Compatible with…(insert operating system)
I don’t get it. Or maybe I am not expected to understand it. Yesterday I went to a local Best Buy retail store to pick up a USB Flash Drive. After doing a quick price comparison I ended up purchasing the Geek Squad (the Best Buy) branded product. The next day I took the device into work and just as I was about to open it I quickly glanced at the back of the package and noticed:
“Compatible with Windows 2000 SP4/Windows XP/Windows Vista/ Windows 7, Mac OS 10.x and above.“
What about Linux? Coincidentally this device was getting plugged into and used only by a Fedora Linux system. Now I know that this would have worked (despite the package’s information) and not have any problems with ANY Linux and for the most part almost all UNIX -based operating systems. The device (as all other USB Flash Drives) are labeled with a FAT32 file system and Linux, like any other OS kernel can read a FAT32 labeled volume with no problems. On top of that, most mainstream distributions (if not all) enable automount and an auto open of USB storage devices. The user doesn’t need to do it themselves, similar to Windows and the Mac OS. So what is the problem? Why couldn’t the package say “Linux 2.6 and above” or something to that extent?
You would think from a marketing point-of-view it would have been wise to place this on the package for individuals new to the world of Linux and unsure about a few things. Maybe someone new to Ubuntu or Mint or even SUSE just got a netbook with a preloaded Linux-based image on it. They are looking to find some hardware compatible with it and wait a minute the Geek Squad USB Flash Drives sold at Best Buy do not say that they will work. There is a lost sale.
Some of you may think that this is not such a big deal and that I am thinking too deep into this. I don’t disagree. I am thinking too deep into this, but it is only because I am still surprised when I come across things like this. For instance, not too long ago I was looking at laser printers and guess what some said on it (I specifically remember Lexmark):
“…compatible with Linux“
I remember buying a pack of labels to print names and addresses, guess what the package of labels said on the back:
“…compatible with Linux“
The list goes on. Whether end-user market share for Linux is 1%, 0.01% or 100%, manufacturers need to get used to the fact that its market share is creeping up especially with the huge influence Linux holds on mobile devices. For instance, when the Android-based tablets come out, people are going to be looking for:
“…compatible with Linux” or “…compatible with Android“
Quite! I quite agree. They’re missing out on those poor Linux users who don’t think everything works on Linux.
How about putting it on as default?
They really need to think about it. Linux surpassed OSX long ago. Even in the eyes of MS.
But I’m thinking of all the people on Ubuntu who don’t think about Linux at all.
The SanDisk Cruzer says “Mac OS X v10.1.2+ and Linux (storage only)” on the back, we sell them all the time. Also, many MP3 players these days say they support Linux 2.6 or higher.
While chuckling at DanDart’s last sentence (which holds a tad more than a grain of truth), I agree with you. Perhaps you are “thinking too deep into this,” but thoughtful marketing people (not an oxymoron, incidentally) would realize that being all-inclusive would mean more exposure and, say it with me, more exposure leads to more sales.
Great blog item.
Larry Cafiero
The problem is that as soon as they put “Linux Compatible” on the label then they have to support Linux in some way and its just not worth it for them. Support is a major issue for many companies and its not something you should just dismiss because you want them to say it supports Linux.
“Compatible with Windows 2000 SP4/Windows XP/Windows Vista/ Windows 7, Mac OS 10.x and above.“
Please note, Linux is included by the last two words “and above”, Linux is definitely ABOVE!
My company makes mp3 players. We have gotten it to work on windows xp, windows 7 and mac os x. Our QA is happy with the product, and so we go ahead and push it into retail stores.
Let us talk about supporting linux. I connect it to ubuntu, and a nice popup comes up saying ‘new devices found’. I click on it and it opens Dolphin, and I am happy, I copy the songs, and voila everything works out of the box!
I now try it on gentoo, and on my machine, it just works. But my friend is a geek. He likes tweaking around with his linux box. He doesn’t want anything ‘extra’. He has a manually compiled kernel, with all extra modules disabled. He connects this mp3 player on his machine and nothing happens.
Getting my point? When someone says ‘Windows XP’ or ‘Windows 7′ or ‘Mac OS X’, it means one thing – one piece of software. Whereas when someone says ‘Linux’ it can mean a horde of distributions multiplied by uncountable combination of softwares. Using kde/gnome? using Xfce? What will our support engineers do when someone calls them up and says, dude your mp3 player is not detected in my linux box? What combination of distributions/display-managers/desktop-environments will you support?
@sri: the (hypothetical) anecdote you provide is a poor argument: unix users that listen to “geek” and who like to customise their system to their hearts’ content will not idly stare at their screens when “nothing happens”. the users that are not able to figure out how to mount a flash device will use distributions that do not require them to know (i.e. most distributions with default settings), others will know what to do. i do recognise that the Linux kernel is known to change certain subsystems every once in a while, thereby possibly complicating full support, but a flash device is simply too basic too be concerned about unreliable support from the kernel.
on another note: how much do you imagine the companies are able to help you with your windows/osx system when the end user experiences some unexpected difficulty? i could not imagine any technician paying a visit to get the hardware going on your system. call centers just feature minimum wage-workers with a (conversation) script in front of them, AFAIK.
Sri – Nobody expects vendors to support any and all conceivable combinations, permutations and configurations of linux. So the vendor can pick one, say, ubuntu. If their box says “supports linux (ubuntu hardy heron and above) note – may work on other distributions but has not been tested” the problem is solved. The fedora, debian and opensuse users will see that notice and can be fairly certain that it will just work. The vendor only has to worry about one distro, and linux is mentioned on the packaging – not a bad compromise.
“Compatible with Windows 2000 SP4/Windows XP/Windows Vista/ Windows 7, Mac OS 10.x and above.“
Every time I read this message in a Box, I only pay attention to the ”and above”, it means linux compatible, for sure.
The answer is: everything is an advertisement. Companies make money by splashing Windows logos and compatibility and recommendation blurbs all over their websites, products, and packaging. Linux is the underdog precisely because it is free, not because of its quality (even though it certainly still, and could always use, improvements in quality, features, and standards in several areas.
I think that the main reason for the compatibility list is that it excludes windows95,98,ME,3.1,OS9, etc.
More and more devices list Linux compatibility these days.
What you really need to worry about is when they start to say “compatible with Windows 2000 SP4/Windows XP/Windows Vista/ Windows 7, Mac OS 10.x, Ubuntu 10.4 and above”
well
“Compatible with Windows 2000 SP4/Windows XP/Windows Vista/ Windows 7, Mac OS 10.x and above.“
above means linux.
From another point of view, some users of those non-Linux operating system may point to the lack of a “compatible with Linux” and attempt to claim that something as simple as a USB stick won’t work with Linux. This lack of a Linux compatibility tag may keep some non-Linux users in that mid-1990s mindset where more hardware didn’t work with Linux than did.
So, the fact that something works with Linux is probably a secondary consideration. The primary consideration is that some non-Linux users just *assume* that nothing works with Linux, and that old mindset needs to be squished.
There are many printers that are compatible with Linux, but I’ve got one (Canon i350) that isn’t (or is with a $40 third party driver) and an all-in-one that’s cludgy (Brother MFC 240C). So, while I’ve not had problems with driverless devices (memory sticks, a few cameras, external hard drives), look for a Linux driver before buying the printer.
There are many flavors of Linux, and so many ways to customize them. OS X and Windows have set APIs and libraries which are not changeable, and can therefore be counted on to be present for compatibility. The ultimate ability to customize which Linux affords us means that any particular distro or end user could have removed crucial components necessary to make a product work. Saying a product is linux compatible exposes that company to legal liability and a huge amount of support costs. It would be nice if manufacturers could say they’re linux compatible when a vast majority of Linux installations will support it, but it won’t be legally or financially feasible until there are globally-common ways to easily add necessary components across all distributions. Looks like we have some more dev work to do, just so that companies can say they’re Linux compatible: any easily added and administered software distribution package which is compatible with all Linux distributions.
FWIW, I see quite a few devices (typically cheap’n'cheerful Chinese stuff) that expressly name Linux 2.4 or 2.6 or whenever USB came in.