"Dell has sold tens of millions of dollars worth of Linux laptops..."

BulletDust

BulletDust

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 17, 2016
Messages
6,057
To quote Barton George Dell’s Senior Architect in the office of CTO:

You may be wondering why we’re now seeing so many Ubuntu laptops and PCs being sold direct from Dell. The answer is simple: because they sell.
Click to expand...

Barton George wouldn’t put an exact figure on how many Linux laptops Dell has sold to date, but he did offer an insight: “All PR will let me say is that from an initial investment of $40,000 it has returned, over the four years, tens of millions [of dollars]. That’s as specific as I can get.”
Click to expand...

“Linux as an OS is here to stay — that’s a no-brainer — the part that i’ve been focusing on is the higher end, targeted at developers. I want to see it grow,” Barton says.
Click to expand...

It seems like Dell's Linux range is paying off, now all they need to do is make them available in Australia and carry over that $100.00 price reduction in comparison to comparable Windows devices.

Article here:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2017/01/dell-talk-linux-laptops-distros-sales#oo
 
I almost bought one but tbh they are kinda meh. It's pretty nice for dell though.
 
The XPS 13 is a beautiful device, If you could get one in AU for $100.00 less with Ubuntu installed I'd definitely consider buying one.
 
If Dell made sure that all the hardware has up to date driver support, I'd pay more for a linux version.
 
Really I think what you are paying for is not the drivers, but them making sure everything in it is commonly supported by Ubuntu/Debian.
 
Killerxp100 said:
Whats the price difference between the windows and linux versions?
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think Windows is free?

Windows is bundled into the cost of the device, Windows is not free on OEM products.

KarsusTG said:
Really I think what you are paying for is not the drivers, but them making sure everything in it is commonly supported by Ubuntu/Debian.
Click to expand...

The device running Linux is cheaper than the Windows equivalent? I'm confused.
 
The configurator on the Dell website for the Precision 3520 (random ass choice) has Linux as a $100 savings.
oschoice.png
 
Frobozz said:
USA

No clue on if the configurator will link properly, but here we are.
Click to expand...

Sadly the Dell AU site has no option for anything but Windows 10, which is a joke.

I haven't worked out the cost of purchasing the device off Dell US, but considering the exchange rate it's probably too expensive.
 
AND... the trick is:

1. Buy Linux Dell machine for $100 cheaper than Windows machine.
2. Install Dell Windows 7 on machine
3. Upgrade to Windows 10

I bet a decent number of those machines were sold because that is possible.

Another thing is that I bet a lot of companies buy the Linux machines and use their volume licensing through Microsoft and just image them with Windows.
 
cyclone3d said:
AND... the trick is:

1. Buy Linux Dell machine for $100 cheaper than Windows machine.
2. Install Dell Windows 7 on machine
3. Upgrade to Windows 10

I bet a decent number of those machines were sold because that is possible.

Another thing is that I bet a lot of companies buy the Linux machines and use their volume licensing through Microsoft and just image them with Windows.
Click to expand...

But there's absolutely no evidence of this. People could be purchasing Dell laptops to use as door stops, but there's nothing to prove this claim so it's a moot point.
 
cyclone3d said:
Another thing is that I bet a lot of companies buy the Linux machines and use their volume licensing through Microsoft and just image them with Windows.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Companies buy laptops and expect support (and warranty service). Then there are labor costs involved with re-imaging the laptops.
 
Not too surprised these days. Dell has come a long way and really keeps an eye out for what sells and what is to be avoided. Windows in general has been getting so much flak it would make so much sense if they went to Linux. Notebooks with no upgrade path are really a no-brainer when it comes to Linux as you won't have that hardware functionality that often plagues Linux distros. Smart move.
 
auntjemima said:
Not too surprised these days. Dell has come a long way and really keeps an eye out for what sells and what is to be avoided. Windows in general has been getting so much flak it would make so much sense if they went to Linux. Notebooks with no upgrade path are really a no-brainer when it comes to Linux as you won't have that hardware functionality that often plagues Linux distros. Smart move.
Click to expand...

Dell has just launched a 2 in 1 version of the XPS 13. So maybe not as much flack as you may think.
 
BulletDust said:
Ubuntu does have a touch interface.
Click to expand...

I know, I've looked into it and played around with in a Surface Pro 3 a while back. Linux proponents overall don't seem to be big fans of hybrid devices and UIs. I doubt Dell would anytime soon support Ubuntu on such a device though possibly the conventional XPS 13.
 
I have only my own personal experience with these things, and I'm not saying at all that my limited experience is always the case everywhere, so don't jump on my back with examples of where this is done differently. But every one of my own experiences in enterprise are that everyone has their own deployment procedure that involves using a non-OEM Windows image. There is minimal labor cost involved in deploying the image since it has already been made (and in fact imaging saves time because that way you don't have to manage deploy of each individual machine's tools.) But what enterprise cares about is service guarantees. If you're buying a business machine with Linux, you're getting a service guarantee for Linux, and that's super valuable. I'm sure that there are some businesses that are buying Linux machines from Dell so they don't have to double-pay for a Windows license. However, I'd bet good money that most of those machines that are sold as Linux machines are keeping Linux on them.
 
TrailRunner said:
I have only my own personal experience with these things, and I'm not saying at all that my limited experience is always the case everywhere, so don't jump on my back with examples of where this is done differently. But every one of my own experiences in enterprise are that everyone has their own deployment procedure that involves using a non-OEM Windows image. There is minimal labor cost involved in deploying the image since it has already been made (and in fact imaging saves time because that way you don't have to manage deploy of each individual machine's tools.) But what enterprise cares about is service guarantees. If you're buying a business machine with Linux, you're getting a service guarantee for Linux, and that's super valuable. I'm sure that there are some businesses that are buying Linux machines from Dell so they don't have to double-pay for a Windows license. However, I'd bet good money that most of those machines that are sold as Linux machines are keeping Linux on them.
Click to expand...

In our enterprise environment, the machine could come with anything previously installed, we don't pay for it and it doesn't matter. Just stick a USB drive into a device, connect it to our network and that's that. We work with our vendors to get drivers for whatever hardware is on our list and roll those into our own custom images but we do the imagining only through our network.
 
The company I am currently with uses linux for everything. Servers/desktops its all ubuntu.. Its nice on one hand, but they still use older hardware which sucks.
 
ChRoNo16 said:
The company I am currently with uses linux for everything. Servers/desktops its all ubuntu.. Its nice on one hand, but they still use older hardware which sucks.
Click to expand...

It's becoming quite common. I know an individual that works as senior IT support for a rather large company that does special effects for Hollywood studios, in their situation Linux reigns supreme on desktops and rendering clusters for a number of reasons - A very intelligent individual, avoids Windows at all costs, having said that I believe Windows won't do what they need it to do without drawbacks anyway.

They use Google's suite of tools for mundane office tasks and have more money to spend where it matters by saving on Windows licensing.
 
Last edited:
I dont mind it necessarily, its just that the money they save has not gone into having better hardware, they just save the money and let everything lag behind. our "Nice" office machines are intel pentium dual cores thats it.
 
BulletDust said:
A very intelligent individual, avoids Windows at all costs, having said that I believe Windows won't do what they need it to do without drawbacks anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is completely awesome, why use something if it doesn't do what you want or need it to do?
 
heatlesssun said:
Which is completely awesome, why use something if it doesn't do what you want or need it to do?
Click to expand...

The guys incredible, the shit he knows about Linux and corporate IT is downright amazing. I believe they tried Mac's, but performance issues with HFS+ made Linux the only choice.
 
BulletDust said:
The guys incredible, the shit he knows about Linux and corporate IT is downright amazing. I believe they tried Mac's, but performance issues with HFS+ made Linux the only choice.
Click to expand...

You should get the guy to write about the capabilities of Linux openly. I get that you think I'm some Windows fanboy and all of that. I've never disagreed about Windows needing competition on the desktop. The problem I've faced personally is how readily Linux folks dismiss my interests. Sure, PCs aren't all about me but PC does stand for Personal Computer. If Linux is a superior desktop OS that can address most needs, the masses should use it.
 
I hope the individual doesn't take offense at me posting this, and I have no intention of getting into a heated discussion over the opinion of another individual, but I find this post of his very interesting:

The last three years have left me scratching my head. I'm at a complete loss as how to explain the complete lack of quality and professionalism in an industry I used to be proud of.

I make a living as a sysadmin. What does that mean, to be a sysadmin? Well, where I come from it means knowing a lot. It means knowing how to config routers and networking equipment, it means advanced firewalling, DNAT, SNAT, it means knowing how to do traffic sniffing and deciphering packet-level information, it means knowing how to build and configure common services like SMTP/IMAP/POP/mail via a dozen different pieces of software on three different families of operating systems, it means knowing how to build clusters for high availability and high performance, it means knowing when to use CIFS, NFS, SMB, GFS and when not to and what the difference is between them all, it means knowing hwo to configure iSCSI, fibre channel, SANs, direct and non-direct storage, it means knowing SQL and getting information out of databases, it means knowing how to program in a dozen different languages and how to script and automate events in any OS to make life easier, it means understanding authentication and security settings, how to configure any directory service from LDAP to AD to NIS, it means understanding DNS is more than just a optional addon to look up system names occasionally, it means understanding encryption, knowing what terms like Diffie Hellman, AES, SHA1 and others mean, and what parts of the encryption process they apply to, it means being able to make everything you do completely redundant and fault tolerant, right down to you own job, and it means so much more.

Why is it then, that over the last three years I've seen fewer and fewer people who call themselves sysadmins understand these things? Why is it that I've been surrounded by "IT professionals" from junior sysadmins to CTOs who don't have a goddamn clue about one tenth of the above? Why is it that in three years I've met ONE person in professional IT who I would consider worthy of sitting down and having a conversation with?

Why is it that professional IT services today consist of service reps who tell you the things you are doing are untested, dangerous, unsupported, different, not usual, or a host of other words meaning they are scared shitless and unwilling to learn something new? Why is it that I spend my time building things people tell me for 6 months during build and test "will never work", only to have them go into production and work ten times faster for one tenth the cost of the old system? Why is it that IT professionals today choose brand labels over intelligence, and post-justify it by hiding behind "board confidence" when providing a solid, working, profitable system is the best thing to boost confidence from the board?

I tried switching industries. I've done IT in engineering, architecture, film and TV, retail, medical, finance and superannuation. Some of the places I've worked for have been fortune 500s. Some have been Fortune 5s. Did the quality of the IT staff go up? No. Was I met with people who were open minded and willing to learn new things to better the workplaces they were in? No. Was I met with fear, close-mindedness, and nothing but people who rattle off marketing bullshit as an excuse for not knowing technical information? Yes.

And every time I leave, I hear the same things. Some new guy comes in to replace me. Within days/weeks he's broken something necessary for production, lost terabytes of data, destroyed the backup/DR/recovery systems, spent hundreds of thousands replacing something that met the businesses' every need with some proprietary/generic piece of rubbish that performs half as well when there were dozens of other things that could have been improved instead. And all because they didn't take the time to understand the business, it's needs, and the solutions currently in place.

My latest job is no different. I've walked into a place that holds and controls financial data for over 6 million Australians, and around 50 million Americans. A place where data integrity is paramount, and system stability and performance is of the highest regard.

The hardware is provided by a tier 1, namebrand hardware provider (number 2 worldwide in server sales, I hear). The support guys who come on site are paid absolute buckets of cash and are supposedly the best of the best. These guys come out and utterly bollocks up installs. They constantly tell you things are impossible to achieve, only to stare slack-jawed in amazement three weeks later when they are achieved and working faster than their setups were supposed to provide. They rant and spit when I build things for zero-dollar licensing cost that their multi-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollar hardware is supposed to be the only stuff that can do the job (my latest GFS/CLVM cluster outperforms their SAN snapshotting, and is free of charge compared to their pay-a-license-per-snapshot "solution"). And of course, their golden trump card is to say "well that's fine, but we don't support it" when you offend them. Watch the CIOs scramble when their hardware vendors threaten to not offer support! Yet ask them when they last called on the "professional" support (other than simple break/fix/replace stuff), and most can't answer.

I'm disgusted. I'm pissed off. Quite frankly, I'm over IT. I don't consider myself smarter than the average bear, and I don't consider that I have higher expectations than is realistic. I expect that "professional" IT people are professional. I expect that they have a desire to learn, a technical competence to achieve the tasks they set out to do, and a constant need to push the envelope of what's achievable and always move forwards. I expect everyone to have a goal to leave something in a better/faster/more efficient way then they found it. Yet it seems that the last few years have shown people in IT are by and large the complete and polar opposite. Don't get me wrong - I'm not some gung ho cowboy. I've met plenty of those (and sacked a few along the way). Being conservative with sensitive material is always a smart option. But letting it deteriorate is utter ignorance.

Many moons ago, I used to have a mentor. A man who quite frankly I considered genius level. I don't throw around words like "genius" frequently. In my life I've met three people who would rightly qualify as geniuses. Only one I've had the pleasure to work with, and more importantly learn from. In the small amount of time I worked with the man my rate of learning tripled. He had the right amount of sage advice coupled with the sense to let you make your own mistakes from time to time. Sadly the company in question got bought out, and the new owners were typical of all of my criticisms above. Within three months 50% of the IT staff left (myself and my mentor were two of the first). Within 9 months they'd spent 10 times our annual budget on a variety of completely unnecessary infrastructure, and completely ignorant and underqualified consultants (all of whom got the work via personal ties to the new owners, of course), and the company was brought to the brink of destruction. From what I hear this week, they'll be liquidated by the end of the year.

So when did this happen? When did "the IT guy" turn from the person who was cross trained with the breadth and depth of knowledge across a wide variety of systems and procedures turn into a drivelling half-wit who sees more value in a commercial certification than actually learning and building things, and who decides to be "the Microsoft guy" or "the UNIX guy" or "the Cisco guy" and learns nothing but one brand-name item to the ignorance of all others, and often poorly because they can't separate concepts and ideas from brand names and marketing acronyms?

When the hell did professional IT people stop being professional?

I've had a gut full. Something must come of this. The industry as a whole is in for a rude shock if it keeps going the way it does. We keep packing IT departments full of more people who know less. Things break constantly because unqualified people manage them, and departments stop communicating because the connecting technologies are always "somebody else's problem". The industry gets flooded with cowboys who have no concept of system and data integrity, who don't take care with the systems they are put in charge of, who don't bother securing things in a proper fashion so that data doesn't leak everywhere. It's almost a daily event to hear of some horrendously scary security breech that affects millions of innocent people who put their trust in these idiots.

Will there be a crash? Will there be a bottom to this rapidly declining curve? Will it get to the point where IT is just so shithouse that the people relying on it start to demand a certain level of competence? I look at other professional industries - lawyers, doctors, engineers, architects. All of these people need to maintain a certain level of education and prove a certain minimum of competence to practice their arts. My guess is if the same thing happened in IT, 2/3 of the workers would be out the door, and rightly so before they destroy something important.

Maybe I just need to get the hell out of this industry. I keep getting offered roles that are "bigger and better", but they just lead to paperwork hell. I want to stay technical and hands-on, but at the same time am just sick to death of the ignorance and stupidity I see every waking hour in this profession. Were it not for mortgage and children, I would have been out half a decade ago. But maybe it's seriously time to begin working on an exit strategy.

And of course, it doesn't help at all that I've been reading "Atlas Shrugged" these last few weeks. If ever there was a book to convince you to say "fuck the world", that's it.

If you've read this far, good for you.

If you think I'm some sort of uppity, pompous, self-righteous know it all, then you really don't know me. But flame away all the same. Like everyone else, you'll give me a list of reasons why I expect too much, why not everyone is good enough to know everything, blah blah blah. A long list of excuses as to why mediocrity is acceptable and nobody should strive for anything other than average. Your comments will be filed away with the rest of them.

End rant.
Click to expand...
 
BulletDust said:
I hope the individual doesn't take offense at me posting this, and I have no intention of getting into a heated discussion over the opinion of another individual, but I find this post of his very interesting:
Click to expand...

I appreciate the quote. But there is a different perspective on this. One of the things we do in the mega bank I work for is deliberately separating responsibilities. As a security precaution which I hate but that's totally logical, developers like me are restricted from touching production systems. Production support folks aren't allowed access to source code. Something they hate. By design, no one is supposed to understand how it all works. And that's really the only option in this kind of environment.
 
heatlesssun said:
I appreciate the quote. But there is a different perspective on this. One of the things we do in the mega bank I work for is deliberately separating responsibilities. As a security precaution which I hate but that's totally logical, developers like me are restricted from touching production systems. Production support folks aren't allowed access to source code. Something they hate. By design, no one is supposed to understand how it all works. And that's really the only option in this kind of environment.
Click to expand...

Which no doubt is something this individual has dealt with in the past and is totally understandable from a security perspective. This is a very old post, I'm sure this individual has done a lot more in relation to his career since this post was made.

I think he may have been having a bad day, perhaps a dip in life? But his points raised are very interesting in my opinion.
 
jwcalla said:
Unlikely. Companies buy laptops and expect support (and warranty service). Then there are labor costs involved with re-imaging the laptops.
Click to expand...

Pretty much any corporation with Enterprise licensing is going to be blowing away whatever Dell ships the laptop with and putting their own image on it.

Sure you can have Dell put a special image on the machines you order but generally the image and/or pre-installed applications change faster than systems are ordered. Having Dell image your machines with a custom image is fine IF you are doing a huge replacement all at one time, but is not going to be feasible for most companies.

I have done multiple large company computer replacements that took about a week each for hundreds of computers and even then, the computers were imaged by us.

Where I work now, we manage over 7,000 computers and we do all our own imaging, but we do have a standard corporate image.
 
BulletDust said:
I hope the individual doesn't take offense at me posting this, and I have no intention of getting into a heated discussion over the opinion of another individual, but I find this post of his very interesting:
Click to expand...

I completely agree with that huge quote.

heatlesssun said:
I appreciate the quote. But there is a different perspective on this. One of the things we do in the mega bank I work for is deliberately separating responsibilities. As a security precaution which I hate but that's totally logical, developers like me are restricted from touching production systems. Production support folks aren't allowed access to source code. Something they hate. By design, no one is supposed to understand how it all works. And that's really the only option in this kind of environment.
Click to expand...

And then you end up with massive issues of being able to get anything done in a timely manner.

Oh, you have to have a ticket for that.

Oh, the ONLY person that has access to that system is on vacation or is too busy to get to that right now. Great when something is completely down.

Although it is nice to have some stuff not be my responsibility anymore, the amount of removing access to do a bunch of stuff at my own site is astounding, and not in a good way.
 
cyclone3d said:
And then you end up with massive issues of being able to get anything done in a timely manner.

Oh, you have to have a ticket for that.

Oh, the ONLY person that has access to that system is on vacation or is too busy to get to that right now. Great when something is completely down.

Although it is nice to have some stuff not be my responsibility anymore, the amount of removing access to do a bunch of stuff at my own site is astounding, and not in a good way.
Click to expand...

I agree but in this day and age there's just not much of alternative. You simply can't have one person with all the keys to a castle in a place like a bank. The risk is just too great.
 
heatlesssun said:
I agree but in this day and age there's just not much of alternative. You simply can't have one person with all the keys to a castle in a place like a bank. The risk is just too great.
Click to expand...

I don't know whether I could handle working like that, don't you sort of feel like a cog in the machine? I mean, when working for an employer we're all part of something larger. But you're literally, deliberately, a segregated group - Isn't it enough to sign confidentiality agreements when starting the position?

Not attacking in any way, just genuinely curious?
 
Didn't Dell recently get caught installing NSA backdoors to all its preinstalled images?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top