WIndows. You build the hardware, and then buy the OS from someone else. What he should be doing is rolling his own distribution for his hardware. Indeed, all of the hardware manufacturers should roll their own distributions, but in the meantime, maintain binary compatibility with the greater community. Dell should pick his favorite distribution, assemble a team to create the Dell distribution (keeping it up to date with what's in the community, giving back as required) and distribute his Dell PC's with his Dell Linux.
This isn't an issue of a "common base" like Michael Dell is talking to- this is DRIVERS . In my case, Mandriva and Gentoo work 100% stably and go on that way. With a little jiggery-pokey, all due to the ATI display adapter in the X200 display chipset doing things unexpected and causing problems on install, etc., you can get all of the distributions working. The driver support for the commonly used integrated WiFi card is Broadcom's doing since they won't come up with drivers like NVidia and ATI does, and won't release driver source and technical details like Intersil and others have. The integrated flash reader not working is due to TI threatening to sue the developer who reverse engineered the "encryption" that TI uses to push the firmware to the device.
In all the above cases, this has absolutely nothing to do the distributions and everything to do with the hardware vendors and the kernel team not being on the same page- mostly in the laps of the hardware vendors, since it's their doing.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Here's at least ONE laptop you can buy that you can reasonably expect to work:
5 69862-7259129?v=glance&n=541966
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000AAPY8S/104-7
This is the same model *I* have. As I alluded to, you'll have to use the ndiswrapper hack to get the
on-board WiFi to work (Again, blame Broadcom for that one- it still works with snagging their 64-bit driver and running ndiswrapper...), you'll have to forego the onboard flash reader (Blame TI for that one...), and you'll need to turn on the UMA memory use in the BIOS to allow you to install anything other than Mandriva or Gentoo and to be able to have 3D support from the ATI provided binary only drivers.
Windows doesn't really do any better- if you just took an XP disc, you'd still have to get the Broadcom drivers for the on-board WiFi, TI's provided drivers for the flash reader, and ATI's 3D drivers for the card. You just get a "better" experience out of the box since they did all that work for you before you ever bought the machine. If they did the same thing for you under Linux, you'd have the same experience. It's not the distributions' fault for that any more than it's MS' fault for the same conditions if you don't have the help from the vendor that you're getting.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I've never had dpkg crap out and destroy the database of what's installed. I've never had dpkg lock up and cease functioning.
Being able to ask RPM difficult questions is a nice theoretical feature, but the user interface is so horrible I can't remember how to ask it simple questions; I resort to a cheat sheet with the incantations needed for simple everyday use.
I didn't say RPM lacked features; I said it was crap.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
What he'd really like to see, is for the popular Linux distros to converge on a common core platform, according to the article.
I was taking a look at the Novell SUSE website the other day, and they seemed to answer to that idea that the Linux distros are incompatible. If you actually look at Linux and the greater Unix universe, everything is so modular that it is much easier to be compatible. It's sort of a myth that there is this incompatibility. Though Novell has a vested interest in promoting SUSE, their arguments against the "Get the Facts" campaign are very good. URL: Linux vs. Windows.
What's really needed is a UNIX-based operating system developed by a hardware supplier to be easy to use (including configuration and, most importantly, software installation) while still retaining the power of its UNIX underpinnings. This OS would ideally be able to run MS Word and Lotus Notes native. Oh...wait....
I can tell you right now that the Debian folks aren't going to suddenly drop everything they're doing any time soon. Ubuntu might get folded back into Debian, but that's a long way away, and I wouldn't bet on it. The same thing goes for Knoppix. It's even less likely for Linspire, because it's sold by a for-profit company.
And those are just the Debian-based distros, for whom it would probably be technically easiest to merge. What about SuSE (Novell), Fedora/Red Hat, Gentoo? Do you think they will merge with each other?
News flash: If Michael Dell doesn't want to serve the *actual* market, instead of some fantasy market in his head, I'm sure his competitors will be glad!
http://outcampaign.org/
You can read about the LSB Desktop spec that's in development over here.
All of the DCC-based distros (Knoppix, Xandros, Linspire, MEPIS, etc.) and some others will be compliant with this standard shortly after it is finalized.
Why not sell subscriptions to RedHat's support, Novell's support, etc, so when the customer has a software problem, they could contact the companies that create the OS's? Dell also has tools for hardware that run outside of Windows (usually located on the first partition of the first primary hard drive), so if there are hardware issues, their customers would use those tools. Leave the configuration problems to the software companies and stick with supporting the hardware?
So what can be done? To sopport a few or support no one?
If those standard base, united linux and other tentatives where sucessefull, linux would be far more used. IMHO.
Consider this. Linux has support for LOADS of filesystems. Windows? Just a few. Most Windows users would immediately see the many fs options they could choose from, and have a panic attack.
IT's not really worse than to set a default and make the choice for filesystem slightly hidden behind some advanced button. The problem is that if you want to do that, you have to make a choice. And boy, will you get flamed for it... Because well, if you don't know anything about them, what do the choices matter? Would you like sdiohe or a ngerje? You could (but won't) read up for ages on tech details, and you'd probably come to the conclusion "both work just fine for me".
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I highly enjoy the fact that I can read your post using my choice of web browser, but that choice is based on common agreements like Ethernet, TCP/IP, HTTP, HTML, and CSS.
Not only have I been unsuccessful, but nobody can even POINT me to a machine I can buy.
IBM Thinkpad T40.
*Everything* worked perfectly with no effort. Upon booting off of a Gentoo live CD I even had a DHCP address from the built in wireless. Granted it's a bit older now, but there's one.
http://www.linuxbase.org/LSBWiki/DesktopWG
Now I'm a novice linux user and I know what it feels like when you first start it up. Took me a week to get the ati drivers installed and working (
Three problems I see here:
Dell will have to spend money to get this going. Someone will have to be hired on to do testing, help with programming, setting up the imaging machines, etc. Will they save enough money from not having to buy windows to justify this cost?
Next is weither or not to have software support for their linux distro. Having worked the last year in a call center pulling people off the phones to train them is a HUGE cost. Most contracts (which I'm assuming Dell has outsource their tech suppot to another company in India) state that you only get paid for your agents when they are on the phones. So if they are in a training room not only are you not making your profit on them, you are eating the cost of the hourly wages. Now, some companies will offer to pay for the training but either way it will be difficult.
Lastly, out of the small market share that linux has, how many people actually buy Dell PCs? Everyone I know that runs linux either built their PC or are running it on a laptop.
Bottom Line: Will putting linux on desktops profit Dell in anyway? I don't know for certain, but my gut instinct says no way.
I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
It's really, really, really, really easy.
Make the distro manufacturers pay for it.
Dell sends a few test systems to any company willing to spin a Dell Linux (SuSE, Ubuntu, Redhat, whoever). Said company has to BUY them.
Dell supplies all hardware information those companies need to produce their own drivers, and Dell provides options as to what hardware to install in these systems. Dell provides ACPI documentation, as well.
SuSE, Ubuntu, Redhat, Mandriva, Linspire, WHOEVER does their own development, and then sends Dell pre-install images, and pays for Dell to do standard regression testing. Dell sells these systems under a particular Linux brand; Dell's SuSE store, or Dell's Mandriva store, or Dell's Gentoo store. Distribution makers agree to point at Dell as their primary hardware distributor. Dell pays distribution maker a small license fee for each system sold. All support is provided directly by distribution maker; when you call Dell for support, your call is rerouted to the distribution maker, or an alternative number is provided in the box (and on the manuals) from the distribution maker. Hardware issues requiring an RMA would involving shipping the systems to a Dell support center, where each distribution maker would provide software support technicians to Dell who would work in conjunction with Dell's hardware people.
This would be a blockbuster for the Linux market, and quite possible a big revenue generator for Dell. Also, it would work very well with Dell's BTO system. Pick hardware, Pick OS, choose options. Software supported contracted to OS maker, Hardware support by Dell.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
i don't believe mike.
1. we won't support linux b/c there are so many distros.
2. we son't pick a distro b/c we'll alienate the linux community.
does anyone else see the problem here?
they've alienated the *ENTIRE* linux community, with no qualms, by choosing strategy #1. this means they *really* don't mind alienating the community, his contradictory vocal chord vibrations, notwithstanding.
here is what he *really* said. microsoft has me by the jewels and bill seems to take great pleasure in this relationship. the linux market might be nice, but i'll be paying for a windows license even on those linux boxes, so i save nothing and have to increase my business complexity.
that's not good for me, it isn't good for my jewels.
if you don't like it, go pound sand or start your own company.
Dell could ship their own Knoppix-like support CD that the user could boot from during support calls. That way their support staff can direct the user around a consistent environment that contains all the approved drivers for the Dell-supplied hardware.
Which of the versions of Vista is Mr. Dell going to choose ?
We listen to Michael, hes right as well, it would be easyer if there was only one Linux distro. But it just aint the case.
Now, think about this. You mention rhel's support on dell servers. The mere fact that dell supports Rhel on their servers means ALL distros run it. And they do, one way or another.
Now extrapolate that to the desktop.... ahhh... you see now dont you?
The fact that they chose rhel is unnimportant to the community. The fact that the linux kernel is GPL and both redhat and dell have to provide source code under the same license is what makes all the difference.
Thats the point: MIKE, support whatever you like, we will take care of the rest, we will not feel alienated if you choose to use MikiLinux as your distro, just publish drivers for that one, and the ball will be on our court. Bottom line is, i will consider your laptops alongside the (SUSE LINUX CERTIFIED) HP or IBM laptop where im writing this - on a RHEL distro, actually- (do you NOW see why it doesnt matter?). Right now, i will never ever buy a dell laptop, cause they dont run linux well. None of them.
NO SIG
the comment about converging on a common distro seems kinda funny comin' from a guy who built his business by never selling two like motherboards.
I guess to be fair Dell's come a long way, but it still doesn't belong in the ranks of IBM, HP or even Sun.
But distros already have standardized on a unified core: Debian. Ubuntu, Knoppix, Debian itself, and many others use the same Debian core and can use each other's packages with far greater success than the RPM folks could imagine in their wildest wet dreams..
Help us build a better map!
Mr. Dell should decide on one Linux distribution, and license the software to provide legal in the US MP3 playback and DVD playback. Bundle licensed software that would play back Real Networks encoded content. Include other non-FOSS software like Adobe Reader and Sun Java. Maybe an AOL client too ;) It wouldn't matter what distro was chosen, I think there is great potential for Dell to sell a lot of those systems. Dell is in a position to close that functionality gap and make money doing it. Some prefer a completely free software system, but to sell a large number of Dell Linux desktops, I think Dell would have to bundle functionality only currently provided by commercial software. If Dell, Inc. was truely interested in selling Linux desktops, Mr. Dell would be talking to several parties about bundling licensed software, not complaining in general about multiple Linux distributions.
The only Linux Dell needs to support is kernel.org.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I've used Dell support for Linux Servers. They want RedHat Enterprise, and I can understand it, because from a support perspective, it is predictable. I called 'em up and said, "Hey, I'm running CentOS, a RHEL clonse, just treat me like I'm running RedHat, ok?" and the techs say "sure!" and eagerly get to helping me with my problems.
And that's exactly what needs to happen on the desktop market. Dell says they can't support everyone and doesn't want to alienate anyone by picking one distro. They want the community to converge on it's own accord, and that isn't going to happen.
But it's something Dell can make happen if it wants to.
If Dell did pick one distro, lets say Uubuntu, and supported it, what you'd see is a change in development in other similar distributions so become more compatable under the hood so they, too, would be supported. It would be exactly like the differnce between an IBM-brand PC and and and IBM-compatable PC in the eighties. Yeah, it looks differnt, but it will run the same on this hardware. Smaller Debian-based distros might push to become "Ubuntu-compatable" and supportable on Dells, other may choose to stay their own course and become the MacOS of the Linux cosmos: differnt, but with smaller marketshare. The choice would be theirs. Nobody is forcing the Linux community to all converge to one distro. If the dust clears and there aren't enough people to support the existance of (non-Ubuntu compatable distro X), then in free-market style that distro will go.
A lot of this is just political in the end. Plenty of people don't want a major corporation to influence open source OS development, which is what Dell would be doing if it did bless a single distro, becuase that how most of the world got involved in the Windows-centric mess we have today.
Guess he's never heard of http://www.linuxbase.org/
And so does Windows! The whole Linux movement is for geeks who want to cut teeth. If common people have so much difficulty using an OS like Windows, I do not foresee how a Linux and all the myriad variants of Linux we have are ever going to be supported well. Worst, even geeks like me can't get it to work beautifully with any laptop. After all the research I do in getting the right laptop. Of course, I could go for Linspire or Lindows laptops, but that is a small outfit which wont stand the test of times. All in all I think Apple has it all going. OS X is built on BSD, a rock solid unix based OS and with Apple we can save ourself the trouble of trying to get things to work. You pay them for doing that job. I want soomething that works...all the time. If I am going to spend all this time trying to get Linux to work on a piece of hardware, how am I going to do the thhings I really want to do with my desktop/laptop. I remember that dialog between Grace and her assistant where Grace says "I want to marry THE ONE" and her assistant replies "Yes! How else are you going to get to the twos and threes!" Same story here...almost!
... will probably ever reach this comment, but why doesn't Dell consider creating it's own version of Linux and shipping Linux desktops with Dell Linux instead of depending on whatever distro is out there? It won't cost much them much, it gives them much more control and power over their desktop product, they could easily get a whole community built around it, and of course then it becomes easy to support.
Likewise, why don't Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc consider selling and supporting workstations with their distro on them? When I'm in the market for a new laptop or a new desktop, I'd rather go to www.ubuntulinux.com and buy one there that I know will be supported by the OS and everything can come optimized for my hardware... additionally, Ubuntu makes a couple hundred off of me.
spiderworm
Safe bets: if you have good hardware, Ubuntu, but if you have old hardware, BeatrIX or Damn Small Linux.
What Mr. Dell fails to see, is that we already have a common core platform - it's called "the kernal". An honest mistake i guess, when you've learned everything about computers from Micro$oft.
And then metamatic says people are free to make decisions based on technical merit rather than marketing
Hey, goldspider, and all you marketing people out there, listen to this. There will always be people who don't want to tweak their config files and recompile their kernel. So there's a market there for you to capitalize on. (e.g. Ubuntu, Suse, ...)
Dell could market to this audience, but they're the ones who need lots and lots of hand-holding, and that's not what Dell is good at. Dell is an assemble-and-distribute company. Their strengths are all in doing hardware. And the rest of us can probably handle installing the OS anyway. Win-win, as long as I don't have to pay the Microsoft tax.
How about just making or agreeing on a open standard linux hardware config with a limited choice of components that has drivers and get Dell to build the computers.. Like Genesi has done on powerpc. Say like this mobo, this network card, Nvidia graphics,this soundcard, this DVDwriter, this scanner, this whatever and publicising the spec for all to build (and/or Dell if they can do it cheaper). Call it "the Linux Standard Hardware Platform" and try to get as many as possible drivers opensource.... Well whatever hope you understand my idea.. Dunno if its old and been said before..
To clarify, your analogy doesn't say more than: "firefox and internet explorer is to web 1 and 2" ; while "distro is to kernel 2.4 and 2.6".
They should ship a CD with their machines instead of just a recovery partition (or if the few dollars it would cost to press a cd is to expensive, make it something you can select to get).
Such a CD would be a real windows installer and not just something that wipes your entire hard disk and lays down a standard partition. (better yet, make it do both, one option wipes the entire disk and lays down the standard dell partition, the other "expert" mode lets you manually pick partitions to erase and reuse but could still lay down the standard dell windows install without the user needing to do anything)
Plus, how about shipping machines without all that preloaded junk and preloading something USEFULL (e.g. getting a deal with an anti-virus vendor to include a 12 month subscription with all new Dells or shipping a usable anti-spyware application)
Concerns over the distros makes sense, but compatibility issues? Compatibility issues are a MICROSOFT thing.
EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!