That is not the solution
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| r_a_trip Mar 09, 2006 7:29 AM EDT |
Computer manufacturers shouldn't handle support issues by creating yet another GNU/Linux distribution. One that is as removed from GNU/Linux reality and usefulness as it can get. It does not solve the problem. It is quite easy. If Dell, HP or Lenovo would just pick one distribution and clearly state, come hell or waters high, that that is the only version they support with technical help on the hardware, the problem would be over. Yes, it will infuriate a large group of veteran GNU/Linux geeks, who don't approve of the chosen distribution, for about three weeks, but that is a small price to pay. They can be silenced pretty quick by stating that it is going to be distro X or no GNU/Linux support at all. If manufacturers are upfront with the fact they can't support every version economically sustainable, even the most vehement community member will see the benefit of compromise in this situation. We don't need all distributions supported, we need hardware that is designed to run a flavor of GNU/Linux. This means hardware that has stock driver support in the kernel or hardware that comes with easily installable proprietary drivers (preferably not, but I am not blind to the reality that the NVidia's and Ati's of the world most probably won't go GPL anytime soon). When this materializes, the GNU/Linux power users can slap on whatever flavor of the OS they like, the GNU/Linux noobs can use the manufacturer provided version and know they can call when they need help. A win-win situation. Besides, how much support does the user get, who bought a Windows XP machine and installed eCom Station on it? I guess that amounts to none. Same with GNU/Linux. If you buy it with Red Hat, don't expect to get support on Mandriva. |
| tadelste Mar 09, 2006 7:49 AM EDT |
r_a_trip: Phil is a long time Linux hacker: I don't think it infuriates him. Hackers, I don't think they care. Attached fans: Religious fundamentals willing to start a Jihad. They could also blend in well will Windows and Mac fanatics. IMHO. |
| Inhibit Mar 09, 2006 8:48 AM EDT |
Yep. I agree a hundred percent there. When I'm spec'ing out a system for customer X I really don't *care* what version of OS is on it as long as it runs apps Y and Z and has hardware/software OS support. Honestly, they could put Red Hat or whatever they want, as long as they're willing to support it. To me, that's the reality of most pre-purchased computers... and that's what they're selling. If I want to take it and throw something else on there, that's my business, but the vendor is in no way obligated to support the OS in that case. I don't think the fact that it would only support one version of one Linux OS will materially impact sales of a Linux based desktop. Of course.. they'd have to *actually* support it. Not just let it go to bit-rot without providing security and software updates. The whole excuse stated by Dell just seems like a quick cop-out. Throw in the fact that he makes noises about not being beholden to Microsoft (which is an odd lie.. there's nothing untoward about a close partnership with your #1 software provider) and it all looks like a load of bunk to me. |
| tadelste Mar 09, 2006 9:03 AM EDT |
Have to consider Inhibit's post as valid. I'd like to share a personal experience to build on it. When I was doing a project for Gateway in Souix City, I got to listen to a Microsoft conference call. Aside from the constant insults and expletives (they are screamers), they were not just a vendor. They were dictating. When I say dictating, here MS was with an order to be broken up and they were still telling Gateway what to do. The conference call included Ted Waite and his executive staff. Just another vendor, my arse. |
| SFN Mar 09, 2006 10:41 AM EDT |
I find the notion that people will get over whatever choice they are given to be not credible considering that many of the responses in this thread and the one here http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/21929/ show that users - experienced users at that - are unwilling to accept two solutions (one already in place) that have been put forth. |
| r_a_trip Mar 09, 2006 10:54 AM EDT |
Quoting:Phil is a long time Linux hacker: I don't think it infuriates him. I did not say that the author would be infuriated by choice X over Y. (It didn't even cross my mind). I just commented on this: Quoting:Larger vendors, such as Dell, are in the position of having to support a large number of distributions, which would increase the tech support costs substantially, or choose a single distribution, which would upset users of other distributions and limit the market reach of Linux compatible products. It is a bogus reason. It is a piece of PR ammo used by the vendors to justify not supporting GNU/Linux on their machines. A vendor shoves Windows XP right in your face and simply doesn't ask you if you might want Windows 2000 or windows 98SE. Not in the consumer market anyways. The "too many distributions" fairytale is a cheap way to dodge the true motivator. MS Windows and Office license discounts. MS pulled a lot of strings in the anti-trust case to not have the secret nature of MS-reseller agreements aired. We don't know what conditions apply to the discount the Dependent Hardware Vendors get for flogging Windows. Vendors have always taken the "take it or leave it" route with their products. This is not about being wary to pick one version of GNU/Linux, this is being wary to pick GNU/Linux period. It seems they can't pick GNU/Linux and it has to have a strong motivator. GNU/Linux is underpromoted by most system builders. Despite GNU/Linux being an excellent business platform. I suspect MS is still wielding their Empire powers to restrain the breakthrough of a competitive platform. |
| tadelste Mar 09, 2006 11:16 AM EDT |
I understand. All good points. Well put as usual. |
| phil Mar 09, 2006 1:09 PM EDT |
I do agree that if Dell were to choose a single distribution and go with it, over time, the pundits of other distributions would get over it. Maybe it might take more than three weeks. But even if it was three months, that wouldn't really be a problem. I'm sure they'll recognize that any entry into any Linux distribution will have some positive effects on other distributions. If nothing else, it can include pressure on component OEMs that Dell buys from to make sure they can run on the Linux kernel (even if it is a binary module). The real problem I see for vendors making such a choice is that they aren't really opening up the full Linux market for themselves that way. A lot of people who are not technical geeks, as I am, still care what distribution they use for one reason or another. And they are not all choosing the same one. If Linux represents a 5% market share for a vendor, Red Hat may represent no more than a 2% market share. Thus they have to weigh the cost of setting up for and supporting one distribution against the smaller market potential of that distribution. I agree that we need hardware that works with Linux, and has no surprise risk of incompatibilty. And I'm sure when a vendor chooses just one distribution, we all (users of all distributions) gain from that. But to the vendor, it's not about hardware compatibility goals like we have; it's about new market share, market growth, increasing revenue, and increasing corporate value, which translates into better ROI for the stockholders. We can achieve our goals by helping vendors ... all of them fairly ... achieve their goals. As for the special distribution I suggested, I'm not suggesting that the manufacturers create it. If that were viable for a company like Dell, I presume they would have gone ahead and done it. I believe this is something the Linux community needs to make, with borrowings from many other distributions to achieve it. Then it would be available under GPL to any vendor who can then distribute it in a CD form to their customers. There would probably even be space left on the CD to include source code. And us Linux geeks can download a copy as another handy tool to have around just in case. |
| Libervis Mar 09, 2006 2:35 PM EDT |
Phil, advanced users and "geeks" will still be satisfied if Dell would still offer computers without operating system preinstalled. They would be removing whatever may have been preinstalled and replaced it with their own thing anyway and as advanced users they don't usually need any special technical support. I don't think that Dell would have much of a problem with them. So, I think what Dell should do is just pick one of the desktop friendly GNU/Linux distributions that they think they might be best off supporting and support that. At this point Ubuntu seems to be the best candidate for that. As for people disaproving of one distribution of another that is just silly IMO. Why should really anyone care? In the end, if you want to use something else then use it. You have the freedom. Just because you like one thing best doesn't mean everyone else should like it too nor does it mean a major vendor must support it just because you like it. No, major vendor like Dell should support what they think is best supporting for the majority market they are targetting, which would most likely be desktop users. |
| phil Mar 09, 2006 6:07 PM EDT |
Yes, I am happy that Dell is selling computers without the "Microsoft tax". I could be even happier if they would design every machine to be Linux compatible, and would support them as such when running under a recent version of the Linux kernel, regardless of the distribution. Suppose I buy a machine from Dell. Then suppose after some time, I start getting a lot of errors from the ethernet interface. The machine is still in warranty, or covered under a plan I may opt for, so I want them to fix or replace it (most likely it would mean replacing it ... I has such a problem a few years on a non-Dell machine). I call tech support. But they want to verify the problem isn't just with some misconfigured driver or something. Now suppose they do support Ubuntu. But I wiped it off and am running Slackware. Their tech support people probably have little or no idea how the Slackware configurations are set up. Indeed, even if they were trained in Slackware, they might still not know because I have actually rewritten the entire "rc" script system from scratch on my own (Tom did warn you guys that I was a long time Linux hacker). They might not be able to provide that support for me because of this. They might not send someone out with, or just ship to me, the replacement ethernet board. I'd be better off if Dell were to not choose a specific distribution, but instead chose to support Linux in general, which basically means the kernel. Then I could get my replacement ethernet board regardless of what distribution I run. But take a look at this from Dell's perspective, or the perspective of any vendor. Choosing any one distribution, even Ubuntu, means a smaller market share than with the choice of "Linux in general". Dell wants larger market shares. How else can they get this? The existance of (as suggested by SFN) "OEMLinux" could mean getting the whole Linux market without the over replicated costs of adopting numerous distributions. If they do that, we win even more than if they had not. So it's in our best interests to maximize their entry into the Linux markets. |
| sharkscott Mar 09, 2006 10:05 PM EDT |
This may be an un-informed question, Why can't the OEM's just let me buy a computer without an OS on it and provide support for the hardware? Let me not have to pay the M$ Tax and just cover me for what is in the box? |
| mjjohansen Mar 10, 2006 2:14 AM EDT |
2 things - I agree very much with the first. Supply the users with well-supported, well-documented hardware - that is the key. As for support - Dell is offering a lot of support as it is. If the company allowed for a choice between Red Hat and (open?)Suse with their online orders, it would be, well, brilliant. It would mean taking on new staff, but the Linux and open source community would go for it without a doubt. |
| LocoMojo Mar 10, 2006 5:48 AM EDT |
Look, the idea is to get Linux out into the market. We, as a Linux community, shouldn't be warning Dell not to sell Linux machines by bickering over which distribution should be loaded onto Dell's machines. Linux should be first on our minds right now. We don't have the luxury of complaining about which distro Dell should support. If anything, we as a Linux community should get together and agree on the most newbie-friendly distro that we'd want to introduce the newbies to so that we could ensure a growth in the Linux user base and we should, as a community, recommend that distro to Dell. Open source is not about selfishness, open source is not about fanaticism, and open source is not about "my distro rocks more than yours". I use Slackware, but I sure wouldn't want Dell to sell Slackware machines because I know that newbies would drop Linux like a hot paotato if they had to deal with Slackware as their first distro on their brand spanking new machines. I pretty much know that if Dell decides to sell machines loaded with Ubuntu or Suse, chances are very good that Slackware will easily install and run on those machines. Let's not start a distro war, eh? We should all be focused on getting Linux out there and exposed. Linux first, distro second. |
| r_a_trip Mar 10, 2006 8:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Suppose I buy a machine from Dell. Then suppose after some time, I start getting a lot of errors from the ethernet interface. The machine is still in warranty, or covered under a plan I may opt for, so I want them to fix or replace it (most likely it would mean replacing it ... I has such a problem a few years on a non-Dell machine). I call tech support. But they want to verify the problem isn't just with some misconfigured driver or something. Now suppose they do support Ubuntu. But I wiped it off and am running Slackware. Ah yes, you bought a Dell Ubuntu machine with support and you slapped Slackware on it. Then you call tech support to ask support on a machine that is no longer covered under the support contract. This is where you go wrong. You don't have support on a Dell Ubuntu machine running Slackware. You have support on a Dell Ubuntu machine running Dell Ubuntu. It is as simple as that. If you have a supported Dell Windows XP machine, you don't get support on Zeta OS either. It doesn't matter that you know it is a hardware fault. It matters that Dell only can provide service on a machine they can understand and support, which means the stuff that leaves their factories. If this happens you will have to pull out the Dell Ubuntu restore disk and wipe your Slackware (I advise backing up ;)). If the problem persists under the Dell supported setup, you could call Dell support and claim that the NIC is dead. Don't harass the helpdesk with unsupported combinations. Dell doesn't cover Frankenstein systems (our own homebrew software setups), they support their own stuff. But I get the problem now. Dell (and maybe other IHV's) doesn't want the hassle of explaining that we GNU/Linux geeks don't get support on anything but Dell setups. This kind of cheap consumer support is directly opposed to the F/OSS spirit, but that is not Dell's problem. Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm just trying to reason here why Dell is reluctant to support one distro and this seems to be one reason not to. It saves considerable support hassle. |
| jkouyoumjian Mar 10, 2006 9:41 AM EDT |
Dell (or any other hardware manufacturer) could solve the problem by providing a bootable live CD or DVD version of their distribution, preloaded with a set of diagnostic tests. Then there would be no need wipe out whatever is installed on the hard drive just to get support. Since the OS and tests are running clean off the read-only media, the support techs could be assured there are no configuration problems causing test failures. They could even have the ability to connect to the machine remotely and run their own tests themselves. Customers who think they are experiencing hardware problems could run the test themselves and thereby aviod unneeded calls to tech support. I am sure Dell could solve this if they wanted to. |
| phil Mar 11, 2006 7:41 AM EDT |
r_a_trip describes exactly the problem Dell faces. They can't provide the support for every distribution of Linux. They certainly can't provide the support for my modified Slackware. But this is exactly what my point is all about. There needs to be a way to provide support for the hardware for the whole Linux community. And sharkscott says: Quoting:Why can't the OEM's just let me buy a computer without an OS on it and provide support for the hardware? Let me not have to pay the M$ Tax and just cover me for what is in the box?Support for hardware just isn't practical without some software running on it. You need something to actually make the hardware (try to) go. You need something that shows the symptoms of the problem. Try this test to see how well it works for you: build your own computer with absolutely no software installed. Be sure the hard drive is wiped out completely. Now have a friend change something in the hardware with something that is broken, or maybe just loosen or disconnect some cable inside. See if you can figure out what is "broken" with no software present. Tech support needs for there to not only be some software present, but it also needs to be software they (every member of the team) are specifically familiar with (e.g. have been trained on). The procedures they follow need to be based on this software. What cost vendors like Dell a lot of money is setting up tech support for more than one OS. Each time another OS is added to the list, they have to analyze the OS, create work procedures, build a knowledge base, organize a team, and train everyone for it. They won't do this unless the market for that OS is large enough to justify the costs. |
| phil Mar 11, 2006 7:41 AM EDT |
mjjohansen says:Quoting:2 things - I agree very much with the first. Supply the users with well-supported, well-documented hardware - that is the key. As for support - Dell is offering a lot of support as it is. If the company allowed for a choice between Red Hat and (open?)Suse with their online orders, it would be, well, brilliant. It would mean taking on new staff, but the Linux and open source community would go for it without a doubt.Therein is part of the problem. If Dell chooses to offer Red Hat, then Red Hat users would get the benefit of "well-supported" hardware. They could, at yet more cost, add SUSE to the mix. That would add some more users that get the benefit of "well-supported" hardware. But the rest of the Linux community would not get any such benefit unless they are willing to either wipe out their OS install and put on Red Hat or SUSE, or set up dual-boot with Red Hat or SUSE. LocoMojo says: Quoting:Let's not start a distro war, eh? We should all be focused on getting Linux out there and exposed. Linux first, distro second.We definitely should not start any distro war. But it isn't so much about a war of which distro is better. It's about whether we can get hardware support with the distro we install on the hardware after wiping off whatever was there (be it Red Hat or MS Windows). |
| phil Mar 11, 2006 7:41 AM EDT |
jkouyoumjian says:Quoting:Dell (or any other hardware manufacturer) could solve the problem by providing a bootable live CD or DVD version of their distribution, preloaded with a set of diagnostic tests. Then there would be no need wipe out whatever is installed on the hard drive just to get support.Exactly. There is really little need to have hardware technical issues worked through with whatever OS the user is using. As it is today, if your ethernet card is bad, tech support could have you boot into Windows and they could step you through the diagnostics that way. But it would not necessarily be a reliable method given some differences do exist between drivers in Windows and drivers in Linux. Quoting:I am sure Dell could solve this if they wanted to.There is no real fundamental reason that the "distro" of Linux that tech support uses has to be the one the customer uses every day. And it doesn't even have to be one that anyone could really use for daily tasks like writing documents, surfing the internet, exchanging email, and developing applications. And, as you point out, being on a read/only media, tech support people can be more confident that the customer hasn't changed the driver to one with new behaviour they may not know about. Summary: We have 2 issues regarding Linux and vendors: 1. Have hardware support for all Linux users. Like support for BSD users would be a plus (I also use OpenBSD). 2. Have a pre-installed OS/distro for non-geek users. Software support for that would also be expected as the non-geek users would expect/need it. These 2 needs overlap. Dell could choose Red Hat for the installed OS. But then we geeks would have to run Red Hat just to get the hardware support. That's fine for those who actually do use Red Hat. This is where we need some kind of Live CD that is specifically made for providing tech support. Not that any of several already existing Live CDs couldn't be used now (I'm thinking KNOPPIX), but it would be better to make one that is focused on providing more advanced tech support, and has plenty of room for the vendor to add their own tools that are in line with their tech support procedures. Dell could do this. But I think that if the Linux community builds a foundation for this, then Dell's entry costs, as well as that for all other vendors, would be lower. As for the distro for newbie users, I certainly agree Slackware isn't it. But I'd vote for Ubuntu right now. But if Dell decides to use a different one for that purpose, and goes with a tech support CD as well so that I can have hardware support (for their entire line), I would definitely consider buying Dell machines instead of my current practice of building them myself. |
| Shaka2 Mar 19, 2006 5:44 AM EDT |
There are in fact already vendors selling computers without pre-installed OS, HP for instance sells such a laptop (NX-something i think). Problem is they don't provide the option to do that with any computer they sell. This is because Microsoft decides what price they have to pay in order to sell oem versions of Windows, so should they decide to promote the option of not having Windows or of having Linux preinstalled the prices would go up... Remains the fact that in many countries (including the US) a pre-installed Windows envirronnement is considered as a forced purchase, and thus you have the right to ask for a refund if you don't use Windows & remove it completely. The Dell argument is completely fallacious!!! If they did care about Linux they should at least provide support for one distribution & should provide a pack with all the necessary linux drivers & documentation to support their platform. As far as i know different linux distros don't need different drivers... The documentation should at least contain the drivers' installation instructions for the mayor distros : Slackware, Debian, Suse, Mandrake & Redhat. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!