Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Do Commercial Offerings Use Linux, But Not Support Linux Users?

Posted by Zonk on from the seems-like-a-fairly-easy-step dept.

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?"

14 of 414 comments (clear)

  1. Easy Answer by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why don't more Linux-using shops reach out to the Linux-using community? Because the Linux-using community represents such a small percentage of their customer base that it doesn't make financial sense for them to spend the resources to specifically cater to it.

    --
    Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    1. Re:Easy Answer by anagama · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the Linux-using community represents such a small percentage of their customer base ...

      But wasn't that part of the point of the summary -- they saved a ton by using a premade OS rather than building their own. What's so hard about giving back to the community a tiny little something. After all, it is that very community that made their profits possible in the first place. It's about good citizenship, not an extra two cents profit per device.

      Plus, it really is true that linux users probably affect more sales than just the machines we buy for ourselves. I know I have personally influenced the buying habits 5 other users in the last 24 months (all non-linux users). Get the geeks excited about your product, you'll sell to them and everyone they know. So that two cent loss caused by giving back, might turn into an extra dime profit over all.
      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:Easy Answer by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What's so hard about giving back to the community a tiny little something. It isn't that it is hard, it's just that there is no money in it. They call them for-profit corporations for a reason.
      --
      "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
    3. Re:Easy Answer by SparkleMotion88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But why should a company support linux just because their gadget has linux running inside it? The group that writes the software for the gadget is probably a totally different group than the one that writes the desktop interface software. And an even more different group is responsible for answering the phone and supporting users.

      The software that runs in the device specifies an interface. The software that runs on the desktop makes use of the interface to interact with the device. How the device implements the interface is completely irrelevant. So the fact that the device uses linux has absolutely no bearing on whether the desktop software supports linux.

    4. Re:Easy Answer by glindsey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      they saved a ton by using a premade OS rather than building their own Not to disagree with you, but for an embedded application as sophisticated as TomTom it would be rare (and foolish) to build your own embedded OS when there are options like VxWorks, Nucleus, QNX, etc. out there. Having said that, yes, they probably went with embedded Linux to save money over licensing one of those OSes.

      But as I pointed out in my other comment, it is very likely that the folks that developed the firmware have little or nothing to do with those who developed the support drivers and applications, save for a few architecture/API/integration meetings.

      I'm not saying the company as a whole shouldn't be trying to give back to the Linux community, just that you may be talking apples and oranges here when it comes to the software developers involved.
    5. Re:Easy Answer by dupup · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The result is that vendors can't support Linux, it's a moving and vague target to support.

      The company I work for (Sun) makes applications that "support Linux". Perhaps it's a different ball game making enterprise software than it is making desktop software for a consumer device, but it's really rather trivial for us. We nominate a set of distros that dominate the datacenter marker (RHEL, SLES) and say, "We support our software running on versions 2.1, 3, and 4, or 8, 9, and 10, respectively. If you choose to run on another distro, might work, might not, but we don't support it." Maybe I'm missing the thrust of your argument, but we have few complaints about this approach. The advantage is the known kernel version. We even track the updates so we can be sure. I don't see why support for any other app on Linux would be different. Granted it may piss off Gentoo users (I am one!), but it would probably appease 80% of the 3% :-)

    6. Re:Easy Answer by JimDaGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bad analogy. A more correct "cookie analogy" would be:
      I work in IT and bring in cookies every Friday. I give my cookies to Accounting, IT and HR. Someone from Accounting, who eats my cookies, brings in cookies every Wednesday. However he/she only shares his/her cookies with Accounting and HR. Is the person from Accounting required to share cookies with IT? No, but it is a pretty crappy thing to not share their cookies.

      Yeah, cookie analogies are pretty dumb ;-)

      The way I see it is that TomTom is saving a nice chunk of change by using OSS/GNU/Linux to build the base of their systems. It would be nice if they took a small part of those savings and just... maybe... wrote some software for OSS/GNU/Linux users. Hell, I am sure they saved enough by using Linux in their devices to hire just one Linux GUI developer to build an equivalent GUI software that is available for MS Windows and Mac. It is not like they are making tons of money from Mac users. The majority of their users will being using the devices under MS Windows. At least WRT a Linux GUI, they can say the cost was offset by the savings generated by using Linux.

      --
      General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
  2. obviously by Zashi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Market considerations by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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" ----------
  4. Re:Why? Here's why. by Cal+Paterson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because linux users, as a general rule, have a strong aversion to paying for a commercial product. They're used to free software, and free software, service models excepted, is a very poor model for a company to earn with.
    This is nonsensical crap. Everyone pays for hardware. Tom Tom is a hardware company.
  5. Re:Which linux? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Because.... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This can be mitigated in several ways without having to break the business model:

    1. Expose the APIs used to access the device. This way the FOSS community can build an interface that will get the job done.

    2. Make the interface non-OS specific using standards. An http interface can be programmed once on the backend, and support multiple OSs via web browser (similar to how commodity IP router/switches are configured today).

    These are ways of providing value add for the user, while at the same time saving your company money by only having to maintain one code base. WIN-WIN!

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  7. Chicken / Egg by walt-sjc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Are Linux/GPL advocates being hypocritical? by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.