Why Dell Won't Offer Linux On Its PCs

derrida sends us to an article in the Guardian by Jack Schofield explaining why he believes Dell won't offer Linux on its PCs. In the end he suggests that those lobbying Dell for such a solution go out and put together a company and offer one themselves. Quoting: "The most obvious [problem] is deciding which version of Linux to offer. There are more than 100 distros, and everybody seems to want a different one — or the same one with a different desktop, or whatever. It costs Dell a small fortune to offer an operating system... so the lack of a standard is a real killer. The less obvious problem is the very high cost of Linux support, especially when selling cheap PCs to naive users who don't RTFM... and wouldn't understand a Linux manual if they tried. And there's so much of it! Saying 'Linux is just a kernel, so that's all we support' isn't going to work, but where in the great sprawling heap of GNU/Linux code do you draw the line?"

Comments

Re:Ignorance is just so wonderful to see in action

[Anonymous Coward]

I support a bunch of Windows boxes, in addition to a bunch of OpenBSD machines.

As far as Windows and daylight savings goes, XP/2003 boxes were all patched by standard patch-tuesday patches. For win2k it took me a grand total of 15 minutes to research it on MS's website, write (+ copy/paste) a few text files, and roll them out on the Active Directory Domain. Not really tough. There are lots of problems with Windows. Daylight savings time just wasn't a big one.

Re:The answer's pretty simple

[TechForensics]

There is always a Windows tax, even on Linux PCs. M$ even used to charge PC manufacturers for Windows based on the number of PCs they SHIPPED, because "all of them would be running Windows eventually". Just try and find a Linux PC cheaper than a Windows PC with the same hardware specs.