snydeq writes "Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC. 'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it,' Whitehurst said, adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing, as well as VDI. 'The concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age. I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.' Despite increasing awareness that desktop Linux is ready for widespread mainstream adoption, fellow panelists questioned the practicality of switching to Linux, noting that even some Linux developers prefer Macs to Linux. 'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'"
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
Accepting that you have a problem with accepting Linux and that you are powerless in regards to Windows.
Came to believe that Linux will restore us to sanity.
Make a decision to our computers to Linux or to the distribution that we prefer.
Make a moral inventory of our computer systems.
Admit to Slashdot, Linus, and to others the exact nature of our wrong OS choice.
We submit to Linux to remove our OS shortcomings.
Humbly submit to Linux
Make a list of computers we installed Windows on and make amends and become willing to install Linux on them
Find those machines and install Linux.
Continued to take computer inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Linux as we understood the distribution we use, praying only for knowledge of Linus' will for us and the power to carry that out.
Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to others, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Quite true, but then neither is Windows. I often become quite frustrated with the usability, documentation, and quality problems in PC Unixes. Then, I'm forced to use Windows for some reason or another, and memories of the reasons that I quit using it come flooding back. The fact that Windows is an unmaintainable, malware riddled, shambles with severe usability and performance problems doesn't stop people from using it and often even (incomprehensibly) paying money for it. I don't imagine that the fact that Unix desktops are not really ready for prime time is going to discourage their slow adoption.
Perhaps Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst is just referring to desktop installation of Red Hat Linux having insufficient payback for Red Hat. The need for support contracts would be SO much greater if clients used Windows desktops to connect to the Red Hat servers (Windows being even less ready for the desktop, and more needy of support).
Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop.
Well considering linux with apache powers a considerable (i.e. more than windows) chunk of the web server market, shouldn't there be more malware and worms etc written for it already? considering they are all facing the web etc.
2. I'm a gamer, and all my games run just fine in Linux.
3. Photoshop works just fine, out of the box, in Linux through WINE if you *really* must have it.
So yeah... all is well for me. I also do video editing and DVD authoring work in Linux, which I find has better tools and better control over the end product than any package I've found for Windows.
Is there a learning curve?
Of course there is. But go visit the Helios project blog and you'll be awakened to a world in which desktop Linux is distributed to underprivileged children who pick it up in a matter of minutes. Keeping in mind that these are children who have never used a computer of *ANY* kind.
If you want Linux adoption, the children is where to target it. Our generation grew up with windows, and a vast many people don't want to let go of the past.
Teach your children Linux, and do the future a favor.
Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.
Exactly! I find it annoying that people point to Ubuntu as if Canonical was a perfect example of an open source company. Canonical would not exist if Shuttleworth didn't have a lot of money. He's not making anything on this Ubuntu thing, as far as I know.
Not to say Canonical is bad or Ubuntu stinks, I use it at home actually... but it's being supported by one of those evil corporate people that made money in business. (I don't think made money == evil, but you know...)
Actually, put the right spin on it, and Canonical/Ubuntu is the best example of Open Source success: guy harnesses F/OSS stuff to get rich, pays the community back by putting his money where his mouth is.
\No idea how they are making a revenue other than with t-shirts and bags, but apparently they do make a profit. It's not just one person or fund. Or the fund is large enough for sufficient interest.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday March 25 2009, @11:55AM (#27331503)
recent ati card still don't works out of the box, 3g huawei modem have troubles, sound card stutters, sleep works rarely, switching from x11 to console may cause lookups and so on.
It might not be ready for his desktop be it has been on my desktop for 7+ years. His main problem is that he doesn't know how to make money off of Desktop Linux.
This makes me think that... if I don't know how to make money from orange juice, should I tell people that drinking it is stupid?
Well, no - but maybe it means you tell people you don't think it's worth being in the orange juice business...
As for preferring Macs over Linux - I've been down that road and I came back. In the end OS X just didn't make me happy. Replacing my Mac laptop with a Linux one has been delightful. It just feels right.
Also, what's with the assumption that the desktop won't be relevant in 5 years? That seems highly unlikely.
It's already been around and mainstream for maybe 15 years, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Sure, mobile devices are going to play an increasing role, but I get the feeling that people are still going to be heading into an office five days a week five years from now.
Let me know when a mobile phone can serve as a CAD workstation, video editing workstation, or other high performance need. We have plenty of those around here where I work. Also need to mention dual wide screen monitors in imaging departments like radiology (they rotate them vertically for x-rays, etc.) It's more likely that thin clients will become the norm again before mobile devices replace desktops. We have a lot of Citrix thin clients here and that number is growing steadily...
Let me know when a mobile phone can serve as a CAD workstation, video editing workstation, or other high performance need. We have plenty of those around here where I work. Also need to mention dual wide screen monitors in imaging departments like radiology (they rotate them vertically for x-rays, etc.) It's more likely that thin clients will become the norm again before mobile devices replace desktops. We have a lot of Citrix thin clients here and that number is growing steadily...
Whitehurst is a CEO. He thinks that all anyone uses a computer for is sending and receiving email.
People have been predicting the death of the desktop computer almost since it was invented. Thin clients attached to powerful servers (or the newest buzzword "the cloud") have been touted as the future of computing for decades.
The simple fact is that even if these things worked flawlessly and without latency (they don't), the consumer just doesn't want to give up that kind of control to a central entity. We like to have our own applications on our own box, and we don't trust some big company to keep our stuff safe and private. The desktop hardware may continue to shrink, but it will still be the desktop. The death of the desktop has been 5 years away for the past 30 years, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
First, I am not in the IT industry. I run small law firm.
My entire buisness, two offices, 30 computers, routers, servers, all Linux (PClos 2009 is my flavor). Not a single copy of anything else in my office, all running free or open source software legally. I save over $250,000 a year and climbing over what I would have needed to pay for the equivalent (and most is not equivalent). Since I started my biz about 4 years ago, that could be seen as something around $1 million dollars. In real money, that is something likly closer to $400,000 in cash, because I likly simply would have had to do without most of the stuff I take for granted (e.g. loading up a backup mail server on an old computer, rather than forking out $2,000+ for new one ). Thus, my buisness likly would be much smaller.
The savings is even greater on the desktop. Somewhere in neighborhood of $1,000 per seat or more. Hardware alone, as I live in a country with expensive outdated hardware, is 50% over walking in to a store to buy a new computer because I run Linux.
I would likly not be able to afford to be in biz without Linux.
Making money comes in two basic forms. You either raise the price, or reduce your cost. I am making more money using linux and OS, because I reduced my cost. I can afford not to raise prices on clients, I get more clients, and make more money.
Not my problem the old guard IT industry can not figure out how to make money with Linux, because I am sure I am not the only small buisness out there that is making money on Open Source.
Yes I think I'm going to take this sage wisdom from some ignant suit... "I dunno how to make money off it, so it must be irrelevant." Maybe loosen that tie a little and let some oxygen up in that ol' brain there, buddy? Perhaps then RedHat and Fedora will stop getting declining in quality with each new release.
Cloud computing and the client-server architecture in general is definitely decreasing the significance of the desktop and will continue to do so, but there will likely remain some niches where it makes sense to have significant desktop performance.
One example that comes to mind is doing development work, including both traditional programming and CAD work as well as graphics design. To be responsive to the user it seems those would want to keep most of the processing near the end user. Similarly, anything dealing with sensitive information must tread lightly when dealing with the cloud or any other server which is not under direct and immediate control.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday March 25 2009, @11:39AM (#27331213)
You're right, in 5 years the hundreds of millions of desktop computers running various OS's will all go away because of massive investments by companies in huge single points of failu^H^H^H cloud computing facilities. And with this booming economy, those billion dollar future tech gambles will be coming along any day now...
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
Anyone old enough here to remember that? Bill Gates responded to Ellison's claim that the PC was dead, by saying, "I like my PC."
I think a lot of folks still like the freedom of being able to install what *they* want, not what is available in some cloud, or what their company's IT folks claim to be "the standard application set" that is more than anyone else might need.
Now, whether Jim Whitehurst can make money off how *I* like to handle my computing needs, well, that's his problem.
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I use Linux on my laptop, but even I have to agree.
What I want is a $50 add-on that will:
1. Fully and legally support bytecode interpreter and hinting for fonts. Bonus points for including decent fonts as well. 2. Support all major audio and video codecs. I shouldn't have to break any laws to get support for my digital media. Bonus points for not having to buy another codec pack when I upgrade my OS. 3. Support multi-monitor automatically when I connect a monitor (like Mac or Windows). 4. Work well on laptops. I should not see error messages about my hard drive failing to soft-reset every time I wake my laptop up from sleep.
Wasn't the desktop never meant to happen? Won't we all meant to be using thin clients?
This never happened, and may never happen because the bandwidth speed isn't going up faster than computers speed.
Maybe we will reach a point where all the user input and computer output can be piped about and the latency isn't a problem, but even then I'm not sure people will want it. The freedom implications seams sinister to me, and I'm untrusting of storing stuff only online as I've had data lost for me before (ok, ten years ago, but still).
I think things will continue as today, fat clients. I can do whatever I want the limits being only myself, time and my machine specs.
Scales nicely too.
This is one of the interesting things you constantly hear about Desktop Linux: vendors must provide support.
Have you EVER heard of an end user calling Microsoft for support? I'm sure people do, but I've never heard of such a thing.
People just assume they should know, else they ask me or other geeks for help. Corporation hire experts who are trained or self taught. Even THEY don't call Microsoft for help.
I worked on a team that paid Microsoft for support. I actually used it, and had them fix a problem (that I couldn't figure out via google and newsgroups). Of course, my boss commented that it was the first time Microsoft support had actually managed to fix a problem, so YMMV.
We also paid a premium for the privilege. But this was a product that generated enough revenue that the higher-ups paid a huge premium to have a Microsoft engineer come out and sit around while we were deploying certain SQL Server replication changes, just in case something went wrong.
We had an MSDN Universal subscription. We had a case where an app needed to access Card & Socket services to determine what actually was in the PCMCIA slot (This was under NT4).
Nothing in MSDN. Called support and got an answer from them. Of course, they said "This is undocumented, and is not guaranteed to work on any other release.".
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.
Linux lost me on the desktop 8 years ago when OSX came out. Most of the "switchers" I knew didn't go from windows to Mac in those days, they went from Linux to Mac. Especially developers. With OSX, we had our unix stack for *AMP development plus something Linux didn't: commercial applications. The fact we could still run MS Office, Photoshop, and other such programs made it easy to switch. Plus the hardware just worked. There were no driver issues, especially with laptops, etc..
When computers stopped being something I toyed with on the side to my main source of income, my priority shifted because my time became worth something. I no longer had time to try to recompile a driver for my sound card 6 different ways depending on the Linux Flavour of the moment. In fact, I found Linux to be annoying as hell because it's a kernel, not an operating system. All the different distros but libraries and such in different directories based on whatever their reasonings were. So if you were working on a Redhat box one day and tried to test on a debain or slackware box the next, nothing would work.
That's why I left the Linux world for FreeBSD on the server side and the reason why I dumped both Windows and Linux desktop for MacOSX back in 2001.
What the Linux community still doesn't understand is that it's all about the apps. Now with Intel Macs, I run XP via parallels. I have one 24" iMac sitting on my desk that does it all. (I'm still using my older 12.1" powerbook as my laptop).
Last year when we were first starting up this operation, we bought barebones machines and slapped linux on them for developers. After, they were more than enough to run Eclipse for Java development. Well they all got frustrated with this or that and ended up bringing in XP discs and installing on their machines. (Which was a problem for a variety of reasons). So we replaced the barebones boxes with MacMinis that came with parallels and a copy of XP pro already installed. Everyone's been a lot happier.
"On a normal ascii line, the only safe condition to detect is a 'BREAK'
- everything else having been assigned functions by Gnu EMACS."
(By Tarl Neustaedter)
Give up control? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want to give up control of 'MY' unit to the cloud...ever!
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Funny)
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
Parent
I had to. (Score:5, Funny)
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
Parent
Must be slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
!but then remembered what it was i was doing and where i was doing it and then....
I'm sorry... where was i?
Parent
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Insightful)
***Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.***
Quite true, but then neither is Windows. I often become quite frustrated with the usability, documentation, and quality problems in PC Unixes. Then, I'm forced to use Windows for some reason or another, and memories of the reasons that I quit using it come flooding back. The fact that Windows is an unmaintainable, malware riddled, shambles with severe usability and performance problems doesn't stop people from using it and often even (incomprehensibly) paying money for it. I don't imagine that the fact that Unix desktops are not really ready for prime time is going to discourage their slow adoption.
Parent
Maximize service contract revenue! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop.
Parent
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Lenovo 3000 N500 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Lenovo 3000 N500 #2 - Gentoo 2008.1 - some issues (WTF, IT'S GENTOO)
Dell Inspiron e1505 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Acer Extensa 4220 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Acer Extensa 4620 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
HP 6710b - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
HP 6730b - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
IBM Thinkpad X41 Tablet - Ubuntu 8.10 - Some issues, mostly related to the tablet functionality.
Did you have a point, or were you just assuming that your (or your "friend's") one experience made a trend?
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record:
1. I'm a desktop linux user of almost 2 years.
2. I'm a gamer, and all my games run just fine in Linux.
3. Photoshop works just fine, out of the box, in Linux through WINE if you *really* must have it.
So yeah... all is well for me. I also do video editing and DVD authoring work in Linux, which I find has better tools and better control over the end product than any package I've found for Windows.
Is there a learning curve?
Of course there is. But go visit the Helios project blog and you'll be awakened to a world in which desktop Linux is distributed to underprivileged children who pick it up in a matter of minutes. Keeping in mind that these are children who have never used a computer of *ANY* kind.
If you want Linux adoption, the children is where to target it. Our generation grew up with windows, and a vast many people don't want to let go of the past.
Teach your children Linux, and do the future a favor.
Parent
He's just angry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Making a profit and being relevant are two different things.
I use Linux for desktop both at work (RHEL/PC) and home (Ubuntu/netbook).
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Funny)
Making a profit and being relevant are two different things.
Not if you're a Ferengi [yahoo.com]
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! I find it annoying that people point to Ubuntu as if Canonical was a perfect example of an open source company. Canonical would not exist if Shuttleworth didn't have a lot of money. He's not making anything on this Ubuntu thing, as far as I know.
Not to say Canonical is bad or Ubuntu stinks, I use it at home actually... but it's being supported by one of those evil corporate people that made money in business. (I don't think made money == evil, but you know...)
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, put the right spin on it, and Canonical/Ubuntu is the best example of Open Source success: guy harnesses F/OSS stuff to get rich, pays the community back by putting his money where his mouth is.
Parent
There is more information you need to know here. (Score:5, Informative)
Shuttleworth has stated before that he was able to start Thawte due directly to F/OSS.
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
\No idea how they are making a revenue other than with t-shirts and bags, but apparently they do make a profit. It's not just one person or fund. Or the fund is large enough for sufficient interest.
Training [canonical.com] and support [canonical.com]?
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
I love linux, but you need some reality check.
Parent
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not be ready for his desktop be it has been on my desktop for 7+ years.
His main problem is that he doesn't know how to make money off of Desktop Linux.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes me think that... if I don't know how to make money from orange juice, should I tell people that drinking it is stupid?
Well, no - but maybe it means you tell people you don't think it's worth being in the orange juice business...
As for preferring Macs over Linux - I've been down that road and I came back. In the end OS X just didn't make me happy. Replacing my Mac laptop with a Linux one has been delightful. It just feels right.
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, what's with the assumption that the desktop won't be relevant in 5 years? That seems highly unlikely.
It's already been around and mainstream for maybe 15 years, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Sure, mobile devices are going to play an increasing role, but I get the feeling that people are still going to be heading into an office five days a week five years from now.
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
To hell with CAD, let me know when a mobile phone can act as a functional word processor.
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know when a mobile phone can serve as a CAD workstation, video editing workstation, or other high performance need. We have plenty of those around here where I work. Also need to mention dual wide screen monitors in imaging departments like radiology (they rotate them vertically for x-rays, etc.) It's more likely that thin clients will become the norm again before mobile devices replace desktops. We have a lot of Citrix thin clients here and that number is growing steadily...
Whitehurst is a CEO. He thinks that all anyone uses a computer for is sending and receiving email.
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been predicting the death of the desktop computer almost since it was invented. Thin clients attached to powerful servers (or the newest buzzword "the cloud") have been touted as the future of computing for decades.
The simple fact is that even if these things worked flawlessly and without latency (they don't), the consumer just doesn't want to give up that kind of control to a central entity. We like to have our own applications on our own box, and we don't trust some big company to keep our stuff safe and private. The desktop hardware may continue to shrink, but it will still be the desktop. The death of the desktop has been 5 years away for the past 30 years, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Parent
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why Microsoft is afraid of Desktop Linux – no money to be made.
Parent
I make money off of linux (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I am not in the IT industry. I run small law firm.
My entire buisness, two offices, 30 computers, routers, servers, all Linux (PClos 2009 is my flavor). Not a single copy of anything else in my office, all running free or open source software legally. I save over $250,000 a year and climbing over what I would have needed to pay for the equivalent (and most is not equivalent). Since I started my biz about 4 years ago, that could be seen as something around $1 million dollars. In real money, that is something likly closer to $400,000 in cash, because I likly simply would have had to do without most of the stuff I take for granted (e.g. loading up a backup mail server on an old computer, rather than forking out $2,000+ for new one ). Thus, my buisness likly would be much smaller.
The savings is even greater on the desktop. Somewhere in neighborhood of $1,000 per seat or more. Hardware alone, as I live in a country with expensive outdated hardware, is 50% over walking in to a store to buy a new computer because I run Linux.
I would likly not be able to afford to be in biz without Linux.
Making money comes in two basic forms. You either raise the price, or reduce your cost. I am making more money using linux and OS, because I reduced my cost. I can afford not to raise prices on clients, I get more clients, and make more money.
Not my problem the old guard IT industry can not figure out how to make money with Linux, because I am sure I am not the only small buisness out there that is making money on Open Source.
Parent
Oh golly... (Score:4, Funny)
Flip flop (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't I just read something about Redhat moving back into the desktop?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1721248 [slashdot.org]
The desktop is likely to still be relevant (Score:4, Interesting)
One example that comes to mind is doing development work, including both traditional programming and CAD work as well as graphics design. To be responsive to the user it seems those would want to keep most of the processing near the end user. Similarly, anything dealing with sensitive information must tread lightly when dealing with the cloud or any other server which is not under direct and immediate control.
Desktop irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, in 5 years the hundreds of millions of desktop computers running various OS's will all go away because of massive investments by companies in huge single points of failu^H^H^H cloud computing facilities. And with this booming economy, those billion dollar future tech gambles will be coming along any day now...
Dumbest. CEO. Ever (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have we heard the 'Death of the Desktop'. Just because he can't figure out how to make money on it does not mean it is going away.
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
Re:Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 yea (Score:5, Funny)
wat u meen?!!
Parent
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions of Ubuntu users question the relevance of Red Hat on the desktop.
Sounds like Larry Ellison's "Network Computer" (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone old enough here to remember that? Bill Gates responded to Ellison's claim that the PC was dead, by saying, "I like my PC."
I think a lot of folks still like the freedom of being able to install what *they* want, not what is available in some cloud, or what their company's IT folks claim to be "the standard application set" that is more than anyone else might need.
Now, whether Jim Whitehurst can make money off how *I* like to handle my computing needs, well, that's his problem.
Revealing statement (Score:4, Funny)
I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.
We've just learned two things about Jim Whitehurst:
Isn't Cloud computing simply 70s-era technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I want ownership.
I use Linux on my laptop, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Linux on my laptop, but even I have to agree.
What I want is a $50 add-on that will:
1. Fully and legally support bytecode interpreter and hinting for fonts. Bonus points for including decent fonts as well.
2. Support all major audio and video codecs. I shouldn't have to break any laws to get support for my digital media. Bonus points for not having to buy another codec pack when I upgrade my OS.
3. Support multi-monitor automatically when I connect a monitor (like Mac or Windows).
4. Work well on laptops. I should not see error messages about my hard drive failing to soft-reset every time I wake my laptop up from sleep.
The world only needs 5 "real" computers.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This never happened, and may never happen because the bandwidth speed isn't going up faster than computers speed. Maybe we will reach a point where all the user input and computer output can be piped about and the latency isn't a problem, but even then I'm not sure people will want it. The freedom implications seams sinister to me, and I'm untrusting of storing stuff only online as I've had data lost for me before (ok, ten years ago, but still).
I think things will continue as today, fat clients. I can do whatever I want the limits being only myself, time and my machine specs.
Scales nicely too.
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:5, Insightful)
One support call by each buyer will exhaust the 50$.
And people who buy rather than download will be kind of people who will need support.
Parent
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the interesting things you constantly hear about Desktop Linux: vendors must provide support.
Have you EVER heard of an end user calling Microsoft for support? I'm sure people do, but I've never heard of such a thing.
People just assume they should know, else they ask me or other geeks for help. Corporation hire experts who are trained or self taught. Even THEY don't call Microsoft for help.
Parent
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:4, Informative)
I worked on a team that paid Microsoft for support. I actually used it, and had them fix a problem (that I couldn't figure out via google and newsgroups). Of course, my boss commented that it was the first time Microsoft support had actually managed to fix a problem, so YMMV.
We also paid a premium for the privilege. But this was a product that generated enough revenue that the higher-ups paid a huge premium to have a Microsoft engineer come out and sit around while we were deploying certain SQL Server replication changes, just in case something went wrong.
Parent
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:4, Informative)
We had an MSDN Universal subscription. We had a case where an app needed to access Card & Socket services to determine what actually was in the PCMCIA slot (This was under NT4).
Nothing in MSDN. Called support and got an answer from them. Of course, they said "This is undocumented, and is not guaranteed to work on any other release.".
Parent
Anecdotes (Score:5, Insightful)
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.
Parent
Re:I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux lost me on the desktop 8 years ago when OSX came out. Most of the "switchers" I knew didn't go from windows to Mac in those days, they went from Linux to Mac. Especially developers. With OSX, we had our unix stack for *AMP development plus something Linux didn't: commercial applications. The fact we could still run MS Office, Photoshop, and other such programs made it easy to switch. Plus the hardware just worked. There were no driver issues, especially with laptops, etc..
When computers stopped being something I toyed with on the side to my main source of income, my priority shifted because my time became worth something. I no longer had time to try to recompile a driver for my sound card 6 different ways depending on the Linux Flavour of the moment. In fact, I found Linux to be annoying as hell because it's a kernel, not an operating system. All the different distros but libraries and such in different directories based on whatever their reasonings were. So if you were working on a Redhat box one day and tried to test on a debain or slackware box the next, nothing would work.
That's why I left the Linux world for FreeBSD on the server side and the reason why I dumped both Windows and Linux desktop for MacOSX back in 2001.
What the Linux community still doesn't understand is that it's all about the apps. Now with Intel Macs, I run XP via parallels. I have one 24" iMac sitting on my desk that does it all. (I'm still using my older 12.1" powerbook as my laptop).
Last year when we were first starting up this operation, we bought barebones machines and slapped linux on them for developers. After, they were more than enough to run Eclipse for Java development. Well they all got frustrated with this or that and ended up bringing in XP discs and installing on their machines. (Which was a problem for a variety of reasons). So we replaced the barebones boxes with MacMinis that came with parallels and a copy of XP pro already installed. Everyone's been a lot happier.
Parent