Lockergnome on Linux OEM systems

[Trebuchet]

The Big Day Could be Coming for Linux Advocates - Will They Fail?

by Ron Schenone

Well the on again, off again, on again merry-go-round continues at Dell. The decision to build Linux boxes may still happen. Over at HP, it seems they are seriously looking into the Linux operating system on their machines and rumor has it that Acer may be the next one to jump on board the Linux ship as well.

If these OEM’s do all decide to offer Linux as an alternative to Microsoft’s Windows, the question I would have is who is going to buy these boxes?

Would it be Linux advocates? Maybe. But more than likely true Linux supporters use home brew concoctions they have assembled themselves. They know what hardware Linux supports and would build or have built a system that would meet these limited hardware specifications.

The average computer user? Maybe. But my question would be why would they? Why would the average user who knows nothing about Linux and little about Windows for that matter, suddenly knock down the doors of the OEM’s demanding their own Linux operating system?

This is where the Linux community may fail since it seems that many in their ranks have hidden in the dark dungeons of the operating system kingdom, where outsiders are not welcome, using secret handshakes to gain admittance and in general polarizing themselves from main stream geekerdom [I think I just made up a new word!]. Because of that they may find that they have just bitten themselves in their own backsides.

While Microsoft and Apple are known throughout the entire civilized world, Linux remains an unknown, coveted only by your own inner circle. So ‘build it and they will come’ does not apply here. If the OEM’s do build Linux boxes and the Linux community doesn’t buy them, there will be a fire sale on these machines within a year of being released or they will be formatted to run Windows.

Linux can be a viable alternative to Windows only if hard core users step up to the plate and put their money where their mouths are. No whining that the systems are more expensive than a comparable Windows system, no moaning that if they had offered distro. B instead of A I would of bought it, that time is past. The entire industry will be watching your actions, scouring the forums for malcontent comments and using this as ammunition against the Linux community.

Where do you stand? Are you going to support Linux or stand by the sidelines and make excuses? You’ll only get one chance!



This raises some very good questions. Will Linux users buy those systems, or continue to build their own? Do Linux users want to be the beginning of a new mass movement, or be high priests of an obscure cult OS?

[billdotson]

too long to read.. but by your statement at the bottom I see that it is probably about 'hardcore' Linux users mostly build their own PCs and if they do not buy the OEM Linux PCs when the OEMs make them then Linux most likely get adopted as a desktop OS that would be an alternative to Windows.

Funny being that I built my own PC a few months ago for gaming and I eventually came to Ubuntu to try it out (1 month ago). Now for everything but games i.e. multimedia, etc. I use Ubuntu for. I will probably be keeping this as my main PC for as long as I possibly can.. hopefully over 5 years as I invested alot of money into it. Gaming wise I know it won't last long but for purposes like multimedia, web browsing, word processing, etc. it should last a good while.

Although it is true that unless the Linux users buy these PCs the average user probably won't ever hear about Linux or ever see a Linux desktop/laptop in the stores. If the average use sees " 'X' amount of people bought desktops with Linux pre-installed" or "Desktops with Linux pre-installed are selling fast" they might be inclined to check the Linux desktops out.

[Ric95]

It make the most sense for a maker to sell a machine with 4 partitions;
Windoz
Linux
Linux swap
Personal data
with the personal data being the large one. This way the customer can chose what OS to run and if one OS crashes or get eaten by a virus ( hm... which one would thatbe?) only that partitions would need reformatting.
Of course we know this stuff. I think the makers would clue in if the market showed interest.

[Trebuchet]

I think the article raises a good point. If Linux supporters demand OEMs sell Linux machines then Linux supporters need to buy some of those machines. Not all of them, of course, because the whole purpose of the exercise is to expand the Linux userbase beyond geeks and IT professionals. But if those Linux systems sit on retail shelves and warehouses for months unsold, then that'll be the end of it. They might try again in 5 or 10 years. Then again they might not.

Probably anyone who hangs out on these boards could build their own Linux PC. But if people really want Linux to take off and become a real alternative to Windows or Mac OS, then they need to put their money where their mouth is. That means buying a prebuilt Linux system even if it costs more than a similar Windows system because it isn't partially subsidized by pre-installed application vendors.

[billdotson]

the idea of having partitions for Windows, Linux, linux swap and personal data is a good idea. Even if they don't have Linux on the machines personal data should be on a separate partition so if Windows gets a virus or something they won't lose their stuff.

[Trebuchet]

I'm not sure a virus or worm couldn't infect a partition in the same file system or maybe even another for the same OS, although I can't see it spreading onto another OS.

OTOH, it's just as easy to use external or removable drives to store personal material.

[billdotson]

yeah.. external media is the best for backing up stuff.. I use an external USB HDD. Although a partition might help with viruses

[bikeboy]

I agree that the majority of Linux users and advocates will go on building their own boxes, but there are still a few points to be made about how that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

1) We already support hardware vendors who support Linux, by buying their components rather than someone else's. If a bigger company like Acer or HP starts making sure more of their hardware will work out of the box, us users will head toward them when we need new parts.

2) Most people don't build their own laptops. This is where the OEM market can truly make inroads by using Linux. Acer, Dell and HP are all large laptop manufacturers, if they go 100% Linux compliant with GPL chipset drivers and the like, the Linux users will buy them. It's a different market to desktops, it's much harder to just go to a shop and buy parts off a shelf. An all in one solution where all components are guaranteed to work with Linux Kernel 2.6.15 onwards for example, will be very attractive to us all.

[prizrak]

Simple, any OS that targets home users will enjoy a limited market. Look at OS X they are not targetting the business user they are targetting the fun loving home user and look how well Macs are doing (not very). OEM Linux machines are primarily targeted at business users. Lenovo is offering a T60/61 SLED ready for engineers, Dell and HP sell Linux servers to businesses. If you read the Dell announcement it said that if they were going to be selling Linux machines they will be selling them to the businesses first.

The fears are unfounded, the machines will be as cheap or cheaper simply because big OEM's have the economies of scale on their side and companies like System76 do not. The general public will not be interested in Linux at first but not-for-profits, and educational institutions most likely will be. Behind them are corporations that would be likely to replace certain segments that do not need Windows with a Linux machine because of flexibility and control that it would allow them.

[cowlip]

There is more to Linux than "initial price"...the source code availability should make IT depts. salivate.

[aipforum]

I'm pretty sure we would all be happy if manufacturers just gave us the option to NOT install ANY operating system ... and state on all their sales info that the system is Vista certified and well suited for Linux!

No operating system at all: savings !

I'd be all for that.

And if they do want to have Linux offerings, why can't their be choices there too? They are now giving MS Vista choices, why not give several distros a chance? Give the customer what they want, period.

[Trebuchet]

I'm pretty sure we would all be happy if manufacturers just gave us the option to NOT install ANY operating system ... and state on all their sales info that the system is Vista certified and well suited for Linux!

No operating system at all: savings !

I'd be all for that.

And if they do want to have Linux offerings, why can't their be choices there too? They are now giving MS Vista choices, why not give several distros a chance? Give the customer what they want, period.Because for the average computer user the idea of installing an OS on an empty hard drive is as exotic as rebuilding an engine. They don't want to spend hours installing an OS and downloading software; they want to take it out of the box, plug it in, and use it.

For these people, PCs are appliances. Why do you think Microsoft has devoted so much effort to making its OS and applications to self-update without input from the user? Because that's what most people want. They're not interested in tinkering with their computers; they just want it to play their games, browse the Internet, and write letters.

[beefcurry]

I think that is a complete WRONG way to look at it. Im my school only 4 people use Linux, Me, My friend which is a ICT Global Studies student which I converted and 2 technitians. 18/19 people in my class do not know what Linux is, so the problem is BRAND RECOGNITION. too little people know what Linux is, and even if they do, they are too afraid to use it. But if it came on a Computer pre-configured the semi-geek wanabe's would problely jump on the bandwagon. If more people knew about it, its only natural that more people would buy it. So it all depends on the Marketing strategdy of companies.

[Trebuchet]

I think that is a complete WRONG way to look at it. Im my school only 4 people use Linux, Me, My friend which is a ICT Global Studies student which I converted and 2 technitians. 18/19 people in my class do not know what Linux is, so the problem is BRAND RECOGNITION. too little people know what Linux is, and even if they do, they are too afraid to use it. But if it came on a Computer pre-configured the semi-geek wanabe's would problely jump on the bandwagon. If more people knew about it, its only natural that more people would buy it. So it all depends on the Marketing strategdy of companies.I disagree in part. Yes, more people would use it if it were pre-installed. That was the corollary of my previous post. But it's NOT preinstalled on anything your average user can find in Best Buy or CompUSA. That's the real root of the problem. It's not Dell or Gateway; it's the public that isn't demanding choice. If people were asking for it, Best Buy would carry it.

It's hard to be any kind of geek and not be aware of Linux. Articles about it are everywhere in computer magazines and websites. But the average user doesn't read those. He might buy a mainstream computer magazine like PC World or PC Magazine (which even has a regular Linux column) if he's in the market for a new machine and wants to read the reviews, but he's just as likely to skip past the Linux stuff as the technical articles. Most people are content to be ignorant about stuff that doesn't interest them. Linux (and most other computer knowledge) doesn't interest them.

[billdotson]

about a previous post.. that is true.. IT departments will be very happy to have the source code.. as they can make the programs the way they need to be for their business. The local university here is moving one of their apps to open source for that reason.

Tweakability in business = efficiency. If there is a bunch of features on say Microsoft Word or something that are not being used and are hogging system resources that is not good for business.

[igknighted]

The issue is with how linux is sold by these vendors. If you go to buy a dell and theres a drop box for "Select OS" and people see that linux removes $50 or $100 and the OO.o saves $150-$300 then linux can catch on. If linux is a separate ine then no one will look at it.

[NotPhil]

... It's not Dell or Gateway; it's the public that isn't demanding choice. If people were asking for it, Best Buy would carry it.The public can only choose among the alternatives they're given. I live in a metropolitan area. It has shopping malls and electronics stores galore. When I look at computers in these outlets, I see choices between some hardware (with Windows installed) and some other hardware (with Windows installed). If I've done my research before I go shopping, I know that if I go to two electronics retailers (Best Buy and Fry's), and walk all the way to the corner in the back, I can also see some different hardware (with OS X installed).

I've heard, but haven't be able to confirm, that one electronics store (Fry's) has computers, not on display, that do have a distribution of Linux installed on them, but you have to know that before you walk in the store, and you have to know that you'll need to ask for it.

It's the OEMs who are making choices for the consumers. There are various reasons for this, but consumers can't very easily choose between Linux, OS X, and Windows if they only thing they're likely to see on most store's shelves is Windows boxes.

[Trebuchet]

Retailers sell what people buy. If they don't buy it, the retailer will stop carrying it. If they buy lots of it, the retailer will provide more of it and his competitors will start carrying it too. I guarantee that if 20 people a day walked into every Best Buy store asking for a Linux computer Best Buy would find a way to supply them.

[prizrak]

NotPhil, Trebuchet,

You are basically having the chicken or the egg argument (BTW egg came first because reptilians are older than poultry and they laid eggs) and neither of you seem to have read my post. Preinstalled desktop Linux is not aimed at the consumer by either company that is considering it. Dell has said that if they ever are to preinstall Linux it will be for business lines not home lines. All other OEM's pretty much do the same.

General public will not be buying OEM Linux machines but quite a bit of Linux enthusiasts will. For one as been said already you can't build your own laptops. For two there are quite a few IT people who are still on Windows but would use Linux if they didn't have to spend the time on it. A good number of people I work with (I work in IT) are 100% Windows users but have mentioned that they would put their families on Linux just to not have to deal with "My computah is slow cuz I clicked on this e-mail that said "nude pictures of Maria Sharapova" and something ran and it broke" calls.

It would also make it much easier to recommend Linux to those who might benefit from it. I have a friend that is shopping for a laptop and she has very low needs. Basically IM/Web/E-mail, no games, no nothing. Right now she's looking at a MacBook and while I would love to give her a cheaper alternative (just about any PC with the same specs) but I don't want her using Windows. Installing Linux might be troublesome because there is no tux icon on peripherals like there is a Windows/OS X one. If big name OEM's were to start selling Linux preloaded machines we might get a little Tux on printers.

The point is that hardcore Linux geeks aren't the only market for preinstalled Linux and if Dell and others were to offer it people would buy it. Especially when you factor in global economies such as EU and Asia where people would be happy to use something other than Windows/OS X just because they are US based. (I know both SuSE and Red Hat are US based but if it works on SuSE/RH it will work on any other distro).

[NotPhil]

You are basically having the chicken or the egg argument ...
Well, if market theory were correct, there wouldn't be a chicken-or-egg problem. Suppliers would create products if they thought there might be a need for them, and consumers would choose, from among those products, the ones that best suited their needs.

Market theory assumes that consumers have access to perfect information. They don't, of course, and that's why 20 people a day aren't going to ask a retailer's clerks why they aren't stocking Linux boxes. They've never seen them before, so they don't know such a thing exists.

Retailers and OEMs do know about Linux, but they aren't going to offer it for sale on personal computers because of something else that market theory doesn't take into account: collusion. This can be as innocent as corporations just imitating each other because they're afraid to do anything else, or it can be as corrupt as corporations making agreements with each other to ignore some suppliers, or to refuse to produce some kinds of products, to preserve other suppliers', or products', market share.


... Preinstalled desktop Linux is not aimed at the consumer by either company that is considering it. Dell has said that if they ever are to preinstall Linux it will be for business lines not home lines. All other OEM's pretty much do the same. ... The point is that hardcore Linux geeks aren't the only market for preinstalled Linux and if Dell and others were to offer it people would buy it. ...

[Trebuchet]

Preinstalled desktop Linux is not aimed at the consumer by either company that is considering it. Dell has said that if they ever are to preinstall Linux it will be for business lines not home lines. All other OEM's pretty much do the same. Linux would be offered for the desktop if the major OEMs or their vendors perceived a demand for it. Dell and HP are in business to make money, not defend Microsoft's near-monopoly. You don't think the big manufactureres wouldn't be happy to sell systems with free operating systems instead of paying MS literally tens of millions of dollars every year for Windows licenses?

The simple fact is there is just not enough clamor for Linux. That may be changing, but it's not there yet.

[NotPhil]

... Dell and HP are in business to make money, not defend Microsoft's near-monopoly. You don't think the big manufactureres wouldn't be happy to sell systems with free operating systems instead of paying MS literally tens of millions of dollars every year for Windows licenses? ...At the risk of going off-topic, and seeming argumentative, the answer is yes, the manufacturers (even the ones that MS owns stock in) would love to, but, as we learned during MS's anti-trust trial, they will collude with MS if they think it will keep stock prices high.

Several OEMs testified that they wouldn't install BeOS on their machines, not because they thought no one would buy their line of Be computers, but because MS threatened to stop selling them Windows if they did. They didn't want to risk only having computers with a minor OS installed on them, so they colluded with MS, and refused to install that operating system on any of their products.

Is something like that going on now? Even after MS was convicted?

Well, Microsoft's CEO has just threatened to sue anyone who uses Linux over (unnamed) patents he says are violated in (unspecified) Linux source code. This is the sort of thing that frightens corporate buyers, and I think Dell is being unusually gutsy for planning to install Linux on its workstations and servers.

[prizrak]

Linux would be offered for the desktop if the major OEMs or their vendors perceived a demand for it. Dell and HP are in business to make money, not defend Microsoft's near-monopoly. You don't think the big manufactureres wouldn't be happy to sell systems with free operating systems instead of paying MS literally tens of millions of dollars every year for Windows licenses?

The simple fact is there is just not enough clamor for Linux. That may be changing, but it's not there yet.

Don't really see how it relates to what I said. My point was that while the demand in the home user market may not be all that great in the business user market it is picking up. What makes you think the OS would be free? If they install Ubuntu it might be but chances are they would go with SuSE or RedHat at first Ubuntu is likely to come later and mostly for home users.

[beefcurry]

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007030800226OPBZHW

I really don't care how, I just want all my hardware to work -> god I sound like a uncaring n00b.

It would be best if all my drivers were open source............but I would still want the ability to have all my hardware working with propertory drivers but often we dont even have that option.

[prizrak]

http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2007030800226OPBZHW

I really don't care how, I just want all my hardware to work -> god I sound like a uncaring n00b.

It would be best if all my drivers were open source............but I would still want the ability to have all my hardware working with propertory drivers but often we dont even have that option.
While I'm not a n00b I agree. A computer has to work that is what it was made for in the first place. Free is a good bonus but in the end work has to be done.

[bunabattoir]

There is more to Linux than "initial price"...the source code availability should make IT depts. salivate.


about a previous post.. that is true.. IT departments will be very happy to have the source code.. as they can make the programs the way they need to be for their business. The local university here is moving one of their apps to open source for that reason.

Tweakability in business = efficiency. If there is a bunch of features on say Microsoft Word or something that are not being used and are hogging system resources that is not good for business.

I am sorry to report to you, as one who actually works in the IT department of a very large company, that this is not true. In general, we tend to look for "off-the-shelf" solutions. Spending time on code is substantially more costly than just buying a product that already works. This is always an economic decision.

[prizrak]

I am sorry to report to you, as one who actually works in the IT department of a very large company, that this is not true. In general, we tend to look for "off-the-shelf" solutions. Spending time on code is substantially more costly than just buying a product that already works. This is always an economic decision.
I would hate to argue but I must offer a different view. I also work in IT and I have had to learn a whole new programming language just to extend functionality of a proprietary piece of software through creating my own. We actually have to do it quite a bit. Also the Tech support people would be much happier it they could make a custom Linux image that only has what is necessary as opposed to throwing Windows on our (some pretty old) desktops.

[Trebuchet]

Don't really see how it relates to what I said. My point was that while the demand in the home user market may not be all that great in the business user market it is picking up. What makes you think the OS would be free? If they install Ubuntu it might be but chances are they would go with SuSE or RedHat at first Ubuntu is likely to come later and mostly for home users.I fully expect Ubuntu will eventually go the same route RedHat and SuSE have. Nothing wrong with that; I'm a big fan of capitalism. I don't like MS threatening the computer manufacturers like that because that's not allowing the free market to work. The usual answer to such practices is a boycott by the buyers, but I'm not at all certain MS couldn't outwait all the OEMs combined. With its massive cash reserves MS would be just fine if it took in no income for two or three years; most computer manufacturers would go bankrupt in just a few months.

The OS probably doesn't have to be free to compete with Windows; the simple fact it's offered as an alternative means MS loses some of its leverage over the OEMs. MS doesn't charge anywhere near full retail to the OEMs for Windows (probably $30 to $50 depending on the version and how many licenses they buy). The reality is that Linux users may simply have to bootstrap itself into the desktop themselves. Pre-configured systems from HP or Acer may never happen; the best they might do is certify a system for Linux based on its hardware.

[prizrak]

I fully expect Ubuntu will eventually go the same route RedHat and SuSE have. Nothing wrong with that; I'm a big fan of capitalism. I don't like MS threatening the computer manufacturers like that because that's not allowing the free market to work. The usual answer to such practices is a boycott by the buyers, but I'm not at all certain MS couldn't outwait all the OEMs combined. With its massive cash reserves MS would be just fine if it took in no income for two or three years; most computer manufacturers would go bankrupt in just a few months.

The OS probably doesn't have to be free to compete with Windows; the simple fact it's offered as an alternative means MS loses some of its leverage over the OEMs. MS doesn't charge anywhere near full retail to the OEMs for Windows (probably $30 to $50 depending on the version and how many licenses they buy). The reality is that Linux users may simply have to bootstrap itself into the desktop themselves. Pre-configured systems from HP or Acer may never happen; the best they might do is certify a system for Linux based on its hardware.
I don't think Ubuntu will ever go SuSE/RH route mainly because Mark has said that he will never make a so-called commercial distro but has no problem with providing a company with a customized version of Ubuntu.

Acer offers Linpus Linux in Asia and have been for quite a while. Lenovo offers a SLED ready T60/61 for engineers. Now they don't preinstall it on them but their distributors do. I think you are right about preinstalled Linux not being offered to consumers anytime soon but I think business Linux desktops are going to be offered shortly.