Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
...then you've already failed at life.
And yet they get windows... funny how that works.
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
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.
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.
And from TFA:
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.
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.
>...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.
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.
"Individuals are smart, people are stupid" -- Tommy Lee Jones as "K" from Men In Black
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion