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?"

Comments

What about server/client discrimination

[7-Vodka]

Don't forget the numerous companies who release linux server versions of their application and completely ignore linux when it comes to releasing a client. It irks. I want to use the software or play the game myself, not host lame windows clients so they can play on my server.

Also, companies which promise a linux client is "coming soon!" and then years later still haven't delivered a damn thing. (I'm looking at you ventrilo on both counts).

Re:Because....

[evanbd]

Some of us would be quite happy with "Here's the linux binary; we won't help you with it, but we'll maintain a user support forum and pay attention to bug reports."

Or, "Here's the Windows binary and source code; that should get you started. We won't help you with the Linux port, but we promise not to actively hinder it with malicious firmware updates." After all, for a company making a hardware device, the profit center is the device, not the computer-side software. Why not make it open?

It's the hardware

[melonman]

Because supporting your own embedded version of Linux that no-one outside one small room in the basement of your offices is going to modify, on your own hardware, the spec of which isn't going to change, is relatively easy once you've got the thing working - in fact it's probably easier than supporting a proprietary embedded system. On the other hand, supporting any of a dozen major linux distros running on a thousand different hardware setups, using different sets of drivers for each and every peripheral, with the choice of at least two desktops and millions of permutations of modules, before the user started customising and recompiling, and no standard way to distribute your software to all distros apart from a tarball'd set of source files, isn't easier than supporting Windows or Mac end users. Especially given that at least some linux users are going to be more interested in proving they are smarter than the helpdesk team than in getting the product to work, and that a lot of linux fans will use a OSX or Windows when they have to.

And, as others have said, why would you expect one to follow the other anyway? If my company was making money from using an embedded OSS system, I might be inclined to put $$$ or developer hours into helping the OSS development community, but I really cannot see why I would be under any moral obligation to help the distributors of non-embedded distros I don't use or the desktop users who are consumers just like me.

Re:Easy Answer

[arivanov]

This reminds me of the joke that 2+2 is 5 for sufficiently high values of 4.

I had a hilarious conversation with another geek recently (Mac and Linux using one).

He buys wine on the Internet (can't be bothered to go to the shop). The wine shop recently "upgraded" their software and it stopped working for everything but Windows. He wrote to their tech support and asked why. He got the well known answer - that they do not have the resources to support the development and verification for 3% of the Internet user base.

3 months later they called him with a prolonged and sincere apology and asked him to come back and that they have fixed the shop.

Guess what - 97% of the population that buys wine on the Internet by the case at 20+ quid a pop does not run Windows. More likely - windows is under 40% and even that runs firefox or opera. Rest are MacOS and Linux users.

The decision to cut off all non-Windows users was taken by some moron with an MBA who read some "industry press" and did not even bother asking the operations to run browser stats on the logs. As a result their revenue nosedived by 60%+.

So when someone quotes me 97% numbers I usually ask "Which population"?

If the population under discussion is "Buying luxury goods online" - bollocks.
If the population under discussion is "Geeks buying the latest must-have gadget" - bollocks.
Or even if the population is normalised by its buying power - still bollocks.