Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation)
Matt Hartley
opines on problems selling Linux machines at big-box stores.
"Stop selling junk to those who dont want it in the first place.
From Xandros to Linspire, even more recently gOS: In each instance, I have watched in amazement as otherwise perfectly good Linux distributions were bundled with extremely low-end hardware and sold to people who honestly were not in the market for what was being offered."
(Log in to post comments)
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 12, 2008 22:47 UTC (Thu) by shredwheat (guest, #4188) [Link] If I remember the old articles correctly, Walmart was actually happy with the sales of their Linux machines. In the end they just decided not to restock them because of their very precise shelf-space to profit comparisons.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 20, 2008 16:31 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] If I remember the old articles correctly, Walmart was actually happy with the sales of their Linux machines. I don't know what it means for a corporation to be happy, but this sounds like meaningless PR to me, because the fact relevant to this article is: they just decided not to restock them because of their very precise shelf-space to profit comparisons. I.e. they found Linux machines to a be a money loser, so stopped offering them. Money loser means Walmart ends up with less money in the bank than if it used the shelf space for something else (e.g. Windows computers). The article goes on to speculate on how Walmart might have used the shelf space differently so as to contain Linux systems and still generate more profit than any other use of the shelf space.
Compatibility checker Posted Jun 12, 2008 22:57 UTC (Thu) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I think it's a good idea to have a program that determines Linux compatibility of the hardware. And it's doesn't have to be Windows-only - it can be cross-platform to simplify testing and data entry. The hard part will be maintaining the compatibility database, but it can be done.
Compatibility checker Posted Jun 12, 2008 23:45 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link] The problem has always been having a good database. From the history of attempts to document hardware compatibility function in one place, I remember at least two good tries that simply stopped operating after a certain amount of time. It's a non-trivial pursuit, and to keep it going requires support. Now, perhaps a module-autoloading hw detection program for the kernel, that finds what hardware is present and loads up the right drivers -- I know some of the live-cd's and many distros do something like this at boot -- would be amenable to use as a hardware-testing program. Keep the kernel updated, and let it essentially tell you what's supported and what's not. Now, this won't help for out-of-tree drivers, obviously. But run in emulation, maybe it'd be a start?
Compatibility checker Posted Jun 13, 2008 7:40 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link] Autoloading is already the way things work, and that's the most compelling feature of Linux IMO: I can take the HD of one computer and plug it in another and it just works. Try that with that other OS! To find out what has driver support and what has not, lshw is your friend.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 0:01 UTC (Fri) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] This is a real problem but the solution is fairly simple. Most people understand that a Mac is a different animal from a PC. Well, a Mac is now just an overpriced PC on the hardware side. It is the OS that is different, just like Linux is also a totally different environment that runs on PC hardware. The problem is Apple goes to great effort to hide that, marking out the Mac as 'different.' while most Linux advocates push the idea of converting from Windows to Linux as more of an upgrade instead of a change of platform. This is what leads to the mindset in the article where if you can't promise that every obscure device someone already owns will work with a new preloaded Linux PC that linux==fail. Nobody would suggest that Apple is a failure because every half baked win* device doesn't plug and play on a Mac. We need to rework the mindset so that people expect a Linux PC to be compatible with Linux hardware and run Linux software, and that SOME Windows stuff will also work. After all, with many distributions boasting >10,000 packages we don't have much to be ashamed of on the software front and if you pick the hardware from known to work stuff there is good variety there as well.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 2:12 UTC (Fri) by johnny (subscriber, #10110) [Link] I kind of agree with you and I've often thought the same thought. But you have to remember that except for Windows, Linux is the operating system that has drivers for the most hardware. Therefore, it's natural that many distros tout Linux as a replacement for Windows on "Windows hardware". And making a line of "Linux hardware" is already being done by some laptop manufacturers.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 4:27 UTC (Fri) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] > But you have to remember that except for Windows, Linux is the > operating system that has drivers for the most hardware. Sorry, no, Linux supports more hardware than Windows, has for a number of years now. I've been saying this in my talks since June of 2006, and it was independently verified by a Microsoft employee last year.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 6:08 UTC (Fri) by lutchann (subscriber, #8872) [Link] Sure, Linux supports tons of hardware, if you're willing to futz with downloading, compiling, and configuring drivers. Graphics drivers are the standard example, of course, but there are many others. Got a Minolta Page Pro printer? The first Google hit says, "I have a Konica Minolta 1350 that works fine with Ubuntu after compiling the drivers and grabbing the PPD file from [URL]...." Want to transfer video off your DV camcorder with Firewire? "raw1394 was not in my /dev directory so I had to enter 'modprobe raw1394' which made it show up..." Hell, maybe you just want your internal SD card reader to auto-mount SD cards when you insert them. "...then edit /etc/fstab, and add the following..." Compare this to Windows XP, where in each case the hardware either worked out of the box, or only required a driver installation auto-run from a CD that shipped with the hardware. By the way, these aren't extreme examples--all three of them are directly from my own experience doing tech support for my family. "Supporting" hardware shouldn't just mean that there's driver code somewhere that you or I could compile and use; it has to mean that installation and setup doesn't require using a text editor or terminal. The kernel may be there, but userspace still has some way to go.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 7:17 UTC (Fri) by janpla (guest, #11093) [Link] These are good and valid examples - but I would argue that this is one of the advantages of Linux: that you can do this. Not so much because it lets you optimise the kernel, but because it is open and allows you to get as close to the system, HW and SW, as you like. Of course, not everybody wants to get that close - they just want it to work effortlessly, a view that I sympathise with. But even that gap has been bridged in many cases; to the extent, in fact, where I have to and modify the system to stop it from always mounting CDs, playing DVDs and what have you. I don't mind that too much - I know how to do; in Windows I would often not be able to. I think Linux can already do what XP does, where you "just install a driver"; that is after all what the loadable modules are all about. Of course, if you have customized your kernel, chances are that a downloaded module doesn't have the exact right version label (or whatever); that is something you can't do in Windows, of course, so you don't have that problem. I'm sure this is something that can easily be overcome in Linux, perhaps by making a driver dowload-, compile- and install program that does all the necessary.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 15:36 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] There's a gap between "has a driver" and "hardware just works when you plug it in." Greg and the other kernel hackers have the system well-supplied with drivers, but the last part is tricky.The driver was there for using my new Ogg-compatible media player, but I needed to find a semi-obscure config setting to get it to come up in Rhythmbox.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 15, 2008 8:09 UTC (Sun) by Requiem (guest, #51519) [Link] If I bought a machine off the shelf and tried to install Linux onto it, there would probably be at least one piece of hardware that is either a pain, or just plain won't work. Install windows onto the machine I'm using right now, and it won't work either, because I had no intention of making it work with windows, and didn't bother to check. Also, drivers in windows are a PITA, and can take hours to deal with.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 19, 2008 21:41 UTC (Thu) by deleteme (guest, #49633) [Link] Well drivers in Windows are actually quite ok, sure it takes a couple of hours the first time, but once you have done that 5 times you know the drill and it's not that hard anymore. With linux is usually down to command line, and with special things to do for each different kind of hardware. In Windows you get a package that solves stuff for a given version of Windows. That's bad when you need to upgrade, but good to get things working out of the box.
a little offtopic... Posted Jun 14, 2008 1:43 UTC (Sat) by higuita (guest, #32245) [Link] >Sure, Linux supports tons of hardware, if you're willing to futz with >downloading, compiling, and configuring drivers. No, it already support tons of hardware without you doing nothing, not even "insert the hardware maker CD" for drivers like windows. Yes, there are still bad hardware, some have external drivers, other no drive at all, but also in windows you have bad drivers and even lack of drivers (lose the CD for some hardware and you are totally lost... or no drivers if a new windows version is released!! dont belive?! try a windows 64bits and cry) > Graphics drivers are the standard example, of course, but there are any others. Bad example... you have free driver that autoload without any problem, but have less features. For all features you sometime have to use the proprietary driver, but they are easy to install and most distros already take care of that also >Got a Minolta Page Pro printer? The first Google hit says, "I have a Konica >Minolta 1350 that works fine with Ubuntu after compiling the drivers and grabbing > the PPD file from [URL]...." you are luck!! that is a winprinter, that printer was designer to work in windows, period. Even MacOSX cant use it (unless you do the same thing as for linux there are simply some hardware that will not work, not for linux fault directly, but by hardware maker fault. Without drivers or proper documentation. if you have a car, you cant buy any auto part, you have to check if its compatible. The good part is if you nag the maker to release a (GPL) driver or at least, proper documentation, it will work in the future. But again, isnt different from windows, there are many older (win)printers that simply dont work in windows Vista (or even windows XP) > Want to transfer video off your DV camcorder with Firewire? "raw1394 was not in my >/dev directory so I had to enter 'modprobe raw1394' which made it show up..." Distro or udev bug, please report to the distro >Hell, maybe you just want your internal SD card reader to auto-mount SD cards when you insert >them. "...then edit /etc/fstab, and add the following..." Also distro bug, that is a removable device, like a floppy of cdrom, should show up when inserted/loaded... please report to the distro > Compare this to Windows XP, where in each case the hardware either worked out >of the box, or only required a driver installation auto-run from a CD that >shipped with the hardware. try losing that CD... try using that CD in the next window release... try older hardware... hell, try to buy a MacOSX only hardware and see if it works in windows XP. You are trying to compare windows-only hardware with open hardware. yes, end user dont care about that, but they must care at least a little, presure over the maker is needed, windows-only hardware should be ignored and open hardware prefered. If someone have windows-only hardware, complain alot to the maker, with time it helps alot (see ati, via, various wireless makers, printer makers, etc) i agree with you, hardware should be just plug and play!! what i dont agree is trying to say that this problem doesnt exist in windows, it just there, mostly in older or no-brand hardware and of course, new windows releases. the source of the problem is not the OS, its the hardware makers
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 14, 2008 12:08 UTC (Sat) by helios (guest, #52549) [Link] lutchman - not having much luck finding your email address...probably looking right over it but none the less, I would like to discuss something with you concerning your comment. Not critically...I want to quote it and I don't want to do it without your permission. As well, I would like to delve into one particular part of it that would well overwhelm the comment wordcount limit. helios at fixedbylinux dott kommm
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 10:09 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] I doesn't really matter to me if Linux supports more hardware when it doesn't support (fully) the hardware I have...
turn around statistics Posted Jun 13, 2008 12:21 UTC (Fri) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link] > Sorry, no, Linux supports more hardware than Windows, has for a number of years now. That's because you use pro-linux-kernel counting method: 1) Imagine you have 10 drivers to 10 devices, and there were sold 1 million units for each of the devices. And there is 1 devices for which there were sold 90 million units, and you dont have a driver for it. So you have drivers for 90% types of hardware, but you support only 10% hardware on the market. Now if windows support only one that 90 million device - it has 10% drivers, but support 90% hardware on the market. 2) I don't know if you count only "out of the box" support, or include all those CDs with drivers for windows, that hardware manufactures provide. 3) You dont count drivers for scanners and printers, saying that it is user-space drivers and not your responsibility. But it doesn't matter for user, that you are not responsible! Printer and Scanner does not work => fatal exception, reboot to windows forever. So only Kernel-space driver count is deceptive incorrect count.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 13:39 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] I've always felt that the claim was a bit weaselish. Linux supports all the ancient old obsolete stuff that is probably not in your box, but likely does not support some of the latest stuff that *is* likely to be in your box. Should most of us really care if Linux supports ISA modem cards from the 80s and 90s?
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 15:30 UTC (Fri) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link]
> Linux supports all the ancient old obsolete stuff that is probably not
> in your box, but likely does not support some of the latest stuff that
> *is* likely to be in your box.
{sigh}
I take it you did not read my "State of Linux Drivers" report a few
months ago then at http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/linux_driver_project_statu...
Anyway, yes, it's always upsetting that your specific machine is somehow
not supported for one device or another, but that does not mean that
Linux does not support more individual types of devices overall than
another operating system.
And, if this bothers you so much, why not help to solve the problem by
- telling the manufacturers of the hardware you want Linux support
- working to write drivers for the hardware
Complaining on a random message board gets us nowhere.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 16:47 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] Linux does not support more individual types of devices overall than another operating system.Who really cares? It's nice for marketing, but the sad fact is that most new video cards are not properly supported and most desktops/laptops tend to have these cards.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 17:14 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] Anyway, yes, it's always upsetting that your specific machine is somehow not supported for one device or another, but that does not mean that Linux does not support more individual types of devices overall than another operating system. I think some people are justifiably irked by the manifest speciousness of such claims. And, if this bothers you so much, why not help to solve the problem by: telling the manufacturers of the hardware you want Linux support; working to write drivers for the hardware Complaining on a random message board gets us nowhere. And I think some people are justifiably irked by thinly veiled ad hominem retorts. And I think vacuous statements like "Linux supports more individual types of devices overall than any other operating system" do more harm than good on the whole, so complaining when statements like that are made, while perhaps not getting us anywhere, may ameliorate the insidious effects of the statements themselves, and make them less likely to become pervasive. Larry
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 19:20 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link] Greg. Get your head out of the sand. You say "my specific box". But the fact of the matter is that one must still, in 2008, be very careful when buying hardware intended to run Linux. My clients are used to just going out and buying hardware based upon its merits. Having to look for one that works with a particular OS is a foreign concept to them. I even ordered a couple of System76 boxes with Ubuntu preloaded recently... and the SATA chipset was not recognized by the latest CentOS. It's still a mine field... just fewer mines now. Yes, I have read your State of Linux Drivers press release. Yes, I complain to vendors... who usually don't even understand what I am complaining about since their hardware is compatible with most all computers sold. And you of all people should be aware of the real problem. You have a team of driver writers at the ready to do the work for free... and the vendors aren't interested. The vendors which do not already support Linux do not care about supporting Linux. And they don't care about your help. That is the sad reality which we face.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 26, 2008 20:35 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (subscriber, #2203) [Link] Ok, this thread is probably dead anyway... but rereading this I finally realized what was bugging me about it: "Anyway, yes, it's always upsetting that your specific machine is somehow not supported for one device or another, but that does not mean that Linux does not support more individual types of devices overall than another operating system." You missed the forest for the trees. People don't care about devices, they care about machines for the most part. When you buy a PC it supports Windows 100%. No it probably doesn't support any other VERSION than the one it ships with but it supports that version 100%. The same is hard to say about Linux unless you buy your machines on eBay. For desktop machines I am savvy enough to buy parts from newegg and roll out a lab of machines, but if Linux is just for people like thee and me we should forget about "World Domination". Except for the few machines now being offered as preloads, buying a machine off the shelf (or dell.com, etc) with the expectation that 100% of the hardware will work is delusional. Even if you do your research with great care there is the problem of the OEM swapping a part out on you different from the one that you confirmed was supported to a slightly different revision that isn't. The infamous 3c905[abc...] debacle is alive and well, now repeated in ever shifting revisions of wireless chipsets. And if one device is unsupported then the machine is unsupported. Unless you think a machine without sound is going to be acceptable as a modern desktop. Or without a working network, or only a VESA framebuffer, etc. Perhaps there are laptops running Linux in service that suspend and resume reliably, dock and undock, etc.... but I have yet to see one. Note that by reliable I mean not only that it has been shown to actually do the deed, but one doesn't get in the habit of ensuring everything is saved because there is a 1 in 10 chance of it failing to wake up, that updating to a distro supplied errata kernel has a low probablility of breaking suspend, etc. These problems are only going to be solved by OEMs and other vendors caring enough to fix them, chasing their taillights and reverse engineering drivers can't fix these problems. What geeks can do folks like yourself have and are doing, but getting to the next level needs the suits.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 15, 2008 21:51 UTC (Sun) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] Yes, Linux supports more hardware than Windows. However, Windows supports more of the _common_ hardware than Linux.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 16, 2008 22:17 UTC (Mon) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] "common" to whom? And where do you get this information from? Who decides what is "common" and what is not?
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 16, 2008 23:57 UTC (Mon) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link] > Who decides what is "common" and what is not? amount of units sold "decides" what is common and what is not
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 17, 2008 0:12 UTC (Tue) by gregkh (subscriber, #8) [Link] >> Who decides what is "common" and what is not? > amount of units sold "decides" what is common and what is not Great, do you have a reference for this list of "common" devices by amount of units sold so that I can refer to it to determine where Linux lacks support?
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 17, 2008 11:03 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] "Amount" vs "number", basically. It's hard to do proper measurements, but it's enough to take a look to see that it's true. When was the last time you plugged a graphics card or wifi into some Windows PC only to find that there are no drivers and it's not supported? Of course there are _some_ devices like that, e.g. old Sun HME PCI network cards, but they are far from being "common".
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 19, 2008 6:39 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link] graphics cards and wifi cards are the two big pain points at the moment. for both types of devices the biggest problem has been the vendors not providing info and therefor the need to reverse-engineer the cards. This has been changing over the last year, but it takes time for people to absorb the data from the specs and turn it into working code. I expect that the success on ATI cards will change drastically in the next year now that the specs are available. it also depends on your definition of success. for servers that just need basic video, the success rate is near 100% for desktops that are willing to stick to vendor provided kernels and vendor provided binary drivers, the success rate has been pretty good as well. for desktops that don't care much about performance the success rate is also fairly good (it's been a _long_ time since I ran into a box I couldn't get an X desktop on) however, if you define success as getting top performance and taking advantage of all the features of the various cards while maintaining the freedom to compile your own kernel, the success rate has been very poor wifi is also looking up, but still with limits due to vendors not being willing to share the needed info. reverse engineering cards requires that they be purchased after they are released and a significant amount of work done before the driver can be released. if you are unlucky enough to buy a laptop in the meantime that has such a device in it, you are out of luck (for a while anyway) however, outside of these two areas, when was the last time you plugged something into your machine that Linux didn't recognise?
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 20, 2008 14:05 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] Several years ago it was graphics cards and sound. In a few years from now it might be physics accelerators and DRM stuff. And graphics cards. And of course power management. What I'm going to say may be not popular, but whatever: the biggest problem is _not_ that vendors do not provide info. The biggest problem is that vendors don't provide the drivers. Sure, for trivial devices, e.g. most NICs, documentation for hardware is enough, but with complicated hardware two problems appear: 1. hardware has "issues" that are not documented, because either they are not known, or there was no need for documentation other than a single email to the driver guys; 2. hardware revisions differ, and people not employed by hardware manufacturer rarely have a chance to test all the revisions. Basically, getting a piece of hardware to work, by fixing or working around hardware bugs, requires work on both sides - hardware and software. Of course writing drivers by hardware manufacturer has its problems. The code often (or rather, usually) suck^Wis not pretty. Manufacturer might not want to support some obscure configurations, like Linux-2.2 on sun3x. But there is no better way for making hardware work than making hardware vendors provide the drivers. With Linux, there is one more problem, however: the kernel guys seem to be doing everything they can to make that harder for vendors, by changing driver APIs and ABIs for no good reason (official "explanation" about how stable API/ABI for drivers is evil can be easily proven false the same way as Linus' theory about crashdumps - if these reasons were valid, other operating systems would have problems, and they don't). _That_ is the biggest problem. Of course someone _will_ finally grow up, like with kernel debugging or threads. ;-)
Driver support in Windows vs. Linux Posted Jun 26, 2008 20:20 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link] When was the last time you plugged a graphics card or wifi into some Windows PC only to find that there are no drivers and it's not supported?Will a mere Ethernet card or a hard disk controller satisfy you? I have a plain NE2000-compatible ethernet card based on the Winbond 89C940. It came with Windows 95 drivers, and has always worked nicely with any version of Linux I tried. When W95 stopped working after a hardware upgrade, I "upgraded" Windows to W98, but that did not have a driver for this card (and neither did I find a driver for download). Likewise for W98SE and WME. At least this saved me the effort to install a firewall for Windows. Eventually, WXP came with a driver for this card, many years after Linux. Another badly supported thing with Windows is hard disk controllers. In my new motherboard I have an ICH9R, which of course I use in AHCI mode. WXP does not have an AHCI driver, but it allows you to supply one; but not on CD, on a floppy disk! Fortunately, I still have a floppy drive, which saw it's first action in a decade or more. Trying the ICH9R RAID mode also lead to unpleasant experiences, which could have been avoided if Windows had software RAID support like Linux has. I eventually decided to drop the idea of using RAID1 for Windows, while I do use it for Linux.
(in)compatible hardware Posted Jun 17, 2008 11:52 UTC (Tue) by szh (guest, #23558) [Link] I dont have. But there are lists of compatible hardware, with marked parts which dont work in Linux (obviously all laptop hardware work under windows, though may be just under one of the two: XP, Vista) http://www.leenooks.com/ - INcompatibility lists http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/Webcams http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/Modems http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/TV-tuners http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/Audio http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/Printers http://www.leenooks.com/page/show/Wifi http://en.opensuse.org/HCL/Laptops - separate page for each vendor, red crosses quickly show whats missing http://en.opensuse.org/HCL/Video_Cards https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LaptopTestingTeam - page link per laptop https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HardwareSupport/ search www.ubuntuhcl.org with "1.0" (Doesn't works) score: http://www.google.com/custom?q=1.0&sitesearch=ubuntuh... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/HCL/Machines/Laptops has links to major vendors' websites with currently sold laptop models. P.S. Neither suspend-to-ram nor suspend-to-disk work on dell latitude D610 in default OpenSuse 10, 10.2, 10.3 kernels.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 2:39 UTC (Fri) by Erich_J_Ritzmann (guest, #39670) [Link] "Mac is now just an overpriced PC" You've never used a Mac, by sounds of it. After using Linux extensively since '93, I ended up with an iBook in 2000... experience suggests that Aqua is light years ahead in terms of the user experience. The best part about Linux is the freedom. The attraction is that you can buy a new box and Linux will run on it (though at times I've needed to "debug" the device drivers to make it work). But, I can use that piece of hardware for ten years and it will continue to run well even keeping the latest version of Linux on there. Apple by contrast, is in the process of saying good bye to supporting all three of my PPC computers, the most recent purchased less than two years ago. I am hoping that YDL does not give up so soon. I am not averse to paying for new software that adds value to my existing investment in hardware. Linux will eventually succeed regardless of Walmart. Much more significant are companies like Oracle, Sun, and Red Hat, in my opinion. Where I work we use Oracle in a big way. Someday quite soon that will be Oracle on Linux. Sometime after that, I will be replacing my XP workstation with something more compatible ;-) Linux is close. And commercial software is not the enemy... but will become the driving force that puts Linux into the mainstream, in my opinion. Having talked about strength of Linux and the weakness of Mac -- Mac is still the best user experience going, from the hardware integration to the user interface. But I am hovering at the precipice of getting that YDL PPC server instead of the Power Mac as my next home machine.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 3:28 UTC (Fri) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link] I am hovering at the precipice of getting that YDL PPC server instead of the Power Mac as my next home machineWhat are the benefits of that PPC based YDL box over say a similarly priced quad core Intel or AMD box?
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 7:43 UTC (Fri) by Los__D (subscriber, #15263) [Link] "You've never used a Mac, by sounds of it." I guess he should have said: "Mac is now just an overpriced PC, that OSX is willing to run on (without cheating it)". The Mac itself IS just an overpriced PC (Though a beautiful one at that), but you need one to run OSX.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 9:28 UTC (Fri) by gowen (guest, #23914) [Link] "Mac is now just an overpriced PC" You've never used a Mac, by sounds of it... experience suggests that Aqua is light years ahead in terms of the user experience.Nice selective quote. What he actually said is "Mac is now just an overpriced PC on the hardware side". I don't think a discussion of the merits of Aqua is going to undermine his comments about hardware.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 10:45 UTC (Fri) by davidwthornton (guest, #52534) [Link] i'll admit it takes time... but i wouldn't trade my xen64 raid crypt lvm, running servers: firewalls X 2, dns & ldap, nfs & samba, imap smtp & pop, apache & sql (various) AND desktop... kde-aqua-bahira, wouldn't trade for any windows or osx. interface is smooth and can always run others in vnc-xen session but don't much. signed... linux desktop defender ;)
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 4:27 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] Well, a Mac is now just an overpriced PC on the hardware side. Macs have traditionally had a significantly higher resale value than any PC. Additionally, they last longer. Case in point: about a year ago, I used a 10-year old Mac G3 at work, running OS 10.something, with a noisy hard drive, and 128 MB of RAM (software and Web page testing). This Mac seemed nearly as responsive and nimble as my P4 at home (with 2GB of DDR RAM running Linux). I even met an Apple fan two years ago who was still using a vintage 1989 Mac Classic! I suspect that Windows Vista will actually make PCs' life spans increase (bear with me on this): Seeing how disgusted a lot of Windows users are with Vista, PC users are flocking to Linux in droves. And we all know how well Linux can rejuvenate aging hardware, don't we? :)
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 9:56 UTC (Fri) by pjs (guest, #10927) [Link]
The article, in essence, argues the formula for success is to avoid selling only the bare
minimum hardware spec ("stop selling junk"), to "present a first rate operating system", to
qualify if all of the user's peripherals will work properly, and work hard on extensive
customer "education".
These are EXACTLY the things Apple does. They (usually) don't offer "cheap" machines without
adequate performance. They have a first rate operating system. They assure the peripherals
will work flawlessly. They provide massive customer education with (usually) knowledgeable
retail sale people. It's obviously a successful model, though it would fail if subjected to
Walmart's sales & margin requirements!
The "only an overpriced PC" viewpoint makes a lot of sense to people who mainly use their
computer to play the latest 3D games. They care greatly about buying maximum performance
(usually at minimum price since there really isn't value to the machine beyond entertainment).
The overall experience the operating system provides is of little consequence, other than the
extent to with it enables games to play. Some technical effort getting peripherals to work is
probably acceptable if it saves money and/or increases the raw performance.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 13, 2008 18:07 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] You have to understand that many people are not ready to be unplugged, and many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it. Unplugged from Windows, that is.
Why Linux Failed at Walmart -- And What to Do About It (Datamation) Posted Jun 19, 2008 11:09 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] Surely this post-mortem is hardly worth the effort? The exciting thing that's happened recently is the Eee PC, which has now spawned a host of imitators. Small Cheap Computers with no moving parts, weighing a kilo or so. A GB of RAM and 16Gb of solid-state disk is plenty ... for Linux. (User storage can of course be expanded with removeable devices of whatever sort and size the user needs). The ASUS EEEpc is well-engineered, not nearly as cheap as it could be if it was made on the cheap, and selling like hotcakes. Microsoft have been badly wrong-footed. Yes, they can cram XP into this box, but they've been telling the world that XP is obsolete. They can avoid making it obvious that Microsoft costs lots more than Linux, but only by giving XP licenses out at unprecedentedly low prices and persuading the manufacturers not to sell exactly the same hardware config with and without Windoze. Get Vista into a small cheap PC? Well, it's already been done by hackers, just to show how awful it is. Many users have found that Linux does all they want, and that it's not at all hard to use. They're telling their friends. (They'll be even more surprised when they buy a mark II in 3-4 years time and find out just how easy it is with Linux to copy all their files, including application config data). Some are surprised at Linux made easy. There are tales that some less computer-savvy purchasers have not even noticed that it's Linux. Wal-Mart? I'd suggest they get in touch with Acer with a view to stocking their forthcoming EeePC clone. It'll take a lot less shelf space, and looks even more sexy than the ASUS original at 2/3 of the price. Who knows, with no moving parts it might even be reliable. And there are a horde of Eee-like micro desktop systems coming soon. I think that the big crack in Microsoft's wall around the personal computer market has finally appeared.
|
|
||||||||||||