Slashdot Mirror


Dell Protests 'Not Wintel's Lapdog'

An anonymous reader writes "C|Net is reporting on a protestation by Dell's CTO, Kevin Kettler, who says quite loudly that they are not Microsoft and Intel's puppet." From the article: "Essentially, Kettler argued, Dell was responsible for selecting, if not necessarily developing, many of the technologies in today's desktop computers and servers. Among standards for which he said Dell deserves credit are 802.11 wireless networking, PCI Express communications technology and 64-bit extensions to Intel's x86 line of processors."

30 of 449 comments (clear)

  1. Uhhhh.... by LinuxGeek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't this like Pinocchio claiming that he isn't Geppetto's puppet?

    --

    Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
    1. Re:Uhhhh.... by rblancarte · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yea, I gotta agree. This is funny.

      Dell, you don't use AMD chips because you are afraid of Intel.
      Dell, you don't sell Linux because you are affraid of MS.

      You, know they are right. They are not their puppet. They are their BITCH.

      RonB

      --
      It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
    2. Re:Uhhhh.... by Onan · · Score: 4, Informative


      That misquote just gets funnier and funnier over the decades, doesn't it?

      (He helped in the creation of the Internet the only way that politicians ever do anything: he voted to fund it. And he never claimed to have done anything more than that.)

    3. Re:Uhhhh.... by dekemoose · · Score: 4, Informative

      For the record, Dell does sell Linux on servers, workstations and (allegedly) their N series desktops. However, it appears that you can only get Optiplex and Dimensions in their N series without an OS, not with Linux installed, at least from what I can determine on their somewhat mysterious website. They do move a pretty decent number of Linux servers.

    4. Re:Uhhhh.... by babbling · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yet I can't even ask them to just not put Windows on my laptop when ordering it from them. The fact that they offer it on a small few servers isn't really relevant when they force customers into Windows on 99% of their computers.

    5. Re:Uhhhh.... by good+soldier+svejk · · Score: 4, Informative
      Interestingly, the internet Al Gore pushed for and the Internet that came about were essentially two different things. What he tried to get created would have been essentially restricted to schools and educational materials, and scientific institutions. An education friendly "information highway." The last thing Gore actually wanted, was a commercial internet, truely publically accessable and alterable, with few government controls.
      Bullshit. Al Gore was the administration point man pushing the US National Information Infrastructure Act 1993 deregulating and partially privatizing the internet.

      GORE: We need to look ahead, to protect it when it needs protecting, but not get in the way when it needs to walk alone. Like those wireless operators should have done in the North Atlantic, we should be alert to where the collisions could take place, and we shouldn't hesitate to chart a new course.

      GORE: If we do that, then much more than the telecommunications industry will grow strong. This country will grow strong and humankind will as well.

      GORE:Thank you very much. (Applause.)

      Q: If you're talking about totally deregulating the information highway what steps do you think should be taken to ensure that the information superhighway is not captured by a few megacorporations for anticompetitive purposes?

      GORE: One of the policymakers who has been meeting with us on a regular basis for the last several months is Ann Bingaman, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, and our administration believes very strongly, as I said in part of this presentation, that just as suffocating overregulation can stifle competition and innovation, so the abandonment of antitrust principles and the surrender to private conglomerations of monopoly power can have the same effect.

      -Al Gore Promoting the NIIA (internet deregulation), 1993
      --
      It is cowardly, and a betrayal of whatever it means to be a Jew, to act as a white man

      -James Baldwin
  2. WTF? by corrosive_nf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's taking credit for 64 bit extensions. Uh didnt AMD do that, NOT Intel, and therefore NOT Dell?

    1. Re:WTF? by joe_bruin · · Score: 4, Funny

      I am not sure about this, but I think Al Gore did invent Internet.

      That's a common misconception. Al Gore is actually the inventor of the Algorithm. The Internet was invented by AOL.

    2. Re:WTF? by Sebastopol · · Score: 4, Informative

      But AMD went off and did their own implementation of Intel's Vanderpol (VT) secure virtualization.

      So either they want a fight, or they want to save face.

      But you are 100% correct: anything Intel invent's AMD can use, and vice versa. They only caveat is that they are not required to supply implementation details, just patented methods.

      Very strange bedfellows.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    3. Re:WTF? by ottffssent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *sigh*

      Please read before you post. You don't even need to read the article: the submittor ripped off the relevant article text for the summary.

      Dell's not taking credit for 64-bit ISA extensions to x86. They're taking credit for forcing Intel to add them to their Pentium and Xeon lines rather than reserve 64 bit goodness for the doomed Itanium line. The point is that, rather than mutely accept the scraps Microsoft and Intel throw their way, Dell has the clout and the will to push Intel around.

    4. Re:WTF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He specifically said Intel 64-bit x86 extensions, and that's absolutely true. Intel had 64-bit x86 extensions in the works for a long time, even longer than AMD, but did not want to release them. Why? One word: Itanium. Intel was fully aware that the main differentiating feature of Itanium versus Xeon was that Itanium was 64-bit, and that adding 64-bit extensions to Xeon with the commensurate promise of full compatability and performance for their 32-bit apps would kill off the already anemic Itanium sales.

      When AMD released their 64-bit parts, Intel didn't respond and let AMD take the technology leadership position in the x86 market, in the name of preserving Itanium. Opteron started doing very well in the server market, though, and Dell's server division was getting knocked around. Their customers wanted 64-bit, and they vastly preferred an x86 chip to do it. "Why can't we have a 64-bit x86 chip?" they were saying, either directly to Dell or indirectly by buying Opteron-based servers. Thus the pressure Dell put on Intel to come out with x86-64, which they surely knew Intel was holding in their back pocket. I imagine an ultimatum to release a 64-bit Xeon or Dell would start selling Opterons is what did it.

      People understimate the pressure Dell can apply to Intel. Sure, Dell really needs Intel and definitely benefits from preferential pricing, and thus wants to make Intel happy. On the other hand, Intel needs the world's largest OEM to be pure-Intel, creating a marketshare buffer zone (and commensurate dependable income) to help in their battle with AMD, and thus must keep Dell happy too. A Dell defection would be very bad for Intel, and issues like 64-bit x86 could have forced Dell's hand.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. 802.11b???? by Pfhor · · Score: 5, Informative

    What about apple and Airport, built into the ibook, released in 1999. I do not believe ANYONE had a builtin 802.11b solution back then, except for apple. (there was 802.11b, just as a pc card).

    In fact, the ibooks were delayed because they had yet to pass FCC testing when they were announced at MacWorld.

    1. Re:802.11b???? by viniosity · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I worked on Airport while at Apple and I can confirm that we did indeed work with Lucent but we did not simply rebrand their tech. Lots of effort from many Apple Engineers went into that product. I personally spent a month at their HQ in Holland working on the freaking thing.

      Unfortunately, unlike other Apple efforts, this one gets little to no recognition today. (Parent's parent post excluded of course).

    2. Re:802.11b???? by Sentry21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Don't forget other first-to-market standard features, like gigabit ethernet, bluetooth, USB, 802.11g, and many other features that weren't standard until Apple started pushing them. Dell may not be Intel's lapdog necessarily (debatable), but they certainly aren't the innovators they claim to be.

    3. Re:802.11b???? by alanQuatermain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing to remember about USB et al (and what the grandparent was trying to say) is not that Apple created it, or was the first to implement or so on, but that they were the major driving force behind its adoption.

      I can't really see the connection with gigabit ethernet and 802.11g -- Apple was among the first (possibly the first, I'm not really sure) to implement these features as standard, but these technologies weren't being given short shrift by others in any way. In that case, perhaps Apple can claim to be the first (or near-first) company to standardise on these new technologies across their entire range, but that's not really a big deal when everyone else was already doing the same.

      USB however, I remember. I remember it because it was in 1998/1999 when I was starting out in computer programming. Printers were still almost all using parallel ports. The PalmPilot was using 9-pin serial. Mice were using either 9-pin serial or PS/2. A lot of keyboards were still using the old 'keyboard port' (was this called PS/1? I never heard it described as anything other than the 'keyboard port'). I honestly don't remember what external CD drives were using, although I can remember that my first Zip drive used a parallel port, and I'm pretty darned sure I bought that in 1999.

      When the iMac came out, it standardized on USB. Everything was using USB. No ADB ports, no serial, no parallel, no SCSI. Not even FireWire. Just the USB ports. They had a hub in the keyboard, and they were making monitors that contained hubs too (although those might have arrived later in 1999, I'm not sure). It was USB or nothing.

      At the time, lots of folks were predicting that this would fail because -- and this bit is important, so pay attention please -- hardly any peripherals used USB. They were all parallel, serial, or SCSI. Or in the case of mice & keyboards, they used PS/2 or ADB. And yet look what happened: Lots of fruit-colored peripherals appeared, all using USB. The iMac was cute enough to garner attention, and the device manufacturers wanted part of that market. So they started making USB stuff en masse. By the end of 2000 it was getting hard to buy a printer that had a parallel port, and they all had USB ports. FOlks point out that USB was a wintel thing, and Windows had it since 1996 or 1997. But it wasn't until Apple made it the only option that everything started using it. Not much point doing otherwise, given that their current ports were still supported otherwise -- why make the effort?

      As to firewire -- well, I always saw that as analogous to SCSI, as it was designed for bulk transfer of data to and from large storage devices. USB was a peripheral interconnect, for mice, cameras, keyboards, printers, and so on. Geared mostly towards burst transmission in relatively small bursts. They had different uses. But again, as far as I can recall (and I may be wrong) Apple was using USB along with and possibly even before it did FireWire. Certainly the iMacs had USB before they had FireWire.

      -Q

      (-1, Offtopic; damn, there goes my karma)

  4. This Just In by masterpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apple Exec Claims "We're Not IBM's Lapdog" And they've proven that. If Dell's CTO wants some crediblity on his statement, maybe he should try to make public moves that show it.

    1. Re:This Just In by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might be on to something.

      Why would Dell making noise about this now?

      You'd think their competitor had just announced something that Dell suddenly perceived as a threat...

  5. Awwww. by Wellington+Grey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course you're not a wittle doggie woggie, are you Kettler whettler? Now who wants a treat? Who wants a treat? Good boy!

    -Grey

  6. So sad. by Majikk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Delusions of Relevance.

  7. 64-Bit by LightningTH · · Score: 4, Funny

    "64-bit extensions to Intel's x86 line of processors", and here all this time I thought Intel ripped AMD's 64-bit spec for x86.

  8. Why So Defensive? by mveloso · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dell doesn't really need to be defensive. They do one thing, and they do it really well: Dell builds cheap computers. There's a lot of value there, the quality of their product and support notwithstanding.

    Sure, they don't really do R&D. But they don't need to - they have Intel, Microsoft, Lexmark, and the rest of the OEM partners to do that. They are a gateway to the market, not a market-maker. That's their niche. It's a really big one, and they do it really well. After all, they do make billions a year. And unlike Microsoft, they do it without being a monopoly.

  9. Hah! by Onan · · Score: 5, Insightful


    The ironic part is that Dell has always been very up-front about the fact that they do no research, pioneer no technologies, and create nothing new. Dell is all about execution, not creation: they manufacture devices based upon the technologies of others, deliver them to consumers, and do it with very low overhead.

    Which is a perfectly fine thing for them to do. It's not heroic work, but neither is being a plumber, and we still like to have them around.

    But I have to admit that my respect for any plumber would go down if he started trying to convince me that he's the one that actually discovered the Bernoulli Principle.

  10. More like Intel is Dell's puppet. by LOTHAR,+of+the+Hill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dell is Intel's best customer. Intel bends over backwards seven different ways to keep them happy. Intel will give Dell what they want, or Dell will build AMD systems. There's been several times when rumors of Dell selling AMD based systems. Shortly after that, Dell quashes the rumor and announces a major new partnership with Intel.

  11. www.dell.ca by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Isn't this like Pinocchio claiming that he isn't Geppetto's puppet?

    I want a new computer.

    On www.dell.ca, I selected a Dimension 3100 - it's all that I need in a general purpose PC. I clicked on the "Customize it!" button. And it seems that I can't get it without Windows. (Not sure if that link will work, it set a few cookies in Firefox.) Furthermore, I have serious issues with any technology company sufficiently ignorant to run IIS.

    Though I've always liked Dell hardware, Pinocchio gets no sale from me.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  12. Thank God for Instant Replay by djupedal · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We don't agree on that one, Dick - I'm sure no one here in the stadium does, so let's go up to the booth for a quick moment and see what Zandy, our replay commentator, has to say."

    "Well, Bob, we're seeing the same footage as the refs down on the field, and they seem to be simply making sure they all have the same opinion. Caution is good. Our view was blocked from up here, but on the tape, you can clearly see that Dell never had control of the ball, and there doesn't seem to be anyt...wait... - there's the ruling! No innovation by Dell! The refs are in complete agreement too - back to you Bob!"

  13. Risk aversion by erice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    HomeRF (Intel) vs 802.11 (Dell)
    DDR (Dell) vs RAMBUS (Intel)
    Itanium (Intel) vs x64 (Dell)

    Sounds to me like Dell always follows Intel, unless Intel's choice is too risky. The last item is an excelent example. Itanium is risky so Dell wanted nothing of that. On the other hand, using non-Intel processors is risky so Dell just waited until Intel brought out 64bit x86 processors.

    Dell isn't Intel's puppet. Dell is simply run by cowards and, most of the time, Wintel is the safest choice. Dell will follow wherever Intel leads, unless it's out on a limb.

  14. Ok, it's easy to be cynical about this... by Aphrika · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...but he's talking about those technologies from a business perspective.

    Let's have a look at PCI Express. Early in 2004 it had competition from PCI-X - PCI extended - however, Dell here are discussing the implications of swapping from PCI to PCIe. Now, at the time, PCI-X was seen as an interim measure, but Dell skipped it, instead opting to use PCIe across their desktop range. See, they didn't 'invent' it, but a big company like Dell deciding to run with a specific technology is going to have an impact. No doubt we'll probably see the same with ExpressCard, which seems to be standard on pretty much all Dell laptops released since Fall last year - point me in the direction of another manufacturer who's committed to ExpressCard and not still releasing PC card stuff - HP? Lenovo? Fujitsu? Toshiba?

    Right, 64-bit extensions. Again, they didn't invent it, but I know that they had an instrumental role in convincing Intel (who needs 64-bit computing?) to add EMT 64 extensions to the Xeon range. That might have been partly forced by Dell's customers asking for 64-bit availability, but you cannot deny that with a big player like Dell dumping out 64-bit Xeons, it did give the market a huge kick up the arse - and one that I'm pretty convinced Intel wouldn't have done on their own. Remember, they stubbornly sat on their hands for ages insisting point blank that 64-bit was not the way to go and that if you wanted it, you had to buy Itaniums (*shudder*).

    Wireless? The only evidence I can find that supports this is that Dell were the first company to offer an 802.11b wireless card in a desktop config. I don't for once think that drove any kind of market force as it was an option on the Dimension desktop line, but his points in the article that they stopped Intel marketing that awful HomeRF standard might be justified.

    So it's not really 100% bullshit - the guy has some valid points. Yes Dell has helped promote a couple of standards over the years - USB 2 first appeared on Dells, Centrino laptops first appeared as Dells, they were second (behind Apple) to ship LCDs as standard with PCs. However, they've also bombed in other areas: they still don't have a coherent Mediacenter PC and seem to offer the OS on anything you'd want, and they don't have a tablet option. Now if they could pull their finger out and try to push those down people's throats, we might be getting somewhere.

    So, before you're moronic enough to read bullshit into what he said, sit back and have a think about how a company's size can dictate whether technologies succeed or not, then think about what didn't succeed but could've, like Itanium, HomeRF and PCI-X...

  15. Re:Did anybody even RTF Article? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He doesn't claim to have invented or developed them, he claims to have *pressured Intel into adopting them*

    Indeed, and just because the dog drags the owner about by the leash a bit doesn't mean he's not still the dog.

    One good tug on the choke chain'll bring 'im up short.

    KFG

  16. Is it me or... by lmlloyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might be just me, but it really seems like /. is becoming less a site for tech news for geeks, and more a site for geek politics. It seems like every day there are fewer and fewer stories about any actual tech, and they are all being replaced with stories about the politics of "geek" culture. I'm not really saying it is a bad thing, but just in my opinion a little boring.

  17. Re:Internet != NSFnet by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Internet != ARPAnet

    And did you read the GP? Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. That's just a strawman attack that Gore critics like to bring up continuously. Al Gore stated that he took the initiative in creating the internet, as he was the first politician to recognize the importance of the internet and did in fact promote and support its development from his seat in Congress in the early days of the net. Even Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn have recognized his initiative as having been vital to the success of the internet as it exists today.

    From Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn's joint statement:

    No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

    Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

    As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

    As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

    ...

    So get a clue before you start discrediting other people and perpetuating gross exagerations of their statements.