Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Red Hat Software Businesses Linux Business Operating Systems Software

Red Hat Returns To the Linux Desktop 192

Posted by timothy
from the sequels-can-be-good dept.
CWmike writes "Red Hat used to be in the desktop business along with all the other Linux distributors. Then, they left. Now, however, Red Hat is switching from Xen to KVM for virtualization. As part of that switchover, Red Hat will be using not only KVM, but the SolidICE/SPICE desktop virtualization and management software suite to introduce a new server-based desktop virtualization system. Does this mean that Red Hat will be getting back into the Linux desktop business? That's the question I posed to Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens, in a phone call after the Red Hat/KVM press conference, and he told me that, 'Yes. Red Hat will indeed be pushing the Linux desktop again.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Returns To the Linux Desktop

Comments Filter:
  • by foobsr (693224) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:04PM (#26972551) Homepage Journal
    From TFA: Specifically, the new virtual Red Hat Desktop will be managed by Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager for Desktops. This virtual desktops management system, Red Hat claims, will deliver three to five times better cost-performance for both Linux and Windows desktops. (emphasis mine)

    Beyond my comprehension; anyone have an explanation?

  • Re:About time (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:10PM (#26972665)

    I never understood why the left in the first place

    Because they know that Linux will be never a serious alternative on the desktop. You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

    I know, it is really hard to accept, but we have to move on and stop fooling around.

  • Based on colour... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Fred_A (10934) <fred AT fredshome DOT org> on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:11PM (#26972689) Homepage

    Since most of my hats are brown (along with a couple black ones), I guess I'll have to run Ubuntu.

    It's not that I really mind running beta software, it's this whole "you people are testing what we expect to sell as 'enterprise' for a premium later on, we're waiting for your bug reports" thing that I don't really like with the current RH. Although truthfully I haven't run RH since RH 3 or 4.

    Not that distributions really matter all that much in the end, after you've been through the rounds and you're done with dicking around with your machine and you finally settle with just using it, you realise that they all ship pretty much the same stuff. And that the details really don't matter all that much. So unless you're really excited with a given logo, you can just pick one at random. They're all the same.
    If you're in a corporate setting pick the one that's supported by the package you need, or if you don't require anything external, the one you already know, you'll save a week of work. Doesn't matter. Basically they all mostly work (and/or are broken in the same kinds of places). Same as most operating systems really.

    And honestly I really doubt one couldn't have used RH on the desktop those past years. No Gnome or KDE repositories (or XFCE, or any other desktop ? did it even have X11 ? Or was it too hard for "grandma" (who is surely glad that RH finally pandered to her needs) ?


  • by jmyers (208878) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:21PM (#26972865)

    I started using red hat with 2.0.2. I currently use fedora 9. As far as I could tell the switch from red hat 9 to fc 1 was a name change only. I have not seen anything out of line with the way the distribution has worked all along. There may have been differences, but as far as I can tell they were marketing and name of the distribution. Not function and the normal evolution of the product. As far as stability I had as many (most likely more) issues with red hat releases as I have with new fedora releases.

    How exactly were you burned by a name change of a free product?

  • by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:37PM (#26973081) Homepage

    I have.

    RH9.0 was rock solid.

    FC1-4 were buggy as hell with major problems. I jumped ship. I was a solid Redhat Guy.

    If they are better, I'll never know. I'm not gonna dump any more time into Fedora.

  • Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jamstar7 (694492) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:38PM (#26973103)

    I never understood why the left in the first place

    Because they know that Linux will be never a serious alternative on the desktop. You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

    Wish you woulda told me that before I installed the then-new Redhat 3.0.3 back in '96. I stuck with them til I went Ubuntu with Hoary in mid-'05. Been daily using Linux as a desktop since '96, nice to know I've been wasting my time on an impossible goal.

  • by bberens (965711) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @01:55PM (#26973323)
    Virtualization is a huge cost saver in our shop. We bought one blade system and we have our source control, developer box (build system, wiki, etc.), a few QA and development servers (including a few db servers for dev/qa). And that's just the stuff MY department puts on there. We are also moving to have a few virtual machines set up as hot backup for some live systems with dedicated boxes. Eventually I predict we'll also put some actual production systems in virtual machines once the pointy hairs have built up some confidence in them in cases where it makes sense to do so.
  • by davecb (6526) * <> on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @02:40PM (#26973891) Homepage Journal

    Resource management was pretty horrid in those days: users had to do it themselves with "nice". And they usually weren't (;-))

    These days, Linux is a hotbed of resource management research and one of it's biggest supporters, IBM, has done some impressive work on zOS.


  • by Galois2 (1481427) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @02:53PM (#26974093)

    I left Redhat when they went Fedora and have never looked back. I hope I never have to.

    Oh, so you've stopped using the kernel, ext3, Xorg, usb, glib, glibc, gcc, gnome, KDE, nautilus, gconf, dbus, hal, NetworkManager, coreutils, parted, grub, rpm, yum, anaconda, kudzu, ntsysv, and firefox? If not, you haven't left Red Hat. They write, maintain, or make major contributions to all of these areas, and you're using RH whether you're using their branded distribution or not.

    I am grateful for all that RH has done and is continuing to do for linux.

  • by Logic Worshiper (1480539) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @10:41PM (#26978359)
    You have to be kidding me. Ubuntu is butt ugly out of the box. In fact Ubuntu is so ugly I'll change the theme on a live disk.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn