The Agony and Ecstasy Of Becoming a Linux OEM

jammag writes "An article at the site Datamation, entitled Becoming a Linux OEM: A Roadmap, talks about the challenges (and rewards) of selling hardware with Linux pre-installed — most likely a growth market in the years ahead. The interesting part is the description of how some smaller Linux OEMs have made it. The bottom line: surviving as a Linux OEM requires far more than making it as a Windows OEM. In particular, you have to make the systems idiot-proof for users who don't care a whit about what OS they're using."

Comments

It's still a niche

[ircmaxell]

It's still very much a niche market. Most users that know of Linux (and would buy a PC with it) prob either have enough experience with it to install, or want to try installing. The rest of users PROB don't care and are just buying one because it's (cheaper|a friend said to). But now as more and more companies (ok, from one or two to a half a dozen or so) are switching to completely Linux (Peugeot did), the market moves from being a niche to mainstream, but it's not quite there yet... Give it time, and these companies that are struggling will be on for a ride...

Re:It's still a niche

[Red_Foreman]

The other aspect is technical support costs: Companies spend a lot of money making "Factory Re-install" discs for users who get a virus, get hacked, or install a trojan.

Since viruses are not as big of a concern on Linux (about the worst one could do is screw up a user account) companies will spend less money on technical support if they are a Linux OEM.

Lowering the cost of doing business goes directly to a company's bottom line and increases profits. Imagine that - making money on Free Software!

Dell and the embedded world

[jshriverWVU]

There are really two worlds. You have Dell which is selling Desktops, and I respect their guts for doing it. Then you have the embedded market. I think it would be orders of magnitude easier to be a linux OEM in the embedded world. Do you think people care if your Tivo runs linux or windows? Not if it works. Do people care if they can't get online and check their email? Yup. Two completely different domains. More power to Dell hope their Ubuntu system and investment works out for them.

As for the embedded world, they've had it made since the early days of SBC's running Linux in rom, Linksys WRT54G, and now Tivo's.

If there's ecstasy in becoming a Linux OEM...

[Anonymous Coward]

...then you've already failed at life.

Re:most people just want what works

[Selfbain]

And yet they get windows... funny how that works.

Is this FUD?

[JeremyGNJ]

I dont want to sound like a FUD parrot, however as a businessman I would think that legality is a significant concern.

There are looming possibilities of "patent claims" and "copyright infringement" against linux and the components that various distributions include. As a Linux OEM, I would think that fact poses significant risk to your business. It only takes one weird case/judge/lobby such as the old JPG copyright scares, etc to potentially put you at legal risk.

Again I'm not saying such a thing would be justified, but the possibility of it...when it's your money on the line is scary.

Re:Is this FUD?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is hardly that simple. Just look at the issues Microsoft had with mp3 licensing. Microsoft licensed the technology from Fraunhofer, whom most agreed held the licensing rights of mp3s; however, Alcatel-Lucent claimed they held relevant patents. The result was a $1.52 billion judgment against MS. Eventually, that was overturned, but if a company as large as Microsoft has problems with licensing, do you think a small oem startup is going to find it as simple as you say?

Re:Is this FUD?

[James Wells]

Greetings,

There are looming possibilities of "patent claims" and "copyright infringement" against linux and the components that various distributions include. As a Linux OEM, I would think that fact poses significant risk to your business. It only takes one weird case/judge/lobby such as the old JPG copyright scares, etc to potentially put you at legal risk.

First thing to understand is that so far, there has not been a single proven case of patent infringement against Linux. Many people have claimed patent infringement against various packages on Linux and of those, there has been only two; MP3/4, which was IMO an unethical and barely legal patent, and DeCSS, though DeCSS wasn't really a patent claim when you get down to it.

Instead, what you have is someone like Micro$oft claiming that Linux violates their patents, but refuse to produce or defend the patents. You have people like $COX claiming that Linux violates their copyright, but refuse to demonstrate the violations, and when forced to by a judge, the judge effectively laughed them out of court. Please note that I am not saying that Linux doesn't violate any patents or copyrights, however, the simple fact is that, no one has been successful at proving that it does.

It should also be pointed out that there are quite a few companies who have come out and offered Linux both patent protection and patent amnesty, should it be determined that Linux is somehow violating their patents. This is the critical piece as most, if not all of these companies, are now donating code directly to Linux and the Open Source movement. Such notables as Novell, IBM, and SUN.

Finally, as a distributor, you have an ethical obligation to defend your clients from these patent / copyright claims, however, you also have the right to choose what packages you will distribute and support, but even more importantly you have the right to choose what not to distribute and support. One of the tricks with Ubuntu is that they tell you upfront that they do not distribute MP3/4 or DeCSS packages, nor will they defend their customers from claims in reference to these packages.

Re:most people just want what works

[dstiggy]

The main reason that Windows "just works" for the average user is because all of the hardware manufacturers design their hardware and drivers specifically to work for Windows. This article is basically saying that OEM's who install Linux on their systems have to work around the frustrations of getting their distribution to work with their hardware and to prepare it for other hardware which the user might install/use with their system. IMO this is an added frustration that Windows OEMs don't have to deal with because of Windows widespread adoption. However, as Linux continues to gain users and hardware manufacturers begin to recognize Linux as a dominant OS alternative the frustrations the Linux OEMs now have will disappear as compatibility for Linux is integrated into hardware and drivers.

The 2 sides of the coin

[FFFFHALTFFFF]

Here in Brazil some hardware sellers are betting in this wave. Corporation like Positivo PC and others are selling Desktops and Notebooks with Linux pre-installed. There are a lot of small Linux distribution in this game, growing and getting mature. But the poor side of this is story is clear like water. Some folks buy this machines and install pirate OS's like Windows. The idea is good and is a big bussiness. A lot of people like me buy this kind of machine and know how to use it, and don't want pirate software.

Embedded works because there is no user

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Both embedded systems and servers have been very successful for Linux mainly because there are no user-OS interations. Users can only interact through very controlled and locked-down mechanisms.

Getting Linux onto the desktop requires a great deal more user interaction. I think though that Linux is getting there. Windows is not much easier to use than Linux, but it does need a lot more support from hardware vendors to get to the "just works" level.

OEM=Original Equipment Manufacturer

[wehe]

The article titles one section "Linux OEM companies can survive, even flourish". In this section three US based companies are considered as Linux OEMs. At least for laptops and notebooks this statement seems wrong, because as far as I can see non of these companies manufacturers these devices themselves, though they pre-install Linux on them. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a really "free" laptop or notebook available yet. But at least you can get Linux pre-installed on laptops and notebooks from different vendors around the world.

Unless you're talking about Vista....

[ebbomega]

Most hardware vendors are now making linux-compatible drivers. All the graphics heavyweights are (granted, ATI's aren't exactly that fantastic, but at least they're providing them). NDISwrapper works now with just about all major wireless cards. Bluetooth, sound drivers, USB block devices - check check and check. Apple's iPods don't have anything built by the vendors yet but the open-source alternatives seem to have ironed out most of the kinks.

Vista on the other hand is still playing catchup. And by the time Gutsy Gibson comes out, you think they'll have those problems licked? Christ, they're talking Service Pack now... remember what happened last time Microsoft tried to do one of those? Anybody with SP2 was being advised by just about every support department (I know because I was working with MSN support at the time) to downgrade back to SP1. For over a year after SP2 was released. A YEAR! I'll put money that Gutsy will have more hardware natively supported quicker than Vista. And its final release is still two months away!

I dunno. I think now that Dell and other major OEMs are starting to jump on the linux bandwagon, the commercial driver support is sure to follow, if it hasn't already (Big Blue, Novell, SGI, just to name a few).

And user interaction increasing between Linux and Windows? I dunno about you, but I've found the Ubuntu install process to be more intuitive and easier to deal with than Vista's billion-screen install. Not to mention you can browse the internet, chat on messenger, listen to music, etc. WHILE THE OS IS INSTALLING. The default settings are made so the transition from Windows is fairly easy.

Yeah, there's still a few kinks. But whereas Linux was for tinkerers and hobbyists in the late 90s, and around when RH8 came out it became simple for the experienced computer user, now I'd be willing to throw linux in for any intermediate computer user. That is to say, not ready for Grandma yet but a hell of a lot closer than it ever has been.

I've been Ubuntu-cheerleading a lot here, but it's nice to see that over the last 5 years of linux (the time I've been a user of it) it's improved tremendously in the user-interface department. And it's only going up from here. And a lot of that has to do with some of the more recent distros, namely Knoppix and Ubuntu.

Re:Unless you're talking about Vista....

[turing_m]

"Yeah, there's still a few kinks. But whereas Linux was for tinkerers and hobbyists in the late 90s, and around when RH8 came out it became simple for the experienced computer user, now I'd be willing to throw linux in for any intermediate computer user. That is to say, not ready for Grandma yet but a hell of a lot closer than it ever has been."

I certainly agree with your sentiment that Linux has become WAY simpler over the last few years. I'm not sure whether I'd go so far as to say Linux became simple for the experienced computer user in late 2002. It all depends on what you do. The hard part is not really using it, that's easy. Even Grandma can use it, once she's taught which buttons to click.

The hard part is getting your hardware configured, chasing drivers, and figuring out how to do everything you used to do in Windows, but in Linux. The more varied the stuff you do, the harder it is. That's something Grandma will never do, but it's something that a certain class of power user has always done.

Linux is at the point where a good portion of these users will be able to make it through an install and never look back. It's only going to get easier now.

THAT is the real last hurdle.

[khasim]

Of course this ode ignores users who have time for playing games or people who still print stuff (yes I've tried to install a linux unfriendly printer and I'm burning down Lexmarks office next tuesday).

And from TFA:

Both of the above mentioned Linux companies have really poor hardware compatibility lists (HCLs).

I remember submitting reviews of NIC's years and years and years ago to one of the public hardware sites. That was then bought out and killed by a media company.

Ubuntu is collecting the information, but it hasn't put it out in a friendly format yet.

I'd like to see a bootable CD from a Linux distributor that will identify everything it can on a box and output that to something that I can upload to a website.

Then that website would identify the components that auto-magically work with their distribution (version A or B or C ...)

And try a "best guess" at the components that it did not recognize AND the components that it did recognize that do NOT work auto-magically.

And allow the user to enter descriptions of the components that were not recognized.

The final goal being that I can take a CD into Fry's and ask to boot it to see if I want that system or not. Down to the component level. Yes, I like that system, but I want it with a soundcard that is supported.

Do that and you'll see more HARDWARE sales tied to Linux. And happier Linux users.

And I want a pony and a plastic rocketship.

Re:THAT is the real last hurdle.

[Burz]

I agree that the community needs a good HCL.

But there's much more to it than that (see link above): You need a number of disciplines and structures in order to behave like a stable platform on PCs. If users don't see that consistency, and app developers aren't given a nurturing starting point (like Apple's XCode and ADC), and there is no clearcut way to distribute apps independently, then there will be a lack of top-notch applications to draw users to the OS.

Because we are not having this and many other discussions around LSB, because LSB isn't targeted by app devs, the software genre we fuzzily call 'Linux' just isn't a real computing platform. At least not one that is meaningful non-systems geeks, which is why the Linux genre tends to be only popular with sysadmins and system hackers. Users and the app devs that cater to them are still repelled.

Re:most people just want what works

[LWATCDR]

Most people buy Windows because that is really the only choice.
Go to Best Buy and count how many programs you can buy for Windows. Now count how many for the Mac and then how many for Linux.
Go and look for a printer that says that it will work with Linux, WiFi card, Webcam, ....
This is from the end users stand point mind you.

One of the big problems for Linux is the lack of a stable binary driver interface. Even if you are going to make your drivers FOSS you can not just stick a cd in the box or post the driver on your website. The faithful will say that there is no need for the hardware manufacture to make a driver since they can just give out the specs. Well yes but then you have to wait for your driver to be included in the the kernel and then for them to be included in the distros.....
The hardware people all control of when the support will get to the end user that way. So even if a company creates a driver for a piece of hardware and makes it FOSS they may have to wait months before it becomes available as part of the kernel.

This isn't an issue for the embedded space or servers but it really is a pain for the average end user.
Yes there is a lot of really good free software that you can run on a Linux desktop but sometimes you just want to play Age of Empires, WOW, or buy that $10 set of card games at Best Buy.

Re:most people just want what works

[bobintetley]

But you see, most "average" users are not programmers, and don't want to be programmers. As long as the people with the programming skills required to address Linux usability issues show no interest in usability for the "average" user, Linux will stay where it is and Microsoft will own the consumer market regardless of how crappy their OS is, because Microsoft *does* make an attempt to address usability for the "average" user.

But those people with the skills that you're talking about don't give a flying fuck about Linux ruling the desktop market. They have what works for them, and do it for the love of doing it.

Besides, in my opinion that kind of polish is the job of the distro makers to pull it all together. If some distro wants to take on Microsoft on the desktop, then they'll fund developers doing that work (as Canonical is doing with Ubuntu), so I don't really see a problem or a need to villify developers who've already given you a whole boatload of free software as lazy.

Hmm....really...

[Brad_sk]

>...you have to make the systems idiot-proof for users who don't care a whit about what OS they're using...

More so, they should avoid being Linux snobs and stop using phrases such as "idiot proof" if they are really interested in growing.

The embedded space is different

[Anonymous Coward]

Having done embedded Linux nearly exclusively these past 7 years, I would concur. I love it when my competition is using Windows, as I know from experience that they will run into a LOT of problems that are going to delay them. It's usually the subtle stuff which nickels-and-dimes a Windows project to death. With Linux, whenever I hit a subtle problem I can usually find a solution or workaround via the Web.

That's because everyone's got Linux. The same isn't true for Windows.

The worst case scenario means I have to modify the source code myself. At least I'm able to do this with Linux. I can't with Windows, unless I pay extra for it. And that's an added cost to the Windows-based project. I have the option of avoiding this if I have a team which understands the code. Yes, you can buy commercial support from Windriver, MonteVista, RedHat, etc. which brings the price closer to Windows. But I've never found it that useful other than to give higher management warm fuzzies. Most small scale embedded projects don't bother.

But the point is that I can choose.

linuxdevices.com has run a number of surveys over the years. Linux has gone from a very tiny market share in 2000, to where it is the dominant player, outdoing all versions of Windows combined today.

Was there a point to this article?

[Gybrwe666]

You know, I read the thing twice. I didn't see any agony. I didn't see any ecstasy.

What I saw were a few fairly vague suggestions and one piece of advice (know your market) repeated over and over. There wasn't any real research. There weren't any statistics. I'm sure my second reading was a waste of time and electrons, and the more I think about it, the first one was too.

As someone else mentioned, there are still end-user problems regarding linux in the mass market. A user wants something that works. Especially John Q. Public, who doesn't give a darn what its running underneath. What he wants is the stuff he clicks on (in the OS or in the Web Browser or Application) to work. That means when you go to YouTube, the movie plays and the sound works. When he wastes time on a web games site, the games play. When he needs some software for some idiotic reason, its easily available, easy to install, and after he installs it he clicks on the icon and it works.

I've run Linux as an only OS in the past. 10 years ago, when I started doing that, there were many challenges to running it day to day, from corporate compatibility to application bugs. The reality for me is that many of those issues simply haven't been resolved yet.

When I think of the masses and Linux, I think about my family. I have a range of people there who span from retirees to teenagers. I don't think a single one is capable, or, perhaps more importantly, has any desire to switch. I don't think I could even convince my 20 something step daughter, who grew up with computers, to switch, even though she needs a cheap computer and Linux would let her get a fairly decent machine for very little.

In some ways, Linux strikes me as being 95% of the way there. The problem is, that last 5% may well be the most difficult part. The remaining issues are ones that will prevent mass adoption. For instance, I see the issue of video. The end user couldn't care less about Codecs. What they care about is the fact that when someone sends them a video file (most likely created in Windows), can they click on it and it plays with sound? As long as there are Window's proprietary video adn audio formats, that may be enough to keep a good portion of the userbase on Windows.

Not only that, but I can't imagine what support issues must be like. Even with good customer support, if you try to sell to anyone other than a geek or semi-geek, the phone support has to be pretty deep. Like my video playing example above, what happens when someone emails some inane audio clip and it won't play? What if Uncle Leonard needs to install drivers for a USB device?

Even for me, the thought of it to the masses is overwhelming. That final 5% is just a bear of a mountain to climb, and there isn't any easy way to get over it.

I also think the author of the article misses something in his targeting of customers. Remember, you've locked out so many segments of the customer base, who is left? Gamers are out, especially casual ones. Gramma and Grandpa are out, they won't switch to save their lives. Anyone who has some favorite Windows application is probably out, even if Wine supports it. Do you really think the average user is going to want to know how to get Wine running (even with top notch support?), let alone figure out how to upgrade it each time a new version comes out?

I'm sorry, I just don't see how this article addressed anything that anyone who has even thought about setting up a business shouldn't have thought about 2 minutes after they get the idea.

Bill

Re:Was there a point to this article?

[howlingmadhowie]

the point being that gnu/linux isn't just taking on microsoft. the linux kernel and the gnu toolchain are technically years ahead of vista. if it were a simple question of gnu/linux vs. windows, the war would have ended sometime in 1997.

it is however a case of gnu/linux vs. the entire world of proprietary software. a world with so much money that compatibility can only be bought on their terms. gnu/linux would have to become proprietary software to implement proprietary data formats or allow non-documented devices to work. instead of that, technically superior possibilities are being offered to us. ogg is technically superior to mp3, odf is technically superior to ooxml, lilypond is technically superior to finale files.

but how much does that help free software advocates to free others? if others insist on slavery, what can we do? one this is sure, we shouldn't implement these last 5% in gnu/linux: that would mean the end of everything gnu/linux stands for. it would mean the end of stallman's dream which has already produced the most remarkable software free of charge and open for the entire world running on the most remarkable hardware. throwing that away for out-of-the-box support for wmv files would be an act of utter idiocy.

Hell I can do that right now.

[khasim]

If Linux were more popular in the user community, how long do you think it would be before someone decided to email around a shell script that had some local privlege escalation code in it, and managed to work out a botnet from Linux boxes?

What's your email address? I'll send you one today.

The problem is NOT sending the email.

The problem is getting enough new people to run the script so that the infection rate exceed the disinfection rate. Otherwise the "virus" will "die" when it is "in the wild".

The more steps required to get a box infected, the lower the infection rate will be. Five steps at 90% success each ... still gives you only 59% of a successful infection. And that's not even counting the people who realize part way through that they shouldn't be doing that.

Sure the hole would get fixed relatively quickly, but the hacked computers probably wouldn't. We'd have the same problem that we have in Windows.

Nope. Microsoft's security model is badly broken in MANY places. Think back to their last anti-trust trial where they claimed that "integrating" IE's code with the OS was a "good thing".

All that means is that IE is a very easy avenue for OS cracks on Windows.

Try that with a Linux-based browser.

By default, Ubuntu ships with NO open ports. On Windows, they're all open, but they have a software firewall sitting on top of them. Again, Microsoft's security model is flawed. Which is why you STILL see cracked WinXPsp2 boxes.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:most people just want what works

[LWATCDR]

Actually I had a raid card from 3-Ware that didn't make into the Kernel from Suse so I had to compile it to get my server running after a kernel upgrade. It was a while ago but that is a good example of it happening. 3-Ware drivers not tend to be in the Kernel.
So yes here is an example of it happening. I had to call the hardware company and get the tar ball compile it and build a new kernel to get my server up.
It isn't just a problem with getting in to the kernel tree. The problem is that the hardware companies can not package the driver with the hardware! They can not control when the driver will make it into the distributions or if it will make it into the distributions. These are real problems that you dismiss in the name of GPL dogma. Notice I said that even if you FOSS your drivers you will have these issues. You don't like closed source drivers. That is fine because I also would rather have FOSS drivers. But has the lack of stable binary driver interface prevented closed source drivers? Gee I would say that is a big NO!