Slashdot Mirror
Dell start selling PC's with Linux
Well, starting this morning, DELL are starting to sell Linux pre-installed on selected workstations,
dell asks for additional 99$ for the installation. Full report from News.com is here. Speaking of pre-installing,
IBM just told Info-world reporters that they will keep selling Linux servers, but they
will "wait-and-see" about selling Workstation pre-installed with Linux. Am I the only one who
thinks that IBM need to learn about selling from Dell?
at least more than just because.
Yeah, I too would like to see IBM offer Linux workstations, but I can't say that I'd see that happening very soon. The simple reason is reason.
IBM has a 5 headed chicken or the egg problem, when you consider their products, their customers, their ISV's etc.
A server is an easy match for Linux because the total picture is much clearer. A server serves stuff, period. It doesn't matter what kind of stuff you have to serve, it is all data, and server programs-a-plenty from PPP to RBDMS's exist for Linux. The server customer picture can be simplified as well. Many of IBM's server customers are familliar with big iron types of OS's. Linux is at least similar in behavior to these, with a much lower price tag. This, as well as the minimal software development for themselves, is an easy sell for IBM.
Workstations on the other hand are much more diverse. Similar to many corporate LANS which may have a one hundred to one ratio of users to administrators (except for NT shops), the diversity of workstation based tasks to server based tasks is greatly loppsided. This is the crux of the Linux workstation problem. The programs which IBM rely on to sell their workstations, just are not available on Linux. I know that more and more are released all the time, but where are the established products that businesses make decissions around? You will never see Autodesk bring AutoCAD to Linux. Nor will you see Pro/Engineer, Alias WaveFront etc. etc. etc. on Linux. Because of this, you may never see IBM selling workstations with Linux pre-installed, because their customers (current ones who spend money on their products now) would not buy a Linux workstation from IBM.
I can see the fire now, but please don't misunderstand me. You can't beat the bang for the buck of free software, but without all types of commercial software, Linux will always be relegated to the status of "Niche Server OS".
I'm convinced that overtures by Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Corel towards Linux were motivated more by Billy G's movements deeper into their own markets. I also think that it's working to benefit the community as a whole, because server vendors are now bundling Linux, where only NT existed before.
We need some sort of Industry lobbying group that would concentrate on developers of workstation based programs. This is a much more difficult and diverse task than getting a word processor or office suite ported, as many of these developers are in vertical markets themselves. It would be a huge risk, a leap of faith for, lets say Unigraphics, to port their products to Linux. Yes, they develop them for many UNIX flavors, but a program for an operating system with as many different distributions as Linux, with infinite hardware configurations, and no telling how many graphics configurations that they would have to deal with. On top of that, a Linux port would cause serious strain on their relationship with M$. Many of these companies have this problem, as we all know that final budgeting decissions made by their customers, are constantly made by PHB's that require the M$ stamp of approval, and have the misconception that all UNIX machines cost ~$70,000, and are incapable of doing anything usefull like playing solitaire (Oh, bad flashback to former PHB).
Actually no.
I am not sure what went wrong in your case, but
I tried the same.
To be more specific, the HD is 7200rpm, I included
the Harman speakers, had the Dell 21 inch monitor
the Performnce key board, the Logitech mousewheel
mouse, the rest is as you had it.
For Linux I get 3,661 dollars
For NT (subtract the 1 year service contract)
it's 3690.
So actually in this configuration Linux is about
30 dollars cheaper.
Of course, you could get the same stuff
for hundreds of dollars cheaper e.g. at Comtrade
(without an OS, though)
Somewhat unrelated, I recently noted that one
can buy laptops without Windows from Zenon
Technologies (www.zenontech.com)
No I don't work for either of them I just buy!
I agree. That is definitely the next FUD line.
1984 FUD: "No one will write any significant free software."
1989 FUD: "No one will write an entire complete free software system."
1994 FUD: "No one will use free software in their business."
1999 FUD: "No one will run their data center on free software."
What's next?
This is not a big deal folks. Dell probably is also installing Linux, not so much to help themselves, but to help M$. I mean, who was the largest apologist and defender of M$ at all the trial action and at the Senate hearings? Michael Dell, that's who. I looked for where I could purchase a system preinstalled with Linux and they've succesfully buried it, enough so that Bill probably doesn't give a shit that they are also offering it. He's sure to have his attorney's wave it around in court that there is ample "competition" to try and blunt any fallout from the trial. So, it's all bull really. If you've got to dig so deep to find it, then it's not really there as far as I'm concerned.
If I've got to call and request it from a sales rep. then it's not truly available. I visited the workstation area and Linux certainly was not available there in contrast to the earlier interview of Mr. Dell which claimed it would be there. There were only MS OSs listed there.
If IBM will have anything to learn from Dell, I hope it will be to actively promote Linux, as opposed to offering it with barriers standing in the way of a purchase.
I doubt many of you Linux kiddies remember, but Dell had its own UNIX division back in the early 90's. They did their own port of SVR4.2, and it was considered one of the best UNIX ports out there -- they turned thousands of lines of bug fixes back to AT&T. Alas, it proved unprofitable and was shut down.
I don't know where you find 99 dollars extra.
The article mentions costing 20 bucks over the NT installation. This probably has to do with adding the LinuxCare support contract on top of the Microsoft pricing deal.
Two cheers for Dell. Let's give them half a break here. In the months since the report came out on how OEMs refused to "unbundle" Windows from their machine, we've gone from:
1) Dell "not perceiving a market for Linux" to
2) Dell "not perceiving a market for Linux workstations" to
3) Dell providing for that market.
That's a lot of movement in a few months. And Dell aren't stupid. They know that Linux development is probably going to be less fragmented than MS's in the coming year or so, what with the glacial move towards Win2K, and the potential for a corporate dissection by the courts.
For sure, Linux comes at a premium now, but that's due to economies of scale. And Dell isn't a company for the purist who wants a machine built from scratch; they build solid, reliable, top-end machines and provide top-notch support. They're your boss's choice, and if your boss sees "Linux" among the options, at $99 extra, (s)he's going to wonder what's so good about Linux that Dell make you pay extra for it...
I'm writing this now, on my 1997 Dell machine, running Debian. I've no complaints. Yet another step towards world domination, yet another line in the sand trampled over.
That's one.
--
Xenu loves you!
I have the feeling you don't have a damn clue what an "inode" is, much less how to run a web site. Please, tell me how "inodes and shit" don't scale? Could you enlighten me as to how network traffic (hits per unit time) somehow directly relate to a filesystem's inability to, well, I think you meant scale?
On March 3rd, 1999, a company web server, a Pentium II Linux machine, besides serving SMB shares, handling company e-mail, and supporting a dozen or so interactive shells spawning intermittant compile jobs, happened to respond to 221,409 web hits in one 24 hour period. They were all pictures. The load average for any 15 minute period never wandered above 0.02. Stability and speed are not problems.
1:00am up 87 days, 15:11, 10 users, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
This is not fiction, nor is it unusual. In fact, we've probably had busier days. The only reason the box didn't serve 3 million hits when we weren't looking was that our T1 connection was completely saturated the entire time. I can honestly say not a single minute that day did I, for some very odd reason, wish AIX had anything to do with _my_ workday.
Figuring Mr. Sergeant knew much of what he spoke (however else would he dare to say that Linux isn't up to the task of serving content), I connected immediately to his posted web address, and this was the only response I received from his machine:
Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers error '80004005'
[Microsoft][ODBC Driver Manager] The server appears to be not available.
/v3.asp, line 55
The $99 isn't for the code, the drives are cloned and the software is free, its for support staff. If they are installing it themselves, they are committing to having it work, and supporting it through their normal channels. They have to pay for testers, to certify the few configurations they presently offer. They have to pay for devs, to tweak everything for their specific config. And they have to pay to train and staff the phone monkeys, to handle all the wacky calls.
It would be much too much of a pain to us and to them to treat Linux-equipped machines differently from MS boxes, and only have pay-as-you go support when everyone else is under warranty. They'd have to clearly identify machines with factory Linux, maybe even a special set of serial numbers, to tell who gets what support. And the cultists would probably whine about a Gates-led conspiracy then, too. So they have to have Linux trained bodies to throw at the phone bank in case some script-kiddie in Iowa talks daddy into buying him a redhat box, and then promptly blows it up doing something deeply stupid. Dell doesn't care if the end-user is an idiot, they'll still sell the machine. The normal Linux idiot filter, where by the time a person can get it to work he has to know at least a little about his machine, fails when its guaranteed to work out of the box.
Once they sell more boxes - and have metrics about how few Linux users have to call for Dell help - the margin will drop. Simple as that. The first people to buy will get charged more to pay to offset the risk Dell is taking, to add the staff before they sell the machines. As selling factory-installed redhat becomes part of normal business, and the folks needed become part of the normal staffing requirements, the cost difference will probably lean toward Linux' favor.
But you can still blame Bill Gates if you want, far be it from me to take away what little joy some of you get from life.
You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
For starters, the Linux version is sold on a different price page than the Windows 9X/NT version, and has *much* fewer options -- no dual processor options, no sound card options, misc other options missing. The options for the two pages are in different sequences, making comparison much harder too.
After grumbling a bit, I pulled up 2 browser windows, and side-by-side matched options for the following configuration:
Precision 410 MiniTower, Pentium II/450, 128mb ECC RAM, (1) 9gb SCSI HD, 21" UltraScan 1600HS monitor, Diamond Permedia 2 AGP graphics card, IOMEGA ATAPI Zip drive
The price for Windows NT: $3891
The price for Linux: $4809
What's wrong with this picture???
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
a.) Dell is the first major manufacturer to have enough gall to stand up to Microsoft and actually INSTALL Linux and not just issue a horde of press releases saying that they are thinking about it.
/.ers want to do is gripe about one thing or another...
b.) Depending on the options you choose, you CAN INDEED get a Linux-based system from Dell for cheaper than an NT system. Likewise, on certain options, they are more expensive on Linux. Dell has had to implement all new policies to support Linux, and some initial costs can be expected to help recoup from these. Just because the OS is (theoretically) free doesn't stop normal economics from taking effect -- somebody has to still stand there and either install it or copy from a drive image...
c.) Give them time... Once Dell has systems out on the market for a while, they'll work out all the bugs, and then more companies will jump on the bandwagon... I garauntee a lot of other companies are watching with some speculation on whether or not Dell will be successfull on this little venture. If we want other companies to begin to offer Linux (or for that matter, BeOS, FreeBSD, or any other MS alternative), we need to offer then a bit of support, and not start flaming them like mad. If the suits at Dell happen to be reading this, they'll be seeing very few positive threads here. Seems like all
If Dell is tacking a premium onto their Linux boxes that means they think people will pay the price. Be flattered. It also means that they think they don't have margin pressure because they are the first of the "big guys" to sell a pre-loaded, direct, Linux desktop. When other competitors show up and compete in this niche then the price will fall. --- Josh
Is it $99 worth of difference? I don't know, I don't think very many people know for sure.
I'd be happy to pay the extra $99 (for a laptop -- I put my own desktop systems together) if and only if Microsoft doesn't get a dime of my purchase.
We've got one post up there that says the Linux-configured box is $1K more than the NT box, while some other posts say that the Linux box is $200 cheaper.
Could someone do a detailed comparison?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
From DejaNews(obviously biased)website:
Deja News is one of the top destination sites on the Web, with some four to five million unique users a month who generate more than 125+ million pageviews monthly.
Which would be about 3 million hits/day. Check netcraft, and you find - Linux/Apache.
They claim to process over a million articles a day as well. And it's a remarkably responsive site.
"Images are incapable of repose." - Bachelard
For example, we've got a client that has used 4 of our SMP boxes with 100+ GB of RAID storage to help replace a couple of mainframes. I'm sure the folks at VA have similar stories. We're both offering onsite service and you can get Linux installed the way you want. No hassles, no worries.
Before anyone calls either of us a "garage" business we've just signed a lease for a new facility and VA is in the middle of relocating. Neither of us are Dell (yet :-) but we're both a long way from where we started.
--Kit
Former Inmate, VA Linux Sanitarium
Firstly , the small vendors who are linux based have gradually taken the following steps ...
- Supported linux on slightly overpriced , high end servers and PCs ( VaResearch comes to mind
... ) - Supported linux on reasonably priced high grade consumer desktop models ( eg LHS, Penguin, SWT, ASL )
- Made low cost AMD systems available ( tcu-inc )
Meanwhile, we have seen similar trends from the major PC manufacturers, who seem to be taking steps to make sure they don't lose the linux users to linux friendly shops. In the last few months, Dell has taken the following steps:- Offered linux to anyone who will buy in
- Offered "linux compatible" workstations
- Installed and supported linux on workstations
Does anyone else see a pattern ? I am betting that Dell will have linux on their consumer lines before long, and the pricing will be less discriminatory.cheers,
--Donovan
99 bucks does seem a bit too much at this point. Shit, they should be dropping it down for the cost of the RH cds, if thats the distro they are going on.
This whole "LInux INstalled on a PC at deliver"
will only fly IF its a good thing for consumers, and they are all about the bottom line.
Linux heads and the like will do the install themselves, I mean what died-in-the-wool *nixer would use a preinstall of the os with out spending more time tweeking with it, oin which csae you might as well have installed it yourself.
So to sum up MAke IT Attractive to the Consumer or this is going to go the way of 3d game controlers
Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
(I've just read this whole page, and their seems be some disagreement on if or what the additional Linux cost is at Dell.)
Don't discount the economies of scale in trying to figure out the "real" cost to Dell of supporting Linux.
If you sell computers, and
80% of your customers want operating system "X" (98)
19% of your customers want operating system "Y" (NT)
1% of your customers want operating system "Z" (Linux)
,your overhead costs for OS "Z" is going to be much higher even if OS "Z" can be obtained for $200 less than X and Y.
Ramping up an organization as big as Dell on Linux is not inconsequential. There are integration costs, testing costs, sales person training, legal costs, new business relationships to manage, reprogramming the order systems, de-standarizing the winmodem, teaching people how to pronounce and spell "Linux", and so on.
If I were them, I would charge the early (mainstream) adopters extra just so I could afford to ramp the organization up.
(Besides, they are not selling to the OC-Celery homebrew crowd. They are probably targeting small business and big corporate accounts, where a pre-install is definately worth $100 in labor costs.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Just recovered from the big feast after the LinuxWorld Conference Japan '99. At the conference, a session about large scale installation of Linux on an university campus was on the agenda. The 600 machines got delivered and installed by IBM. They do such a thing if requested. Other companies are scrambling to catch the high demand with NEC starting installation services (700.000 Yen for 50 PCs, about $5500) and CTC will start selling UltraPenguins. Sun is helping them to localize the stuff.
1.) Overall, major PC vendors like dell selling Linux machines to single users on their web site is good for Linux. Eventually, if the demand is high and they become more familiar with Linux, they will offer more hardware combinations. At this point they don't know Linux that well so I assume that at first they want to limit what they have to support.
2.) Regardless of the price relative to other Dell machines, these prices (at least for the Xeon machines) are a bit lower than VA or Penguin Computing. I'm not saying we shouldn't support Linux friendly vendors - I, for one, would rather buy my machine from VA or Penguin - but the point is that their pricing is actually competetive against what's already out there. Over time, competition will lower prices to the level of Windows machines.
3.) Many companies (including the one I work for) buy all of their PCs from Dell. Having Dell visibly support Linux may help increase the level of acceptance of Linux in companies like these.
Dell's behavior has often been less than great when it comes to supporting non-MS alternatives, but we don't have to pick nits(sp?) and flame the hell out of them when they make a stab (albeit a somewhat clumsy stab) at doing something right.
Name one. Just one.
Ever heard of Dejanews?
the link is to the netcraft survey page of the site
--
--
My sometimes helpful blog