Slashdot Mirror
Why Do Commercial Offerings Use Linux, But Not Support Linux Users?
Michele Alessandrini writes "Having bought several TomTom One navigation systems at work, I was browsing their web site to find information about maps.
There are several pages of documentation about their devices.
In one of them, they proudly inform you that their devices use Linux, as a warranty of power and stability. They even prominently display their GPL compatibility. But, when you come to the software (the one used to manage updates, set locations, etc), they only support Windows and Mac OS. Not that surprising, and not a real necessity. Just the same, they probably saved millions of dollars using a free kernel and didn't think to support Linux users. As Linux gains ground in commercial applications like this, how often are we going to see actual users of the OS left out in the cold? Why don't more Linux-using shops reach out to the Linux-using community?"
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
Because their web interface programmers are using Windows or Macs.
It's the same reason they use linux in the first place that they don't support linux-desktop users.
To save money.
For most companies, linux is too small of market to be worth devoting development time to. As companies follow in IBM's and AMD's footsteps, though, I think linux support will continue to increase, but I doubt it will ever match Windows and OS X levels.
Skiffy is Spiffy, but Ort is tort.
They have enough trouble supporting Windows users.
Imagine trying to deal with some bumbling idiot with an Ubuntu box?
And then... Which distro(s) should they support?
A business wants to make money.
Using a secure and reliable O/S that's free to run your unit/server/whatever is a great business move.
However: Most Linux users are used to 'free' software, in both cost and open sourced. Ones that are willing to pay for products will usually run dual boot with Windows or own a Mac. This being the case, it doesn't justify the resources (as a company) to create a client that must work on all or select distros and/or make the source code public.
I would love Linux to get more desktop applications. I can also see companies perspective as-to why it isn't going to happen strongly anytime soon.
Because their job is to make money not support linux users. If you want to see a business that supports linux users start one.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
Linux desktop users are a small segment of the market. Developing tools costs money, and there needs to be a large enough payoff for the development costs to make it worthwhile.
And some things about development of commercial apps for Linux are bit of a pain. What widget set do you use? How do you determine if the appropriate libraries are installled, where does the OS mount devices, what device numbers do you get, etc. Nothing insurmountable, just more complexity than with Windows or OSX.
Submitter's logic is fuzzy. Tomtom runs on linux because Linux is a good candidate for an embedded operating system. From a technical and business standpoint, it makes sense to use linux here: no license fees to a proprietary vendor, greater control over the OS, etc. From a business standpoint, supporting Windows clients makes sense as well. It's a question of numbers: There are more Windows desktop users than Linux desktop users. The right tool for the right job. Making your own standardized device run on Linux is a lot easier than making software that supports an entire ecosystem of OSes.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
They think supporting linux desktops is too expensive to be profitable.
End of discussion.
Next question!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I'd have to say the biggest barrier (aside from the relatively tiny potential market) is the lack of standardization in Linux. Dozens of distros with multiple shells and several desktop environments and a lack of a unified standard on libraries and...well, you get the point. It all adds up to a support nightmare with Linux User #32,469 calls because his customized DSLinux USB key won't properly sync with their device.
.Net Framework 3.0". But if you specified a handful of Linux distros and library sets and everything else necessary to ensure it can be supported, you'd only be getting a fraction of the Linux market, which is but a fraction of the PC user market.
With Windows, you can specify "requires Windows XP with SP2 and
The most I could ask of any company in the way of Linux support is a solid driver with good documentation, a wiki to allow the Linux community to fill in the blanks when unexpected problems crop up, and a web forum to facilitate the community and allow developer to monitor/communicate with the users.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
There are so many variations of linux and variations of configurations that it is very difficult to provide support.
Not really, see, because if you build your app for a very popular linux distro and release the source code, the community will do the rest of the porting for you.
But once again we see how wanting to keep things secret and hush hush this is proprietary stuff just slows down progress.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's amazing how well Linux works on the desktop despite so many manufacturers REFUSING to support Linux for one reason or another.
The over all Linux market share for the desktop is low, but it's not zero. In terms of sheer unit numbers, it's still a lot. As more and more embedded devices use Linux (as well as other platforms (mobile) that are not Windows / IE centric,) the demand will grow for more compatibility / open protocols / etc. and manufacturers / sites / etc. will have to support it. Us Linux users are a patient bunch.
"But why should a company support linux just because their gadget has linux running inside it?"
Because they are benefiting from a mature, open source, and well understood pre-established operating system. If there was no Linux they would have to spend much more development costs in building their own OS for their devices.
I am sensing some hypocracy here, not with respect to this poster but Linux/GPL advocates in general. When BSD folks complain about GPL folks not respecting the spirit of FOSS and "giving back"(1) there is a strong sentiment from the GPL advocates of "too bad, the letter of your license allow us to take and not give back". However when corporation comply with the letter of the GPL and do not "give back" beyond source code GPL advocates complain.
(1) For example in a scenario where a GPL developer takes BSD code, incorporates it into a GPL based project, makes minor fixes or improvements, but does not update the original BSD code with these fixes or minor improvements. Absolutely legal with respect to the BSD license but against the FOSS spirit of giving back to those whose shoulders you stand upon.
Well actually it still is a chicken and egg problem. Linux users will only start opening their wallet to by applications when those applications are available. I would buy a Linux version of Photoshop if it was available, but it isn't. I pay for my version of Slackware because I think it is the right thing to do, and I have payed for crossover office when I needed it. Maybe I am alone here but somehow I don't think so.
One of the other reasons why some companies use Linux in their devices, is also because it is know by many to be stable and secure. that is also why they actually advertise the fact that the device is running Linux and therefore attracts customer from the Linux users. At some point these companies will have to take the risk of supplying software or support to Linux, some companies already do and the fact that OEMs like Dell or Acer are starting to provide hardware with some versions Linux installed as an alternative to Windows, we will probably start seeing some support from software vendors as well.
People who use Linux don't pay for hardware? TomTom make GPS navigation devices.
how to invest, a novice's guide
First of all, Photoshop is a high level application. That has no bearing on what a *developer* might consider unreasonable as a development cost going into their own application. Secondly, I am a developer, I am responsible for an application of Photoshop's approximate class, we're completely debt-free and cashy, and I still wouldn't consider licensing GUI widgets. As far as I am concerned, the day linux gets GUI widgets that are always there and available on the same terms as those in OS X and Windows is the day I'm willing to release a port to the platform. Other people may have other opinions, and I'm not saying they aren't valid, but that's mine. Either the OS provides the GUI, or as far as I'm concerned, there is no GUI. And incorporating anything using the GPL... not a chance on this earth. But we do have a working linux port ready for the eventuality that the OS changes to provide a standard GUI. There are projects running to get that done, thank goodness. All we'll have to do is move the widgetry over and we should be good to go.
Not so. Mac users pay, and pay well, and in large numbers, for good applications. If your app isn't a support problem, every sale is a profitable sale, and the Mac OS, being extremely stable and reliable (just like linux, I might add), is a wonderful platform for selling software into. The linux market isn't even remotely comparable. The GPL is the perfect example of the linux attitude towards commercial software - and it is not commercial friendly. Selling support doesn't work either unless your app is so unfriendly people require help to use it, or else if it is buggy, or has compatibility problems. Applications that "just work", which is our actual goal, have to be sold on initial perceived value, actual value in use, and perceived value of upgrades. Selling someone a "service contract" you know they'll never have to use isn't a very ethical thing to do either.
Oh. I get it. You think the cost of going with a third party widget set is the initial monetary outlay. Well, that's certainly part of it, but what happens when trolltech goes out of business, and linux just keeps evolving? Or the opposite - when Trolltech decides that they're not going to support an older linux, but we want to support our customers? Why should we risk tying our application to a third party? With a better OS design - meaning, one that actually has its own GUI - you can be pretty certain that your stuff is going to continue working. Windows 95 software still works and its been 12 years. Trolltech would never do this, I hear you say? Whoops, wrong. They already have. I can't compile or run the current Gimp on a stock RH9 system, not all that old, frankly. If it isn't complaining about the font libraries or the version of the C compiler, it's having a meltdown over some obscure library I've never even heard of. When I spoke up about this, I was told, "update the linux system"; but that's precisely the wrong answer. A commercial app needs to work on the widest possible number of systems, not only the latest and greatest. At least, as far as I'm concerned. I admit I've run into developers who grab at new OS features like chimps after bright yellow bananas, but we're not one of those. Our objective is to get the app working, and keep the app working. If something shows up we want from a later OS, and we can't special case it in and out based on OS level detection, we just won't use it. Because to lock out our users with old OS's is unaccept
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
These companies don't support Linux because they don't earn any money with Linux. People who have Windows, and OSX pay money for their software and applications. People who use Linux are cheap skates, which goes back to the original point that they use Linux because it saves them money.
Aren't we talking about hardware here? Canon, Tom-Tom, etc, do not make money from software, they make money from hardware, which Linux users buy a lot of.
Here's a thought - you want someone to "give back" to you when they use your software? Well, you could require them to pay you for the software and not allow them to redistribute it. In other words, you could follow the closed source model.
What amazes me is the hypocrisy of people who scream about "closed source" and "proprietary" and then bitch about companies that use open source software in compliance with the license. If you want "open source" live with the results.