Slashdot Mirror
Lenovo Removes Linux Option For Home Buyers
billybob2 writes "Lenovo has stopped selling laptops pre-installed with Linux on its web site, only 8 months after starting the trial program. This means that home customers won't be able to buy a Thinkpad without paying the Microsoft tax. Word has it that the decision to pull the plug on Linux came down from the highest levels of the Chinese company's corporate headquarters. For those looking to buy full-sized laptops and desktops with Linux pre-loaded Dell, System76, ZaReason and Everex all still offer such products."
And im willing to bet that they only do that for their american store, but still sell you preinstalled linux if buying in asia.
So up theirs. As Ive always said: if it doesnt run linux, it doesnt exist.
NO SIG
I suspect the decision was made because of comparatively small demand.
Not every disappointment in life is the result of a Grand Microsoft Conspiracy. (grin)
The Microsoft tax isn't that big a deal, at least not in the Thinkpad price range. Were their Linux-based laptops any cheaper? I know some other companies that offer Linux don't offer any discount for it.
A bigger concern is whether they're providing driver support for Linux installation or not.
If they had seriously wanted to hit the market they would have rpovided a variety of options. I was going to buy one, but now I think I'll go Dell.
Yeah All kinds of possibilities can lead to this.
I think as *nix advocates (at least some of us), we need to realize that it's not all about being altruistic to these guys. It's about money, and if it's doesn't make money then why would they do it? But why speculate on motivations. It's just a fact and we can accept it, make Linux better where we can, and move forward.
http://www.hp.com/sbso/busproducts_notebooks.html
Many of those laptops that can be configured have "FreeDos" as an option for the OS.
Sure, that means it doesn't come with an installed Linux distro, but you can get a customized laptop without the MS tax.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
I don't get why Slashdotters assume that it would be cheaper for computer producers and for consumers to install Linux instead of Windows. We also see this in complaints about the Inspiron 900 costing the same with Linux as without it, and there were some huge posts about that. Here's the deal: software development and support costs too. When a manufacturer puts Linux on their devices, they have to first test it, make sure that it works, and iron out the bugs in the parts that won't work. This takes expensive developer time. Once the product is launched, they probably have to deal with 10x more consumer support requests from each user that bought Linux over those that bought Windows, because people simply won't know how to do things. This costs money too. In contrast, if the company went with Windows, they'd have to pay 40 dollars and then a) the software would work out of the box and b) there would be a much smaller flow of support requests, many of which would be handled by Microsoft. That's worth something - perhaps as much as 40 dollars per machine! If you think about it, 40 dollars is maybe 2 hours of a customer support representative's time. What you guys don't get is that preinstalling Windows on PCs is a business decision that is mutually beneficial for the PC manufacturer and Microsoft. It's beneficial for 99% of consumers too of course.
As long as Linux on the desktop remains a demo scene with ever-changing technology, unstable API, incompatible distros, and idealists that make it difficult for companies to provide binary drivers, things stay that way, and you're going to see PCs preloaded with Windows. If you want Linux to reach end-customers, you need first and foremost to make it one single, stable (as in rarely changing), OS. After that you need to make it usable for people who never open options dialogs and have no clue what a terminal is. After that you need to actually have worthwhile software running on it (Microsoft Office, Flash, Photoshop, a decent media player, etc).
Maybe when Microsoft starts selling PCs, so that your comparison is really an apples-to-Apples one? ;)
Lenovo shipped Novell's SLED 10 (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10), but not Ubuntu. Maybe Lenovo selected the wrong distro?
loading [******___]
Just because you don't know how to use linux doesn't mean it is linux that sucks. Ubuntu seems to have a lot of bugs and KDE 4 isn't stable; so maybe blame the distro and desktop environment instead?
Some of us do. Unfortunately, laptops often have strange new combinations of components that are not yet stable in Linux, such as scrollbars, new graphics chipsets, strange RAID controllers, etc., that were only tested with Windows by the manufacturers. Maintaining good quality for such components, and making sure the drivers work well together, takes real effort by competent people. And if you're trying to trim costs, those people may not stick around.
> Is it really that hard for them to make Ubuntu an option in the OS choice box?
Yes it is. Because above all else, end users MUST NEVER become aware of the amount Windows adds to the sticker price. That is what is behind all of these games. Windows must be an invisible component lest users begin questioning why they must buy Windows and keep on rebuying it with each and every hardware purchase. The entire monopoly depends upon this, thus Microsoft would mercilessly punish any OEM who broke that rule.
Democrat delenda est
Sure, that means it doesn't come with an installed Linux distro, but you can get a customized laptop without the MS tax.
If a laptop comes without an installed Linux distro, it also comes without the manufacturer's assurance that there exists a Linux driver for all hardware in the laptop.
Ironically, it's also close to the ideals of a free market. There's no friction, no real barrier to entry, and competition is very pure and open. Supply is limitless, thus cost goes to $0, which isn't happening elsewhere in the software industry. In a way, free market economics says that the ease of reproducing software would drive the cost to zero, which has happened in a lot of ways.
Morally speaking, while most people would argue that there's nothing wrong with charging money for software, almost everyone will agree that the community that's sprung up around open source is very right. It's heart warming, really.
Don't feed the trolls please. It wastes everyone's time involved, and only makes them more likely to do it.
Trolls hate being ignored.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
For the typical consumer how has no idea what Linux is, there is little point in a preloaded Linux system. Windows is fine for them, and has more consumer-type software.
That leaves as the market for these things the people that actually want Linux. But people who know enough about Linux to actually want it probably want a specific distribution. If the preloaded distribution is that one, great!
But if the one they want is not the preloaded one, then they are going to end up doing their own install anyway. In that case, the only advantage they really get buying one of the preloaded Linux systems is that they know the hardware works with Linux (maybe--some companies that do preloads simply don't support all of their own hardware under Linux).
But there is also a disadvantage. Windows often comes bundled with third party software, and there also often ads from third parties included in the packaging. The companies that make the bundled software, or that the ads are for, pay the computer companies to be included. The computer company often makes enough money that way to more than pay for the Windows license. Because of this, it is often cheaper for them to sell a given model with Windows than to sell it without Windows.
If this is the case, the Linux fan who is going to install his own distro over the preloaded one is better off, financially, buying the Windows computer and wiping it.
Bottom line: the market for whom Linux preloads makes sense is only a small subset of the people that want to run Linux on their new computer. Hence, it is no surprise that manufacturers are not finding it worthwhile.