Slashdot Mirror
Shuttleworth Tells Linux Users to Stop Being So Fussy For OEMs
Anonymous writes "Mark Shuttleworth says Linux users may need to stop being so fussy when putting demands on OEMs for pre-installed Linux PCs. CRN finds a response to Shuttleworth that seems to be both amusing and telling at the same time."
The reason most of us got to be Linux users in the first place was fussiness: we didn't like what commercial OS vendors did with their stuff so we went to open source so we could improve upon it any time we wanted. The average user just doesn't care that much about the OS they're running; vanilla Windows or OS X is good enough for the masses.
If you Venn-ed "Linux users" and "people who can control their fussiness", you'd have very little overlap.
He wants us to be satisfied with a piece of technology (likely the most complicated one you own) doesn't work out of the box? What is he, retarded?
Would you put up with that on other devices? Like an ipod that requires compiling, or a toaster that needs C statements to process bread?
If nothing else, that "response" seems to be more of a paraphrase than anything else, with a few links that are on the original anyways. And obviously the comment quoted by CRN doesn't understand the problem from the shoes of the OEMs.
I don't get the fuss about pre-installed linux. Isn't it enough that OEMs will ship a PC with no OS installed? There's just too many flavors and dickitry and infighting in the linux world, and I guarantee what Dell pre-installed on their boxes wouldn't be "the linux I want". Maybe it'll have KDE, and I want gnome, maybe it'll have gnome and I want fwvm, etc.
Pre-installing Windows makes sense from a volume licensing standpoint - the consumer gets windows cheaper than retail. And the first thing I (and many others) usually do is flatten and reinstall anyways, to get rid of all the preloaded settings and software I don't want.
But (most) distros are free, so whats the big deal? Install ubunto or gentoo or whatever by yourself.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
You mean the quote at the end? Yeah, it's "telling" -- it's telling of how thoroughly garden-variety forum idiots can't even conceive of the possibility that there's something about Dell's business that Dell understands and they don't, and not vice-versa. You'd think that if nothing else, the editors here, as employees of a failed Linux box provider, would understand that.
First, margins on PC's are razor-thin.
That changes a bit when 50% of the PC cost is eliminated when a free OS is installed with free office software.
I think the problem becomes evident looking at the Dell survey...
6) Which Linux distribution should Dell prioritize on?
Commercial: Novell/SuSE Linux Desktop
Commercial: Red Hat Enterprise Desktop
Community Supported: Fedora
Community Supported: OpenSUSE
Community Supported: Ubuntu
Other
If 'Other', please specify
People complain about several different versions of Windows Vista but you just named 5 completely different builds of a Linux OS, and there are several more I know some niche market people would like to see on that list too (like Kubuntu). Since if you roll out a SuSE based Linux machine several of the others would just say "Meh, I'll order it however and flatten it once I get it" you have a much smaller target audience who would actually buy it.
And until a company can determine that there's a big enough audience who would buy a specific distro of linux on a computer they won't make efforts to support them.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
For me, it's about the money. If I buy a laptop with Fedora Core 6 pre-installed (for the sake of argument), that money spent on the software would go to people who actually develop code for the system I bought, even if I nuke the hard drive and install $OTHER_DISTRO later. If I buy the same laptop with Windows on it, the money going to somebody with whom I have no interest in whatsoever.
So, put some kind of non-Windows OS on it. If the software costs money, make sure it goes to the people who make the OS. Don't let Microsoft have it. Personally I'm okay with Red Hat getting a small amount of money for the system that will be turned into Gentoo. Microsoft, not so much.
This is one of the big reasons we want Linux pre-installed -- evasion of the microsoft tax.
I followed the link expecting to read a response. All that I found was a copy and paste of a few snippets and some snark at the end about just slapping an install disc in and calling it good. I am as proud a Linux user as anyone around here, but I fail to see how that kind of "response" qualifies as productive or even linkworthy. I've seen more detailed discussion around here. I agree with Shuttleworth- if we want the big boys to start shipping with linux, we need to meet them half way and explain what we truly expect. This is a very large corporation we're dealing with, not a couple of friends building computers in the garage.
"We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
Obviously, Mark Shuttleworth has become a major voice in mainstream Linux. He raises some good points.
He mentions the problem vendors face with the idea of Microsoft cutting some co-marketing funds. I really do not see much risk to Dell from this. After all, they already sell some OS-less (freedos) desktops and laptops (albeit fairly hidden). That to me seems like something for Microsoft to complain about more than selling preinstalled Linux machines. It should be understood that the cost of a pre-installed Linux machine will be more than a Windows machine. The additional software Dell installs on Windows helps them make money.
Shuttleworth also brings up the valid and true point that Linux users are very fussy and picky. Linux users also are very specific with what they want. The problem being that Linux users will want specific hardware and a specific distribution. With Dell already talking about certifying several lines of machines for Linux, I see this problem disappearing completely. If the Inspiron notebook line is certified to work with Linux, then it should be trivial to have Dell install Linux instead of Windows Vista. Dell should decide on a specific distro to support, and preinstall that on the Linux computers. Then, if someone is a more "expert" Linux user, he or she can install whatever distro and version he or she wants. The main issue is that the Linux buyer is not buying Vista.
Yes and no.
.iso files with the good ol "we disclaim any liability from these distros, they are un-supported blah blah blah..." warning.
We should not settle down about having a pre-installed Linux option, but we should settle down on what distro.
Specifically I want the following:
A mainstream distro with all devices that ship with the PC supported.
Whatever is easiest for Dell/HP/Acer/whatever within the above constraint is fine.
*Gnome Vs. KDE? I Don't Care (If I want "the other one" I'll change it)
*Emacs Vs. VI? IDK
*Ubuntu/FC6/Suss10.2/Slackware? IDK (though I think the slack may be a bit too geekish)
Give me any mainstream distro, with a desktop and window manager. Give me drivers for all the devices in the box. Make it "nice" to joe sixpack. I'll geek it out myself.
Now what wouldn't hurt is if the community came up with a "tweaked" distro (or even an entirely different build) if Dell would host a repository of
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
It doesn't really matter WHICH distro goes on the machine.
:(
But once they start delivering Linux on Dell machines the
ugly issue of available drivers hopefully goes away...
If Dell were to certify that model xyz comes with Linux pre-installed
then I would know that most if not all of the hardware in was supported!
Yes, I will flatten the machine and install the Distro of MY choice.
But at least I'll know that the hardware in the box will go.
Note to Dell etc...
-------------------
PLEASE supply tar archives of your drivers and source!
I'm sick to death of picking apart your bloody RPMs to get what I need
Help! help!, the termites are eating my DRAM!!!
The idea is that if a vendor ships boxes with Linus preinstalled that means that there are drivers for hardware in these boxes, that ACPI works OK with Linux and is not filled with MS-only quirks, etc, etc. Even if drivres initially are for specific distro they will find their way into the mainline pretty quickly.
The point of pre-installed Linux is that if there is a pre-installed Linux, then most likely the hardware is well supported in Linux also. This is why I would buy a computer with pre-installed Linux, rather than one without.
Also having pre-installed Linux would most likely increase the Linux user-base.
Ever seen a (dell/HP/Compaq/etc) straight out of the box? There are like 50 programs installed ... each vendor pays the computer manufacturer to put these things on their PC's. So the cost of windows gets paid for, mostly or even in excess, by these vendors.
Problem with Linux being, the computer manufacturer doesn't get any of these kickbacks or a % of the purchase price from a trial installation... less profit, gotta charge more for the box.
No, it is not enough that OEMs ship no-OS systems. However, if those OEMs would ship these no-OS systems with guaranteed Linux-compatible hardware/drivers so that every piece of your computer will function just as well as it would have in Windows, THAT would be enough. So far that has not been the case.
What I want from Dell is a commitment to selling a machine with hardware that is supported by the community. No Winmodems, no ndiswrapper, but actual, tested, "we put this in a box together and it works like we think it does" hardware.
Past that, I couldn't possibly care less what distribution of Linux they throw on it. If it's a distribution I like and am willing to use, then more power to me. If not, "lsmod" and I'm off and installing the distribution of my choice. Either way, I'm golden.
I own a Dell Inspiron 4100, and I remember what a holy terror getting Linux to run on that machine was (with full hardware support). If I could buy a laptop from Dell with a piece of paper that says, "The network adapter uses the 'eepro100' driver," etc., then I would be a happy customer.
They could, of course, use the answers to say something along the lines of "After seeing the survey results, the demands of the Linux community are too diverse. For reasons of technical support, we cannot offer Linux as an OS option on our computers."
Or something.
Not really interested in OEM installation of any specific distro. They'll do it wrong or pollute it as they do Windows. What good is that?
What I want is machines designed with components that are supported by mature Linux drivers. For almost any given component there are implementations that have good Linux driver support and others that don't. Select only components with good driver support, explicitly advertise this policy with adequate technical information, charge a modest premium for it if you must and give me the same hardware warranty as your other products. Seems fairly simple to me.
That's all I want. You can stop fussing about distros now. That and support lines for Linux; I won't be calling unless your hardware fails.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
The big deal is hardware support. If the laptop comes with Windows preinstalled, there's no way of knowing if Linux drivers exist for, say, the wireless card.
If they sell it with Linux, you can at least be sure that Linux drivers exist and that you'll be able to get everything working when you wipe the hard drive and install your favorite distro.
Personally, I think laptops with Linux preinstalled is barking up the wrong tree. I'd much prefer if Dell, HP, etc. were to just provide a list of which of their models and hardware configurations include only hardware that is known to work well with Linux. They can provide just as much of a guarantee to me that I'll be able to get Slackware or whatever working without having to take the effort to set up all the infrastructure for preinstalling Linux.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Selling blank PC's is stupid, because they'd be useless to anyone without a second computer and broadband handy (that's most people not on Slashdot), and a operating system is necessary to test the hardware functions correctly immediately after purchase. You wouldn't want to test three different OS just to find out the graphics card is bust and none of them were to blame. Imagine customer service telling you to keep trying different ones. There has to be a standard system on which to test hardware.
Ship ANY free OS, it *REALLY* doesn't matter which, because almost every user is going to end up replacing it, but they must ship *something* that allows people to download their OS of choice (hell, this could even be windows). Computer boots up for the first time with a good list of links to various operating systems and a functioning network card. Experienced users can go download whatever kinky OS is their fetish. New users can make an informed choice. A few recent images of free OS could be thrown on for users without broadband. Maybe even links to offers to buy Windows and Mac OS at OEM prices. Wouldn't that be fair?
What matters is that the user is free to choose, rather than free to choose after they've already been made to pay £100 for OEM Vista.
Preinstalled linux should come in at most two flavors. If one flavor is chose it should be the lowsest common denominator for the stupidest Windows-like user: a user freindly system with a package manager that does not fuss over the niceities of open and closed source software like Linspire. If two flavors are to be offered the other should be one that is server class with a company that backs support like RedHat or Novel or Oracle.
Nothing else shoul dbe offered as it only muddies the waters. Anyone who Likes Linux because they like to tweak and knows the difference between Debian and Gentoo and Damn Small, is also fully capable of wiping the disk and doing their own installation. Thus pre-installation is not neccessary.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The MAIN issue is that preconfigured systems will be known to be fully Linux compatible.
Probably the best choice for Dell would just support ONE current distro of the Ubuntu type, or pehaps Mandriva which is a bit less anal about using binary blobs.
This allows ALL supported hardware to work out of the box, and virtually guarantees that ANY modern distro will work on all the hardware in the box, if the user chooses to reinstall.
Why are we making the whole idea of Pre-installed Linux apply to us. We probably wouldn't want to use the preinstalled OS (Linux or Windows) and will end up installing what we want (or if XP home came on a dell, put in XP pro free of shitware). I thought the whole idea of having a pre-installed Linux was to move towards mass adoption of Linux. Many of you guys state that one of the reasons Windows is so ubiquitous is because it is installed by default in nearly every PC. An easy to use distribution is what Dell should be going for not $MyPreference because no one can please the Linux community which is known for tweaking things to their liking.
For one example, what about the choice of rolling out Gnome vs KDE. There are big fans of both in the community and those who hate the other as a big subset. What about those who prefer a more obscure window manager + environment. These are not average user concerns and this doesn't make the average user stupid. In most cases average users are after what most Linux users are after, the best tool for the job. Skill sets may vary and as a result the average user may not have the best tool but for someone who wants to do some word processing, crunch some numbers on a spreadsheet, browse youtube, and chat on an Instant Message client. KDE vs Gnome doesn't really matter to them as long as it is intuitive, stable, and reliable.
If Dell decides to actually move forward with this, you shouldn't expect or even want to be the target market. In most cases if a Linux user buys a dell with Linux pre-installed you will at least know that everything works and that your custom install shouldn't require having to purchase a replacement $hardware_device.
I really like Ubuntu and I was actually moved to install it after my hard drive with XP croaked and the only snag I got was my resolution. Ubuntu is great at many things but still blows at figuring out your driver, resolution capabilities. There should also be a more graphical way to tweak things without having to go to the xorg.conf, however rare it is.
In short this should be more focused on more widespread adoption rather than trying to please 1000 different tastes. This isn't about you guys so much as it is about the average user getting a PC with a better* option. Bickering will only bring the Microsoft clickaround fanboys more ammunition to troll about linux being one giant bash shell.
Turn based strategy game that runs over XMPP. Phalanx
I don't care about having Linux preinstalled since I would anyway wipe it out and install my own favourite flavour my own way (the way I need it). Linux is very elastic and can be made into lots of wicked setups - lots of options etc.
What I would like to see is Dell offering PCs that "Work With Linux". PCs that are build with parts that have good support via kernel and userland. Call it "Dell Open PC" or whatever.
The problem with that is lack of common and respected Hardware Compatiblity List for Linux (Linux itself not specific distro). I think we need a body that would take the hardware review it and give it a rating. With clear specifications on how the process looks. And then give status to PCs. F.e. Dell could make a sticker on some set that says "Works With Linux (A)", "Works With Linux (B)*". The first set would tell you that included hardware works well with Linux and does not require closed source drivers. Second set would tell you that most of the hardware works well but you need closed source drivers (of course freely aviable from IHVs) for some components (note the asterisk) and informs you what comonents need closed drivers (like nvidia card, ipw2??? wireless and so on).
Now such body could be a foundation or a commercial entity that is charging for certification process or be founded by Linux vendors. But it should be vendor neutral as possible. OSDL seems perfect for this. I don't see if it is a real business opportunitty, but it could be. With working certification process and good marketing OEMs could earn in such situation.
I think such way would be more sensible approach OEMs selling PSs for use with Linux.
Bonus points if you, for instance, provide a first-boot installation option that gives you the choice to a) Install Windows b) Install Nothing (maybe boot to FreeDOS)
Bottom line: you don't have to support Linux users. To get our business, you just have to make it (possible) easy for us to do what we want with the hardware.
OEM linux installs are good for two important reasons:
1) This could be the leverage that community needs over driver manufacturers that refuse to cooperate with the OSS community. If OEMs won't/can't ship machines with drivers that support their cards, then OEMs will stop buying that hardware to include in their builds.
2) This becomes an easy entre for new users enterring the linux market.
It doesn't really matter _which_ distro they include, as long as the driver issue gets cleaned up for commodity hardware and new users can use/learn linux without having to install from scratch.
The experts will reinstall anyway, but they will start the reinstall knowing that it is possible to get all of the components working.
The new users may eventually become experts, but they can start learning Unix fundamentals without having to start out struggling with IRQ conflicts, buggy drivers, and difficult configs (X11).
As far as I can tell, Windows users are just as fussy: every place I've ever worked that has bought Dell computers with Windows preinstalled has blown away Windows and installed their own version. But the fact that Windows was pre-installed meant that the hardware was supported by Windows and the drivers existed.
With Linux, the problem is not about which version of Linux Dell ships, it's that they ship some version of Linux at all. Why? Because if they do it right, it means that they have selected Linux-compatible hardware and guarantee that it works in at least some configuration.
So, Dell, please pick a fairly recent but stable version of Linux and ship machines that are preinstalled with it. It doesn't matter whether you pick Fedora or Ubuntu or SuSE, just pick one and ship it. Pay some attention to required drivers (it shouldn't depend on proprietary drivers even if you can find a legal loophole).
That's all we ask.
"All anyone cares about is to have hardware with free drivers, from there any distro can be installed."
Exactly! That is the key...
Take that hardware you suggest. Provide a bootable CD meant to test that the hardware is working properly.
From there they have many choices which will be acceptable for reasonable people.
1. Sell the machine with no OS installed. There is no (gratis?) software support. Users install OS of choice. If something goes wrong, vendor tells you to pop in live diagnostics CD. Let it boot and test. If the hardware passes, sort your own problems. (Or pay for support?)
2. Pick possibly one "enterprise" distro and possibly one "desktop" distro and support them. (For approved versions?) For anything else, pop in that live diagnostics CD. Let it boot and test. If the hardware passes, sort your own problems. (Or pay for support?)
3. ???
4. Profit.
The whole thing hangs on the Free drivers for all the hardware in the box.
all the best,
drew
http://www.youtube.com/user/zotzbro
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
"All anyone cares about is to have hardware with free drivers, from there any distro can be installed."
That hits the mark, yes. And it is *VERY* easy for Dell to find the way so it's good for everybody: certify for Debian "Stable", that's all.
Debian is a known distribution that only uses free software and it's not bleeding edge. In sort: if it works on Debian Stable, it will work with any other. Still, Dell people is corporate, but Debian helps here too. What are the chances for a Debian-certified hardware not to work on RHEL or Suse? I'll bet they are almost nihil, so once certified on Debian re-certify for Red Hat and Suse is nuts. Even more: is the case that you want some hardware certifiable (think PERC)? No problem: Debian is an open community you will find far easier developing open source drivers and have them included on Debian as far as they are good quality than with anyone else that can have their own corporate portfolio.
So let's sort this again. Mr Dell: by certifying Debian you...
1) Will be certifying one of the most popular distributions
2) Will satisfy users of not so well known distributions (if it works with Debian you can bet it'll work with Arch, Slackware, Gentoo... you name it, and that's all that need and can expect users of such distributions)
3) Will satisfy FOSS zealots: if it works on "vanilla" Debian Stable this means it works over true tested open source software with no "small letter" involved
4) You still have an easy path for "corporate" distributions like Red Hat or Suse: since it works with Debian, you have an easy way to certify for Red Hat or Suse.
I don't think it requieres a genious mind to see this.
If anyone could put pressure on the hardware market, it would be Dell. Imagine for a moment that Dell decreed that they would no longer purchase hardware from anyone who did not document their hardware in such a way that an open driver could be written. (hell, let's get the BSD crowd on side too). Dell then say to random video card manufacturers, "can you do it?". They reply "Yes. because it means we make $BIGNUM sales to you".
If it's a choice between releasing your trade secrets and going broke, most companies will have their specs on the front page of the "wall street journal".
The Open Source crowd get what they want. (libre drivers) Dell get what they want, (more PC sales to that noisy rabble who affect corporate sales), the hardware manufacturers get what they want, (big contracts with Dell) so everyone is happy. With the exception of some chair chucker from redmond.
A sig is placed here
To display how futile
English Haiku is
I don't think it should be up to Dell to figure out how to install a Linux distro.
I'd rather see cooperation between Dell and a linux distro where Dell provides (loans) hardware to a Linux Distro which takes it upon itself to provide Dell an installable ghost image that "just works" for that hardware.
The computers are then flagged and sold with that OS as an option by Dell.
There would be nothing preventing Dell from having the same arrangement with multiple Distros.
This situation would fairly distribute the efforts between Dell and Linux Distros.
After all, I bet initially it was MS that approached Dell to pre-install their OS, why should it be any different for Linux?