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.
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.
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" ----------
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).
Liberty.
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?
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.
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.
Virtually serving coffee
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
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.