5988Re: [linux-dell-laptops] Re: Dell cancelling Linux on desktop and laptop systems.
- Aug 22, 2001
> Dell's little thing with Linux is all BS,Yeah, generally a lot of manufacturers tend to just recommend reinstalling
> heres why ...
> Dell is a mega-corporation, which means one thing and ONLY one thing, need
> MUST make money and lots of it.
> Lets see now ....
> Supporting WIndows is pretty easy. Beacause most people know how to use it,
> and it generally works well for whatever the average joe wants to do.
> Windows == Cheap/Easy Support
the OS using that rescue CD - what a pain if you have downloaded all the
latest drivers, updates, etc - you get to go through all of that again.
> Supporting Linux is pretty hard. Because most people don't know how to useI will agree, I guess. At least for now. But wait until the new
> it, and you normally have to take a few extra steps to get things to work on
> it. And linux sucks even more because the average joe *can't* do many things
> on it. (quick time movies, major commerical games, etc) (additionally out
> sourcing your linux support to companies like Redhat or linuxcare makes you
> look bad because then it shows your company isn't smart enough to do linux in
> the first place.)
> Linux == Hard/Expensive Support
Windows XP licensing model takes effect. You want to change your
hardware again? Oops, you are over the limit, gotta call M$ and
get a new key. You want dual processors? Oh, you have to pay
for the Enterprise version (double or triple the price, at least).
You want to run Windows under VMware, in addition to being able
to dual boot it? Another license nightmare... If M$ keeps going
this direction to capture all of the revenue they can, because of
a perceived lack of growth opportunities in other directions, then
the perceived ease of use will be diminished, particularly in
multiple computer households (I have a desktop and a laptop, my
wife and son each have a desktop, and my wife wants a laptop).
In the future, M$ wants to make sure you have licenses for each
and every one of those. To be sure, that is the law now, but
how many people actually buy multiple licenses in this situation.
I think I am a rarity in that I probably have more valid M$
licenses than machines, just because I buy them used when
necessary (anybody want a Windows ME license - what a piece
of crap that OS is, crashes all the time, worse than Windows 98).
> When Dell and their ODM's go out to create the next generation computerThis is absolutely true. Most of the manufacturers (but not all, mind you)
> system, those computer systems are tested to work ONLY with Microsoft. Dell,
> and the ODM's they hire, don't give a damn about Linux or any other OS. So
> why would Dell waste time to support and OS, it didn't even support at the
> "creation level".
don't take Linux into account at any phase of the design process.
> Its all about business come to think of it. There never was much of demandI think this is largely due to the huge difference in marketing muscle,
> for linux on the desktop/laptop.
and the huge lead Windows had. I think in the future there will be more
demand for Linux on the desktop, not as much as for Windows to be sure,
but plenty none-the-less. For many folks who don't play games as much,
Linux is VERY capable as an email client and a web browsing client.
> There must be a hundred thousand customersYes, but thousands more just bought their Dell with Windows, either because
> who purchased a dell system with windows, as opposed to the few hundred (not
> even?) who asked for linux. In this case, dell would be *losing* money,
> which is the last thing a mega corporation wants.
they couldn't find the model with Linux on it (since Dell did not make
them easy to find), or because they were very limited in what what Dell
offered them with Linux on it? This group here is proof that most of
the people running Linux on Dell laptops did NOT buy them that way
from Dell. It is also proof that some real work is left before Linux
runs as smoothly on laptops as Windows does.
> I'm pretty sure the corporate execs (whores) at dell aren't blind either. IfActually, both XFS and JFS are good filesystems, with proven track
> they see people like us giving grass root support for it, the last thing
> they'd want to do is take their time and thier money to support linux then.
> Linux has been very much community based, and it would suck a whole lot if it
> weren't. (The last thing we need is for IBM and SGI to be deciding which
> file system should be the defualt one in linux 3.0)
records. I for one would feel very happy if my Redhat 8.1 came with
XFS as a standard supported filesystem. Unlike ReiserFS, XFS is proven
in multiprocessor multithreaded applications, and it has a lot of
basic utilities (such as a working dump and restore) that ReiserFS
seems to lack. I for one think that IBM and SGI involvement is a
good thing. To be sure, IBM is looking at using Linux for its
own benefit, particularly as a way of getting back at M$. If
IBM can put Linux on its servers, and avoid paying M$ for Windows
licenses on them, it is quite happy to do so. I don't think
IBM can take control of Linux - it is less able to do so than
it was able to control Windows. Linux is a grassroots movement,
and if IBM doesn't play the way the people wish, IBM will be
ignored, even more effectively than M$ ignored them when they
had differences of opinion.
> Those are my two food stamps, and I'm always up for flames.No flames, just comments.
> Sunny DubeyI am also pretty sure the M$ encouraged Dell to ignore Linux, just as
> PS: I'm also pretty damn sure Microsoft and Dell had something to do with
> this. Somewhere in the twisted turn of events, I'm pretty sure Dell got
> Microsoft products for cheaper than what they had when the did support Linux
> on the desktop/laptop.
Intel encourages Dell to ignore AMD.
> PPS: The server world is another story ...Yes it is, and that is the part the IBM is really interested in. Who
knows what SGI is interested in, they have been sliding down a slippery
slope to eventual oblivion for several years now. Their involvement
with Linux at least gives us a chance to benefit from their technology
before the eventual buyout by a larger company, at which point they
will cease to exist and most of their technology will vanish in the
commercial world (as happened with DEC when bought by Compaq).
> PPPPS: for those of you, who were actually crazy enought to dowload theSolaris is not really interested in Intel hardware; I make a living
> Solaris ISO's off of sun.com and try installing it on your laptop know
> exactly why support a totally weird OS doesn't make much sense. I tried, and
> got some pretty weird results, heh.
doing Solaris work, and they have done a lot better than SGI, or
anybody else, in the Unix server market. A lot of what you see is
a reaction to the Linux world - Linux affects them more than it
does M$, since Sun lives and dies in the server market. Sun cannot
really try to be Linux, they need to largely keep doing what they
have been doing in the server market, and leave the Intel world
out of it. Even the guys who work at Sun don't use Solaris on their
laptops - Solaris X86 is the proverbial red-headed-stepchild.
mailto: `echo NjsOc3@... | sed 's/[NOSPAM]//g'`
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>