Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||
Major systems vendors and Linux
It would seem that the folks at Dell recently asked their customers for
ideas on how to sell them more systems. The most popular idea: sell
laptops and desktop systems with Linux installed. Dell's response,
so far, seems half-hearted. The company will "certify" SUSE Linux (and,
perhaps, some other distributions) on some of their systems, but still will
not offer pre-installed systems. That is a shame; one assumes that many of
the people asking for Linux are not, necessarily, asking for the
character-building experience of installing it themselves. Still, a
"certification" that Linux should work on a given system has its value.
Companies like Dell will start selling Linux-installed systems when they see that there is money to be made by doing so. Or, if they fail to serve a real market, other companies will certainly jump in. Helping these companies see an opportunity in Linux-installed systems requires that those of us with an interest in such systems let the vendor know that we would buy them - and that we follow through when the products are made available. Pre-installed systems have a number of advantages, starting with the fact that they are an existence proof that Linux will run properly on the hardware. Even if the user eventually upgrades the system or installs another distribution altogether, the software mix and configuration files which came with the original system can be invaluable. Not having to put together a working X configuration, for example, can save a lot of time and pain. This remains true even in 2007, when distributors have been working for a decade (or more) to eliminate as much installation pain as possible. By eliminating the installation uncertainties, pre-installed systems lower the barrier to entry for those who would like to give Linux a try. When pre-installed, desktop-oriented systems are readily available, it stands to reason that the overall usage share of Linux in desktop environments will grow. In time, that growth will bring us greater mindshare - and more developers. The biggest advantage of all, however, is likely to come from a different direction. It is well known that certain vendors are not particularly concerned about whether their offerings work with free software. No amount of pressure from individual customers is likely to have much effect in changing their point of view. Should a company like Dell get into the desktop Linux business, however, that company will have a great interest in working with Linux-compatible hardware. When large systems vendors start telling the hardware manufacturers that they need to make Linux-compatible devices, those manufacturers will tend to listen. To this end, when we ask for systems with Linux installed, it is good to be specific: we want systems which work with 100% free software. A system with binary-only drivers is not the pre-installed "Linux system" that many or most of us have in mind. If a company like Dell starts shipping proprietary modules, chances are good that it will discover the associated hassles (supporting an undebuggable kernel, potential legal issues, etc.) in a hurry and change its ways. But it would be better if that discovery phase could be shorted out altogether. Making sure that the vendors know what we have in mind when we ask for "Linux systems" can only help make things happen that way. The plan for World Domination is sometimes a little vague on the details. Widespread availability of Linux-installed systems is certainly an important milestone on that plan, one which many of us expected to see some years ago. The fact that Dell's customers are calling for pre-installed systems in greater numbers suggests that we may be getting closer to achieving that objective at last. Perhaps one of these years, sometime soon, really will be the year of desktop Linux. (Log in to post comments)
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 0:35 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] The company will "certify" SUSE Linux (and, perhaps, some other distributions) on some of their systems, but still will not offer pre-installed systems. That is a shame; one assumes that many of the people asking for Linux are not, necessarily, asking for the character-building experience of installing it themselves.I recently did installations of Fedora 6 and Mandriva 2007, and found that installing a modern distribution is no longer "character-building" at all, if there are no hardware compatibility problems (which are what that certification is supposed to prevent). Just pop in a DVD, answer a few questions, and wait. This of course assumes you are satisfied with the default partitioning and software selections of the installation program, but any pre-installed Linux would probably be using similar defaults. I suspect one reason why Dell and friends are unwilling to preinstall Linux might be patent infringement liability concerns. If the customer does the installation, it is not Dell's problem. So a bare PC certified for Linux may be the best support we can expect from big vendors, until IPR laws in major jurisdictions get more sane.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 4:41 UTC (Thu) by phgrenet (subscriber, #5979) [Link] Installing Linux on a Laptop still does "character building" but less than a few years ago. See http://www.linux-on-laptops.com/dell.html.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 14:36 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] Installing Linux on a Laptop still does "character building" but less than a few years ago.I suppose this is the sort of thing the certification by the laptop vendor would fix, if done properly.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 12:35 UTC (Thu) by JohnNilsson (subscriber, #41242) [Link] This of course assumes you are satisfied with the default partitioning and software selections of the installation program So you wouldn't call trying to answer questions about "partitioning", without having the faintest idea of what a partion is, charachter-building?
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 14:56 UTC (Thu) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link] So you wouldn't call trying to answer questions about "partitioning", without having the faintest idea of what a partion is, charachter-building?The installers of the user-friendly distros have an option like "use default partitioning" or "use entire disk for linux", which a newbie is likely to select, especially since the alternative is typically labeled something like "expert mode". No, I don't think making that kind of easy decision is likely to build anyone's character. Of course, even the easiest possible installation program cannot compete with the case of no installation program needed at all. However, I recently found turning on a Dell for the first time with a pre-installed Windows XP also starts badgering you with questions, before doing anything else. But that XP copy found itself mercilessly overwritten by Linux in a matter of seconds, before getting its answers...
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 1:57 UTC (Thu) by dale77 (subscriber, #1490) [Link] Personally, I would prefer a system including binary only modules thatworked well, to a 100% open system that could not drive my hardware.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 2:59 UTC (Thu) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] Well, Windows does that very well nowadays. If you prefer vendore-supportedbinary-only drivers, why the hell would you install Linux anyway ?
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 3:31 UTC (Thu) by dale77 (subscriber, #1490) [Link] Um, because 99.9% of linux IS open. I'm not going to throw the baby outwith the bath water simply because of the 0.1% (of very useful functionality) that happens to be binary only. And furthermore I'm not going to lose the useful functionality provided by the 0.1% simply to be an open puritan.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 6:17 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Linux itself (and the major distributions too) is 100% open. The "non-open" parts are not Linux. You might well be happy now with the "0.1% non-open stuff", but just try to update the software on the machine (or migrate to another distribution), and you'll learn about pain. Then consider that the binary blobs will be abandoned (together with the hardware) in some 2 or 3 years time, and your perfectly working machine becomes a brick (or worse, is running obsolete, security-wise bug-ridden software).
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 6:29 UTC (Thu) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] Those who hold that the short-term pragmatism of having accelerated 3d graphics or working WiFi outweighs the long-term usefulness of free drivers are surely placing more value on those capabilities than 1/1000 of the overall system, wouldn't you agree?
That aside, maybe that's for your system today. What will you do when your next computer has 20% non-open parts? Or when the computer after that needs a binary-only SATA driver? Or when the one after that will only allow you to install a pre-approved operating system?
For by agreeing to compromise on the sufficiently useful bits, you're telling the industry that closed hardware is perfectly acceptable, so long as the returns justify it. It is your right to do so - but is that really the future you want to bring about?
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 13:43 UTC (Thu) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] It's a step-by-step process. First you need to get some Linux customers, and you must try not to drive them off immediately when they realize that their hardware doesn't work.
When these new users have a good primary experience, they may actually stick with Linux, and after learning a bit more, actually prefer hardware that needs no proprietary drivers.
Hardly anybody (except for RMS, perhaps) has been totally anti-proprietary all their lives. You start out small, you grow. In the beginning, people will not be ready to accept that they have to pay more for their hardware, or to make do without important parts of the functionality (such as 3d).
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 20:19 UTC (Thu) by liamh (subscriber, #4872) [Link] Not even RMS. Way-back-when in the late 80s and early 90s when there was no completely free OS, he developed lots of software (emacs, gcc, etc.) for non-free systems like SunOS. I believe his reasoning was that it was permissible because there wasn't an alternative, and drew an analogy to killing for self defense.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 12, 2007 6:26 UTC (Mon) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] But remember that one of the sparks which led to the whole thing developing was RMS' disgust at a printer manufacturer's refusal to divulge exactly the kind of information under discussion in this thread:
http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ch01.html
Don't you think RMS would have been a good deal less tolerant of Solaris had Sun withheld details of how to make system calls on the grounds that it was "proprietary information"? (Or had Sun prohibited redistribution of any software compiled with their C compiler under GPL-like terms, for that matter?)
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 12, 2007 6:14 UTC (Mon) by lysse (subscriber, #3190) [Link] "First you need to get some Linux customers..."
- hold it a second! I use Linux more or less exclusively, but I've never thought of myself as a Linux _customer_, and I never will; I think even the term entrenches us in a commercial-software mindset, where there's a sharp divide between producers and consumers of software.
Such a divide is both contrary to the whole nature of a Unix-like system (as well as to what RMS was trying to do) and anti-freedom.
Linux doesn't need customers. It needs _participants_. Leave the consumption to Windows.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 16:45 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I would agree with you, but binary drivers tend to make systems brittle, non-open and difficult to diagnose. Linux + binary drivers is certainly more crash-prone than Linux alone, and users will not discriminate if crashes come from the binary drivers (0.01%) or from the free 99.9%.That's not to say that you are impure or unclean or any such nonsense if you use proprietary drivers; do as you like with your machine. It's only that they are not suited for beginners, and therefore a bad pick for preinstallation. If you set up a system for beginners, what do you prefer? Tell them that they have no 3D at all, and they would need a different video card for that; or give them an unaccountable machine you cannot properly diagnose? It depends of course, but unless it was for a hardcore gamer I would choose no proprietary drivers. I think it is the proper course for the Dells of the world too; that road leads to using Intel integrated drivers, and if Nvidia and ATI want a piece of the action they will have to open their drivers. So we all benefit in the end.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 8, 2007 8:56 UTC (Thu) by robert_s (guest, #42402) [Link] It only takes 0.1% of black box code to make a system undebuggable.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 11:29 UTC (Thu) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] Yeah, well sure, let others carry the load for you. If there weren't others willing to sacrifice for you there would be no GNU operating system :)
Where my hardware money goes Posted Mar 1, 2007 8:58 UTC (Thu) by thyrsus (subscriber, #21004) [Link] Mostly IBM, not because I buy Red Hat pre-installed, but because I *can* and therefore I have reasonable assurance that it will be possible to do it myself. Sun also gets some of my business for this reason. When a Lenovo executive made that spiteful remark about Linux support a few months back, I sent a memo to my boss saying we need to start looking for a new laptop and desktop vendor, perhap HP, since they have models that run Linux. Luckily, that Linux distancing was at most a trial balloon at Lenovo. If Dell gets serious about Linux certification, I'll give them a new look.
Where my hardware money goes Posted Mar 1, 2007 9:31 UTC (Thu) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] Well, HP already sells Linux certified systems, including laptops. (They used to sell a Linux-installed laptop, but that model was discontinued, and of course you can get Linux pre-installed on HP server hardware, but I think that's also true for Dell?) I'm not sure what IBM has to do with any of this, beyond getting a license fee from Lenovo to let Lenovo put an "IBM" badge on some of their laptops.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 9:35 UTC (Thu) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] Dell might be more successful selling Linux preinstalled if they target inexpensive notebooks instead of high-end workstations like they have in the past.
Vendors, laptops and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 12:25 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] The money margins are not there. Most low-end notebooks make their costs off of the rebate Microsoft pays vendors to install the OS. The vendor then hopes to make it in size of sales and people upgrading the hardware enough that they get premium on parts (or people saying they need that high-end workstation)
Microsoft makes its money off of people then buying office, etc.
If there is not enough money to be made, a vendor is not going to try it as their starter market.
Vendors, laptops and Linux Posted Mar 5, 2007 8:43 UTC (Mon) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] The money margins are not there. Most low-end notebooks make their costs off of the rebate Microsoft pays vendors to install the OS.I didn't know that. So if I buy an hp for $500, Windows is not adding to the cost, it's reducing the cost? I guess Windows is useful after all. :-)
Vendors, laptops and Linux Posted Mar 5, 2007 9:30 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] Well, technically it's the lamers that see an icon for AOL on their new desktop and sign up for it that are reducing your cost. Windows just enables their money to travel through AOL, through Dell, to you.
If this business model is to be attempted under Linux, it will be Linspire that tries it first. :)
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 1, 2007 14:28 UTC (Thu) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] Sorry to be the devil's advocate here, but...
It is one thing to ask for pre-installed Linux on a web site, and another thing to actually buy one. Initiatives like this one always receive a lot of attention in the community. But this has been tried before, often without commercial success. It is more important to dicuss how the community can help such an initiative than to be radical and insist on "100% free" systems. Once a vendor makes real money with preinstalled Linux, others will follow very soon. Creating "Ready for Linux" systems creates costs (for development, cerftification, testing) which need to be covered.
Installation is not the problem nowadays. The question is what people do with their preinstalled systems. Who is going to actually use the preinstalled Linux? Long time Linux people will reinstall anyway (upgrade, get their distro of choice, make their partitions, etc.). Windows users will try to install their favorite applications and games, fail miserably, and probably wipe Linux off the hard disk on the next day. This leaves basically only people with very low demands as users of the preinstalled OS.
The user experience is extremely important. Many people are curious about Linux, but premature claims that "Linux is ready for the desktop" have caused many people to try it and be disappointed. This is the worst thing that can happen to Linux because these people go around telling others that Linux sucks (and we can't even resent them for doing so). If this happens, "lowering the barrier" turns out to have an adverse effect on "mindshare". Unfortunately, many pre-installed Linux systems are badly engineered, so that most of the minor hardware (i.e. everything except hard disk and VGA) isn't even configured properly.
Finally, I doubt that HW vendors will develop "a great interest in working with Linux-compatible hardware", as the article suggests. 99% of business is still made with Windows desktops. These dictate the requirements, and the price dictates the choice of HW components. If the components happen to work with Linux, fine. Otherwise, the Linux customers have to renounce advanced features, or to download propietary drivers, or to buy a more expensive model.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 8, 2007 0:40 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Installation is still a problem due to hardware detection and drivers. Even on quite an old Dell Dimension PC, I found my video card was mis-detected by Ubuntu, but OK with Knoppix (admittedly there was on-board and separate video card). Copying the Knoppix Xorg.conf then meant I had font problems. Not an experience I'd inflict on anyone else, and required some effort and research to resolve, despite my having used Linux on and off for 10 years and Unix longer than that.
Why on earth would a 'Windows user' want to buy a Linux box? The market for these boxes is people who have heard about Linux and probably read quite a bit on the Net and magazines, but don't have much expertise. Providing Linux working out of the box means they can begin to get experience without the hassle of hardware problems, and enjoy the more rewarding parts of Linux such as easy software installation (on Ubuntu anyway), lots of bundled software, helpful community for tweaking, etc.
'Long-time Linux users' would buy pre-installed Linux if the extra cost is minimal, or if it means the hardware is guaranteed to work - but they'd probably want to just buy a no-OS box.
The problem with pre-installed is... Posted Mar 1, 2007 15:01 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] The thing that I absolutely hate about systems with Windows pre-installed is that they always come with a bunch of third-party crap installed. Most of this stuff will never be used, so it has to be manually uninstalled, which distributers seem to want to make as difficult as possible. Sometimes unistalling the software can even break your system.
I've worked for two companies that work with Windows. Neither company used the pre-installed Windows on their servers and one of them never even used it on their desktops (they used pre-created images that they would Ghost to the desktops).
I suppose the majority of home users don't know/care about the extra crap that gets put on a pre-installed computer. But then most of them don't know/care about Linux either.
The problem with pre-installed is... spyware Posted Mar 2, 2007 7:25 UTC (Fri) by Lorenzo (guest, #260) [Link] Let's also recall that Dell has been accused of installing spyware on its Windows systems.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/15/dell_my_way_contr... and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyWay_Searchbar
Frankly, I'd prefer that Dell offered a laptop (or other desktop, workstations, ...) with no OS of any kind, but with known good hardware that is known to work with generic kernels and readily available modules.
Having them try and pick and choose one or more distributions at minimum will piss off those whose distribution isn't available from dell.
The problems with preinstallation of Linux Posted Mar 7, 2007 0:42 UTC (Wed) by rakoenig (subscriber, #29855) [Link] Today installing a Linux distribution is quite easy, sometimes even more easy than installing the product from Microsoft. Working in the Linux desktop business myself I frequently face the question of a preinstalled Linux. The question always rises up as a good idea and gets buried when the discussion comes to the costs and efforts you have to invest.
Preinstallation would mean you need to setup a Linux image that is then copied to the hard disks during manufacturing. Even this process is critical because the size of your image matters about the "turnaround cycles" in your production lines.
The next issue is: Developing an image that on the first run then configures user settings like network, users, machine name and so on. This is probably time consuming.
Then your image needs to be tested to avoid that the customer ends up with an unsuable system. Testing means costs, testing means time. In a "time to market"-business you need to get ressources for that.
Then you should provide a sort of "bare metal recovery" so that every user is able to restore the factory installation by putting the image back on his disk. Problems can be: Shall we protect the /home directory from being overwritten or not and so on.
Even with this basic issues solved you will run into a much much deeper trouble. What are you going to pack on your preinstallation? This starts by selecting the distribution and then selecting the packets.
As far as the distribution is concerned you can bet that whatever distribution you will use you will get a high percentage of "customers" that complain because you used distro A and not distro B. Even if you switch from A to B you will experience that this doesn't improve your situation.
Chosing the distro is also connected to support issues. If you chose enterprise level distros like SLED or RHEL client, then the distrubutors will offer support if you buy a license, but license costs are what vendors want to aoid when offering Linux compatible systems.
Even if you would solve the question of the distro, then you would get the same feedback for your selection of packets. Just imagine the MTA, you can chose between Exim, Postfix and Sendmail. Same applies for office packages, for editors and so on. Sometimes you could install a superset, sometimes not.
All this is a big hassle that usually the vendors want to avoid.
The problems with preinstallation of Linux Posted Mar 8, 2007 9:01 UTC (Thu) by robert_s (guest, #42402) [Link] "The next issue is: Developing an image that on the first run then configures user settings like network, users, machine name and so on. This is probably time consuming."
You mean like Ubuntu's OEM mode?
That must be a hard switch to flip.
Wrong problem Posted Mar 7, 2007 23:36 UTC (Wed) by lacostej (subscriber, #2760) [Link] There at some many distros that most people would reinstall anyway.
I spend today more time identifying whether a new machine runs Linux well than installing Linux on it.
I'd rather Dell sell hardware that is certified to run Linux. Some sort of grid with each component marked from 0 to 3 stars.
3 fully supported
Make a column for plain OSS support, one for binary support.
That's all I need.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 8, 2007 4:08 UTC (Thu) by macson_g (subscriber, #12717) [Link] I'd like to point that selling pre-installed Linux sometimes doesn't mean that Linux is supported on the hardware, but even may be harmful for Linux (or at least it's perception).
Few weeks ago I've bought a laptop for my sister (Acer Aspire 3680). It had Linux preinstalled, which makes me happy, as I planned to install one on it anyway. I thought that if it comes with Linux, I can be sure that all the hardware works. Besides, it was like 80$-100$ cheaper from the same version with Windows XP.
Words can not describe my disappointment when I plugged and boot it for the first time: it throws my into shell promtp - white letters in black screen and a shell prompt. Funny: this is exactly how my sister imagined Linux.
I've installed KUbuntu ant it works fine now. Except of WIFI, card reader and camera.
Major systems vendors and Linux Posted Mar 8, 2007 23:53 UTC (Thu) by jwalden (guest, #41159) [Link]
You're joking, right? Dell already ships proprietary modules in the form of 99% of the code in anything they ship with Windows, and I'm sure they're well aware that this means they can't easily change some aspects of that software/hardware — yet they do okay. An undebuggable kernel is a complete red herring — what hurts is not getting the necessary support from hardware and software vendors whose components you ship. Dell is not going to have a problem getting these things if it wants to get them. This is the key issue: will people work to fix the problems with my computer/software when they show up? Binary module vendors can do this just as easily as open-source module vendors (if they choose to do so, and for Dell they will), so the open/closed distinction here is meaningless (except possibly for the first day or two after an open-source patch might become available when a proprietary patch is still being developed/tested — but this is a short time if the vendor truly cares, isn't always the case for all bugfixes, and isn't going to be the top concern of 90% of the people to whom Dell sells laptops).
|
|||||||||||