Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Linux isn't really for the faint hearted, and is an absolute nightmare to maintain if the user is used to MS bloatware.
Many MS users don't know what a driver is or where to find one, what do they do when their new printer doesn't come with linux-compatible drivers?
He brings up a good point with the difficulties of providing tech support. Maybe Dell should offer computers with blank drives and let the buyer select a distro cd to ship with it, with the explicit instruction that tech support relating to software issues won't be availible.
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.
This has been answered many times. The people who know enough to know that they want a different distro can figure out how to get it on there. Therefore, they can pick a noob-friendly distro (like Fedora or Ubuntu), thereby guaranteeing the existence of drivers for the hardware. The rest of us who want to be all l33t and install Debian, Gentoo or even Linux From Scratch can figure it out ourselves.
Dell supports windows all the time, as part of their business, and you presume to say they don't know how it's done?
<ANECDOTAL>
Based on my one time calling tech support (in Bangalore, I assume), Yes, I'd be willing to say that they don't know how it's done!
</ANECDOTAL>
OK, They know how it's done (let script monkeys handle the caller), but they don't know how it's done *RIGHT*.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I hope parent is merely a troll (Grandma + config file is rapidly turning into a troll meme) but I'll bite. 1998 called; they want their lack of GUI configuration tools back.
On my Ubuntu box, I have had to manually edit configuration files to do two things:
- Install and configure beta software
- Install and configure Apache + MediaWiki
- Configure Vi
The one other type of config file I've had to edit regularly in the recent past are xorg.conf files. A computer that comes with Linux preinstalled would never need xorg.conf twiddlery; reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do (If you're the sort of person who is likely to upgrade your own hardware, then you can do it).The real reason Dell won't offer Linux PCs is plainly that it's not a good deal for them. It would mean more expensive Windows licenses, and it would mean less money for them from all the people paying them to bundle crapware with their boxes. The only way to have good, high-quality Linux PCs is to have an OEM willing to sell nothing but Linux boxes. Preferably one willing to sell well-designed, high-end computers and laptops with fully compatible hardware and pre-installed, thoroughly tested desktop environments and proprietary format support. Hopefully, packaged with a nice manual and long-term tech support for a particular set of "supported" packages too (Like Canonical does with Ubuntu).
Hey, I can dream.
I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.
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...
There is a horribly easy solution for this "problem": Support only one major distro, yet make sure that all hardware included with the PC is compatible with Linux. Slap a "Linux Certified" sticker on the damn thing and quite a few people will buy it. If they're more advanced, then they'll appreciate the fact that when they install their favorite distro instead of whatever the PC comes with, they won't have to hunt down a forum thread that points to an obscure hardware driver that is still in alpha, because they know that the hardware will "Just Work (tm)." If they're new to computers, or are the "A computer is an appliance" type, they won't have any need to switch from the supplied distro to anything else in the first place. It's a win win situation.
Either this guy didn't think his objections through very well, or he is just spouting FUD and hoping people take it at face value.
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
Grandma is fifty, and working full time. Grandma is seventy, a senior volunteer at the local library or community hospital. Grandma can't be ignored.
reconfiguring it when you upgrade your graphics cards isn't a particularly difficult thing to do
Bzzt, wrong answer.
I've said it before, I'll say it again:
If you want Linux to be mainstream-friendly, one of the absolute must-haves is that the user must NEVER EVER EVER, any any circumstances, have to either (1) edit a text config file by hand, or (2) use the command line.
No exceptions, no "most of the time" situation, no "power users only" weasel words. Config files and command lines are OK for developers, but not for mainstream users -- end of story.
I'll get flamed for it, but I speak the truth.
Unless you think configuring using the registry, the necessity of the installation of antivirus and firewalls (with all their arcane messages and terminology) and all what implies using a Windows machine is infused at birth.
Some folks around here seem to think that Windows is *naturally* easy.
I have got news for you guys, it isn't. But this is masked by the myriad of people mildly familiar with it.
Grandmas that are introduced to Linux as their first computing experienc (hi mum!) can cope perfectly well with the tool of the penguin, and people suggesting otherwise are patronizing ageists.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
My father is 76, he was programming back in 1965 on the BMEWS systems
Just because some of you have ignoramusses for parents and grandparents does not mean all parents and grandparents are clueless when it comes to IT...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
You're right, because it's absolutely impossible to acquire a PC without Windows these days.
Maybe nobody wants to mass market them because they're *gasp* not in demand! Shame on them for not basing their business decisions on your personal ideology. I mean, really...
=Smidge=
The obvious proof that it is difficult to set up a secure windows machine is the millions of Windows zombies on the net. If things were as rosy as you claim, we would not have this problem.
I'm not too sure your conclusion nesseceraily follows from your evidence. It could be easy to set up a secure Windows machine, but people might still not do it, for all kinds of reasons. Perhaps they are ignorant of the dangers posed, perhaps they just can't be bothered (I think ignorance is the most likely, by the way).
All I ever did to secure my windows machines was install Zone Alarm. It has a lovely, brightly coloured, non intimidating installation dialog, lets you choose your experience level, uses a minimum of jargon and automatically configures itself to allow standard stuff through (IE, Firefox, etc). It's as simple as anything I have ever installed.
In any case, any windows PC you buy nowadays ships with SP2, and will have a firewall turned on by default. Really, most malware is installed by end users intentionally, although not knowingly, when they download and install toolbars, smilies, P2P clients and the like. It is virtually impossible for the OS to protect the end user from this sort of thing, and Linux is no different in this regard.
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
"90% of computer users who just want to check their e-mail, surf the web and write a few letters"
This is why it is *stupid as *hell for 90% of users to spend more than $400 on a computer and more than $0 on the software.
So how come the average price of a desktop is $700. "Vista-capable" ones probably average over $1000. Add $200 for MS software and you've got *almost *all of the market paying three times what any sensible person would pay.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love