Dell users demand more Linux options

Thousands of Dell users have contacted a user forum to call for PCs to be shipped with a Linux operating system and the OpenOffice application suite.

Nearly 40,000 users have used the Dell Ideastorm Web site to promote the suggestion that Dell should: "Offer the three top free Linux versions [Fedora, OpenSuse and Ubuntu] for free pre-installation on all Dell PCs". It is now the most popular suggestion on the site.

Dell does offer some Linux systems, but most of its computers ship with either Windows Vista or XP.

The Dell Ideastorm site was launched on Friday to give users extra input into Dell's decision-making process. Visitors to the US-backed site choose which ideas they support by clicking on a button to "promote" a particular idea.

Users also came up with many other well-supported ideas. Over 20,000 said OpenOffice should be provided for free pre-installation alongside Microsoft Works or Microsoft Office.

Many of the following suggestions argued that Dell should supply Linux or other free software on its machines -- or at least that Windows should not be a default option.

Richard Thurston reported for ZDNet UK from London

• Related stories

• Alerts

Add your opinion

What will the Shareholders say Anonymous -- 21/02/07

Dell obviously make a margin on Windows when they sell it with a PC. This margin covers pre installation costs and probably a small bit of profit for Dell. To pre install a free version of Linux on a PC means that they would have to cover the cost of installation in the hardware price. Dell has lost its No1 spot and the shareholders are not happy. This idea has some merits but dont expect Dell to do it for free when they have shareholders to answer to. Welcome to the commercial world of reality Linux. Everything has a cost.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Not entirely true Anonymous -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075083)

Dell has very right to charge for pre-installation, and also the CD that Linux comes on if they like. No problem there, however charging for the actual software if under the GPL is a no-no.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Again not entirely true Fred Nerk -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075152)

Again, you've got it a bit wrong. The GPL allows you to charge for the software, but doesn't require it. It allows you to do whatever you want with the software, reverse engineer it, charge for it, give it away, copy it. The big proviso is that you can't restrict someone else's use of the software, nor the changes you make.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

GPL Question John -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075152)

I though GPL protected the rights of the software and the release and -re-release of the source code. From a monetary perspective you charge whatever the customer will bear. Free to the vendor and Free to own does not make it free to receive a copy pre installed. You can definately charge for the services cost of loading it onto a workstation.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

a bit of FUD Anonymous -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075083)

Mate, not quite.

if Dell have a markup on MS software, then they will still have to pay for its cost. If there is no cost of Linux distributions (Ubuntu for example), they still mark a little up for labour, and the user still saves the cost of the Windows licence.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Linux on Dell computers ricardo mardi -- 22/02/07

according to anonymous, it's all black or white, dark or light, free or real.....

Simplistic minds have limits.
The old idea that Micro$oft wants you to believe is that Linux comes from Idealists, commie, tech hipies who have no practical economic idea, blind to the concept of the tried & true 'Let the Market decide what's good' ideology.

Anonymous is in this group of idealists who pride themselves on 'Practical economics of the Corporate dictatorship of Micro$oft- you get what you pay for, free is worthless.

What they don't want you to wake up to is the realization that it's not about how much it cost$, it's about the freedom to modify & to customise your programs outside of the iron grip of Micro$oft's code control.

The truth is, dell is NOT making a profit from Microsoft, DEll would earn a lot more $$$ if they listened to their customers instead of the sleazy Micro$oft middleman who stands between their hardware & their customers.

Opensource is the business model that is threatening the old M$ way & when Bill & Co donates 1% of 1% of 1% of 1% of their M$ advertising/marketing budget to humanitarian causes & charity & trumpet themselves as Philanthrophist/Robin Hoods, they are pulling the wool over your eyes & apealing to the idealistic fantasies of the common man/woman in order to keep us all under the trance.

The truth is that If it was up to M$, you would drive a microsoft car, own a microsoft approved home with all microsoft approved electronic appliances. All these would only be serviceable by M$ approved technical service centers at M$ approved prices.

Sorry anonymous, I don't buy your paymaster's argument, unlike you, I think independently.

• Reply to comment
• Reply to story
• Report offensive content

Typical Response Anonymous -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075106)

The typical response of a misguided child brainwashed by open source into believing it is the best thing since the creation of fire.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Ricardo has no business sense John -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075106)

Dell has a fiscal responsibility to its shareholders. What ever they load and sell must have a return on investment, hence a flow through to profits. Shareholders and employees must be paid and receive dividends whilst the share price hold or increases its value.
Dell is a hardware company which will do anything that is needed to generate a profit. If that means load Linux, Solaris, Windows, Xenix etc thay do not care, nore align to any one vendor, thet have hardware to sell and want to sell the meximum quantity.

HP, IBM etc are all the same they want to sell their hardware and will sell it in whatever flavours as will give them a larger profit than not loading anything.

Microsoft cannot dictate to them to not sell other OS's as the DOJ ruling and continued reviews stop them from doing it

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Loose grip on reality Fred Nerk -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075141)

I think you have a fairly loose grip on reality and on all the issues. Bagging ricardos's opinion as being unbusinesslike show a complete lack of understanding of software, open source and the whole concept of offering choice.

Yes, Dell has a responsibility to their shareholders. That is why they should at least explore the linux option. If you offer choice to a market segment that previously avoided you like the plague, then you have a chance of growing your consumer base.

if linux is so bad for shareholders, why do google, IBM both have an in house version, but in the case of IBM sell Lenovo laptops with Linux.

Finally, if you give people the choice of avoiding the draconian licences that MS produce, you have the market telling MS to clean up it's act. The antitrust suit has not done it, but if Dell say to MS "we have an increasing segment wanting something else", they both have the ability to attempt to have MS change both the licence, but also the cost base of the licence (remembering that the EULA of Windows and Office state that you don't own the software you buy, you merely have a limited licence to use it).

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Fred understands nothing John -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075158)

Hi Fred,

I have no issue with what OS Dell might load, whether good, bad or otherwise. Dell will do whatever is commercially attractive to them to do. If that means load Linux then they will do it. If enough customers ask that is great, then Dell may do it if it increases their hardware pull through.

Honestly they really do not care what they load, as the profit comes from the hardware and the customer lock into their hardware and support bundle. True they may get an extra $5 per PC to sell Windows but that is close to zero margin, remembering they sell OEM editions not retail

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

maybe not Fred Nerk -- 22/02/07 (in reply to #320075164)

If you think I understand nothing, maybe you didn't read the comment well enough (hard to do on computer screens).

What I'm saying is that both the GPL allowing free use of the software and the commerciality of offering linux, windows or non OS ends up being a nil effect (something you've already since alluded to) at the construction of system time (notwithstanding support costs).

If the company constructs computers and money is made from hardware, then clearly, offering an extra OS or none at all only serves to help Dell customers and hopefully, Dell themselves. The only people that really suffer is maybe Microsoft. If MS suffer, then the consumer may win a second time, because when the time comes to renegotiate, then the ability for MS to strong arm is diminished (though I may be quite idealistic in this regard). One can only hope.

Ultimately, it is all about choice. And the customer is always right, or the customer can go somewhere else. Then shareholder suffers. That is the commercial reality. And if the commercial reality is that people want linux, then the people will get it.

There is already a retailer in brisbane offering rock bottom brand new computers with Linux and all the extra programs on it. That is happening now.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

Re Ricardo has no business sense ricardo mardi -- 23/02/07 (in reply to #320075141)

Hi Johny,

I have been running my own successful computer business for the last 12 years, trust me, I have some idea of what it's like to survive out there in the Biz world.

Maybe my point of view differs from yours cause I do run a business & you dont.
And also cause I believe in competition & innovation.
Something M$ is very very scared of when it comes to open source as they know in their dear hearts that should the biz model of open source catch on with the general public, Micro$oft would loose 90% of it's revenue$.

It's not just about price$, it's about freedom of competition.

• Reply to comment
• Report offensive content

• Just In

• Most Popular

• Most Discussed

Reader Services

Popular Topics

Essentials