Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Red Hat Desktop Edition 345

Posted by michael from the cherry-picking dept.
Sivar writes "Red Hat plans to enter the desktop business OS market, The Register reports. Red Hat says that the move is in response to growing frustration with Microsoft which has peaked since the introduction of Microsoft's new licensing scheme. The article states that the desktop offering is due next year and, surprisingly "...the company is considering subscription-based pricing.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Red Hat Desktop Edition More

Red Hat Desktop Edition

Comments Filter:
  • All service-based things are generally subscribtion based... from the pool guy to the Cable TV. Enterprise software has always been sold this way.

    So redhat making their free software available for free-per-year makes perfect sense.

  • Please tell me how with a subscription model, Red Hat is going to have a competitive advantage over Microsoft?

    The only way I can see this happening is if the subscriptions are really cheap. But then again, we're talking about competiting not for small offices, but for large offices.

    Please tell me how they are going to convince a large company that has invested in Microsoft helpdesk people to switch to Red Hat.

    While you're at it, tell me how they're going to save them money from all the proprietary Windows software they're using.

    Here's my current list of Windows software I would need replaced in order to maintain productivity - MS Project, MS Visio, Macromedia Dreamweaver, and Macromedia Fireworks.

    Not a difficult list (note the general lack of MS Office, since I use OpenOffice), but not easy to overcome. I'm sure there are other people with far more obscure programmes they need.

    I like open source and I like Linux. I just had stupid business models.

    • You probably wouldn't be the target for this. Many offices use only an office suit, browser, and e-mail on the majority of desktops. You can leave the handful of users who have greater needs running Windows (at least short-term).

      RedHat has played this perfectly. They've let others develop desktop until the combination of mature technology and market demand is in their favour. Now they move in and use their considerable name recognition to clean up.

      • Mixed networks are a pain.
        Most companies I have worked for can't handle mixed networks, they generally understand windows just enough to keep it running.

        And this doesn't even touch on the nice sharing and permissions options MS gives us.
        • And this doesn't even touch on the nice sharing and permissions options MS gives us.
          You mean ACLs? Yes, Windows has a nice set of file permissions--classically one of its advantages over Linux.
          Linux, however, now has an even more robust set of ACLs which come with GRSecurity [grsecurity.net], and let's not forget POSIX ACL's [bestbits.at] which are almost finished.
          Linux still has all of its security advantages over NT though, such as not using IIS, Outlook*.*, IE, Commerce Server, MS SQL, et al, all of which have had some big nasties recently. True, so have some Linux/Unix daemons, but far less frequently and you have to wait about half an hout to two days for a fix rather than three weeks to a 18 months on into infinity for a patch from Microsoft.

          NT does have advantages, but don't EVEN bring up security if you are trying to defend NT. That's a sure-fire way to discredit the platform.


    • Redhat only intends to go after the corperate workstation market, while this is fine for the short term, the long term goal should be to sell their Desktop OS in China, South America, Africa and Europe, places where Microsoft has not yet dominated is where Redhat can actually try to become the standard desktop OS.

      Sure its good to compete on the business side of things, but dont make the same mistake IBM made with OS2, or that Apple made with MacOS, you have to be flexible enough to battle on both fronts, the business side and the user side, currently Linux looks like it may win over the Business side, but Apple and Microsoft are slowly trying to dominate the user end.

      The user market overall is far far bigger than the corperate desktop market and I think redhat should use think both short term and long term, and release a Desktop OS for corperations while also making it easy enough to compete with OSX, this way they can expand their market over in China.

      Currently redflag linux a redhat clone is taking over in China, Redhat should be going after that market, the question is how can you profit off of the users? The potential is there, but theres no way to do it? Actually there is.

      Make a deal with ISPs to add a $5 a month fee to users bills for the OS, redhat will be responsible for managing their OS, providing updates automatically and transparently etc.
      • The corporate workstation market and the user market are very different markets. The software can even be identical, but there is enough difference in emphasis and focus that it's probably better not to get everybody confused.
      • The big mistake IBM made with OS/2, specifically Warp, is that they marketed it to the suits.

        M$ did it smart. They marketed to the end user, the average user, the guy who goes to work every day and expects to find the same computing experience both at work and at home.

        BTW, OS/2 Warp3 peaked at 8% of the desktop market. Very briefly.

    • Not a difficult list (note the general lack of MS Office, since I use OpenOffice), but not easy to overcome. I'm sure there are other people with far more obscure programmes they need.

      I can hear it now:

      "You should use ButtLint instead of project, it doesn't have all the features of project (yet) but you can add any that are missing yourself, while you are at it you can fix a few bugs. I have been using it for over a day. We are just waiting for the next edition which will handle projects with more than 2 people or last over a week.

      Fact is that getting Windows programmers to use Linux is going to be at least as hard as getting Mac users to use a PC.

      When stuck in traffic it always appears that the other lines of traffic are moving faster. This is because you don't notice when you are moving, you notice when you are stopped and the other lines are moving. O/S hacking is wiredly reversed. You notice when you spend an hour fixing up a problem on an O/S you hate or don't understand too well, but a similar problem on favorite O/S gets written off.

      • Windows programmers have absolutely no loyalty to Microsoft at all.

        Only Game programmers have loyalty to Microsoft and thats because they dont have much choice.

        Show a Windows programmer how much easier it is to write code for linux and see how fast they switch
        • Show a Windows programmer how much easier it is to write code for linux and see how fast they switch

          Then watch them switch right back when they realize that their market just went from 95% to 3%.

          Programming for the Xbox is easier than for the PS2, but PS2 is still more popular. Why? Because there's a bigger market for the games.
        • Show a Windows programmer how much easier it is to write code for linux and see how fast they switch

          I have twenty years experience of UNIX, ten years of Linux. I use Visual Studio and C# out of choice.

          There are very few people that have used as many programming environments as I have. Most people learn one and stick with it, no matter how utterly crap it is. There are people who still argue the merits of EDLN, EDT line mode and vi. You can show a physicist Java and they will still use FORTRAN.

    • Most corporate users who use PCs and do not work in the IT department need the following...

      Browser
      Email
      2-3 Corporate Apps
      Word Processing

      Thats it... You will have some that require spreadsheets, calendaring, and document sharing - but really thats about it.

      Making the argument against this type of decision from the point of view of a PowerUser, or Developer is pointless. Yes if all your apps are only available on Windows, it won't work for you. But you are not 90% of all desktop users.

      • I enjoy being something other than a paper-pusher. But then again, I've encountered other things in the corporate world.

        I've worked in a call centre with Windows help files being the primary source of looking up information online. It wasn't a pretty system, but it TRULY was the IT department's call. I know there are also a lot of proprietary systems for retail stores and their retail offices, most of which I've seen run on DOS.

        I know lots of departmental assistants and secretaries who have to scan in all kinds of paperwork (idiot-proof one-touch scanning works for them - does it work on Linux) and use FrontPage or FrontPage Express to update web pages for the departments.

        Yes, 90% of the people use standard office-suite applications. Unfortunately most of the key support roles with the greatest influence on the purchasing requirements need applications outside that scope. (Oh yeah, project managers DO fall into that role often.)

      • 2-3 Corporate Apps

        Those 2-3 corporate apps are what we need to target with free software. Consultants? Get busy!
    • You are the reason that people are working on Wine. The chances of Macromedia ports to Linux are slim: not really through lack of will, Macromedia are friendly to Linux/open source, more because the massive investment that would be required could not be justified.

      One day of course there will be Dreamweaver/Linux, but until that day, you can run Dreamweaver under Wine. It works just like in Windows, and gets some additional capabilities as well (like being able to read Linux disks). I believe Dreamweaver has a 4/5 star rating at the moment, so it's not perfectly there yet, but CodeWeavers are working hard on popular apps like these.

  • Should work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:33AM (#4175841) Homepage
    The subscription very likely covers ongoing support and (semi-)automated updates. This removes some of the need to employ Linux administrators by the companies themselves; in effect, it entails a standardized outsorcing package for desktop support. Depending on the price point, this can be a good deal for a lot of companies. This won't mean there is _no_ need for administrators within the company; rather, the local admin is relieved of a lot of the drudgery, and can do his/her work with the full backing of expertise from Redhat.

    /Janne



  • Theres only a few ways redhat can do this and make it a success. Heres what I hope they do. Offer an OS alternative to OSX, charge subcription fee, use this to generate income, and compete with OSX.

    Or they can offer a typical Windows clone like lycoris and we wont get anywhere with being just as good as Windows, at least not anywhere besides the corperate desktop because users need a real reason to switch, they dont care about license fees.

    I think Redhat has the chance to generate a ton of money if they do this right, making an desktop OS in the style of OSX which is easier to use than windows while offering the same functionality.

    Or Redhat will simply be crushed by the likes of lycoris, OSX, and Windows OS.

    Unless Redhat pours some serious $$ into this, and brings home some serious $$ from this, this is going to be a complete failure, the only way to bring home alot of money from this is to build a desktop better than every other desktop, and sell it in the USA, Japan, China, South America, Africa, Europe etc, Because the desktop battle has not yet begun in Asia, Africa or Europe, the battle may be over in the USA but theres 3 other continents to war on, and the only Company for linux which looks like it may dominate is lycoris.

    • And it seems they are succeding.

      Downloaded and installed Redhat null after I long stopped using Redhat. Half of hour and I already knew this is going to be the distro I use on my new notebook which I'm waiting to come out.

      It seems they poured serious $$ in desktop development. After I've spent some time on gnome to-do and plans. Well Redhat 8.1 is gonna be a killer (no doubt). 8.0 still isn't there for average Joe user (some small issues) but it's miles ahead any distro I know, there's a lack for gnome2 (mostly they are still in gnome 1 stage) apps, although Redhat shows and manages them the same, changed my keyboard to native and look, all kde, gnome1 and gnome2 apps are using it nice, changed look the same.

      Redhat distro is the most easy, good looking and made out-of-the-box distro I've ever used. Predefault settings, and everything worked. But for my likes Rh is still easy maintained the old fashion way.


      • Yeah it might be easy, but easier than lycoris? prove it.

        Redhat null sounds alright but no ones shown any pictures or anything, Ill wait till i see it.

        I think Redhat 8.2 will be the Redhat Desktop linux thats mature enough for end users, this might be a year away.

        Hopefully by KDE4 - Gnome 3, they'll have alpha channel and genie effect so they can compete with OSX in terms of quality.

        Lastly I hope they figure out a universal way to install programs
    • To succeed on the desktop, linux CANNOT be an "alternative", no matter how much better, stronger, faster, etc. it may be. If a "better alternative" could make it, OSX would have a helluva lot more than 4% of desktop marketshare, even with Apple's draconian hardware tactics (remember, at one time Macs had over 20% of the market).

      To succeed on the desktop, linux has to be able to REPLACE WINDOWS *FOR* WINDOWS USERS.

      Replace. Not be an alternative, not be better than, but REPLACE, seamlessly enough that the AVERAGE user doesn't feel pain when they attempt their necessary and favourite functions thru said desktop.

  • That wouldn't be very surprising since Mandrake Linux has become so popular in a so short time. Anyway, it's also surprising they didn't just buy them, since the company market-value is very small compared to Red Hat's IPO remaining cash.

    (have a look at: http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/investors/bsa/ faq [mandrakesoft.com] )

    This is going to be intetersting to follow... will Red Hat include Mandrake's tuning such as supermount?

    • While Mandrake has a good idea they lack the funding to do what they are trying to do.

      Redhat has over 100 million dollars in the bank, more than enough money to launch a desktop OS. All Redhat needs to worry about is marketing, ease of use, and supporting standards, then they should go to governments, schools, libraries, etc in all countries and sell Redhat Linux Desktop Edition.

      Redhat should make it as easy to use as OSX, Apple for a long long time survived off of this market alone, this is what Redhat should do.

  • ObDebian (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spongman ( 182339 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:40AM (#4175862)
    I like Debian's subscription-based pricing scheme the best.

    (sue me, I've got karma to spare)

  • a long way to go (Score:4, Insightful)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:42AM (#4175870) Journal
    I fear that for linux to enter a business market on the desktop, there's still quite a long way to go in terms of user friendlyness. On all other fronts, linux equals or wins against MS, but on the desktop, GUI is the only thing that really matters :
    - stability ? XP is stable enough for the desktop
    - security ? XP with no services is secure enough behind a corporate firewall
    - CPU efficiency ? When running Office and Outlook as sole applications on a 2GHz PC, you've got to go pretty ballistic to get inefifcient.
    - open source ? You really thing any desktop user gives a flying donkey ?
    - commandline unix underpinnings ? see 2 remarks above

    all that matters is how well users can become at easy with their machine (in their own adorable shitty, messy and totally disorganized way. Remember that a desktop user does NOT WANT to understand his computer. He just wants the computer to adapt to his personal shitty messy and totally disorganized way of organizing things)


    I did the test many times and put a linux box in front of a reasonably willing (although reasonably dumb) subject and frankly, they didn't even figure out how to reset their desktop. Linux just doesn't get it when it comes to dumb-ass desktop users.

    • Re:a long way to go (Score:4, Funny)

      by Querty ( 1128 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:58AM (#4175905) Homepage

      security ? XP with no services is secure enough behind a corporate firewall

      <sarcasm>Sure, I only run IE, Outlook, Word and MSN messenger, so I have nothing to be afraid of</sarcasm>

      • As of 29 August 2002, there are currently 18 unpatched vulnerabilities [pivx.com] in Microsoft's IE.
        That allow Silent delivery and installation of an executable on a target computer,Arbitrary local file/folder deletion,Arbitrary local file reading,HTTPS spoofing - man-in-the-middle attacks,Elevating privileges, running script in the My Computer zone,stack and heap based buffer overflows, Denial Of Service, Overriding filetype handlers on local files,Reading cookies,Detect if a local file exists and read its size/date,Automatically opening IE + Executing attachment,Cross Site Scripting through non-HTTP ports.

        Even with full access to the Mozilla source code, over the same time duration, only one single similar vulnerability was discovered in Mozilla. The fix was in the CVS source code within hours of the notifcation and new Mozilla binaries were avaliable within FOUR WORKING DAYS - Not MONTHS in the case of Microsoft's "Trustworthy" efforts.

    • - security ? XP with no services is secure enough behind a corporate firewall

      Yep, even better if you unplug it too.

      -

    • I agree (Score:3, Troll)

      by HanzoSan ( 251665 )


      However I'd say win2k is more stable than XP.

      XP lacks in the speed department as in the OS itself is too slow.

      XP can be secured by knowledgeable users but its not secure by default, viruses, trojans, hacking through scripts in email, or the browser prevent Xp from being secure enough for the casual user.

      Ease of use is the main thing linux needs to improve on, until Linux is as easy to use as OSX its not going to beat Windows.

      Being just as easy as Windows is not good enough.

      • I run XP on one of my workstations at home, and have been since it's been released. (Use for games, and quicken) . anyway the past 5-10 years that I have been using windows I have never had one of these crazy security issues. I wonder how many people on slashdot have. Using any operating system is like living in a huge city. Sure, it's dangerous.. but keep your nose out of trouble and you shouldn't have any problems. I don't open email attachments from people.. that probably the biggest thing. Unix can be just as dangerous, the irony is it's the users themselves that are their worst enemies. I don't know how many times I Have helped my friend rebuild his redhat box because he did something silly. Ironically he has been using the same windows 98 machine for almost 3 years without a re-install (until a few weeks ago, he finally threw win2k on it)..

      • Moderators, please pay attention!

        Just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it the poster a Troll. Moderating like this makes you the Troll, and hopefully Meta-Moderation will see that you no longer have the priviledge of doing so.

    • Re:a long way to go (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ponxx ( 193567 )
      > I did the test many times and put a linux box in front of a reasonably willing (although
      > reasonably dumb) subject and frankly, they didn't even figure out how to reset their desktop

      This has absolutely nothing to do with user-friendlyness, it's merely a case of what people are used to. What normal person would think that to reset your computer you have to click on "Start" and then on "Turn off your computer" to be given the option of "Restart"?

      In terms of user-friendlyness for someone who has used neither before I imagine they would be very similar. The three things working for Windows are:

      • It being pre-installed on 90% of computers sold. Have you ever tried installing XP from scratch? Compared to SuSE 8.0 (FTP install), XP took three times as long, needed user intervention every 10 minutes, needed seperate drivers from the manufacturer for half my peripherals as well as rebooting at least 4 times until i had all the lates security patches installed.. SuSE was up and running in 30 minutes by essentially choosing "standard system" left my windows install intact, included it in the boot manager, found graphics, sound, printer ...
      • previous exposure. People have learnt the ways of windows, even if they are inconsisten. They don't like to change.
      • program lock-in. As many others have said, deliberately incompatible document formats mean it IS a nightmare to convert to LINUX if you have a large number of interlinked spread-sheets etc. Then again, in my experience different windows/office versions are not always as compatible as they claim :).
      • My pet peeve is that it is possible for fsck to fail at bootup in such a way that you are dropped into single user mode and have to fsck manually. This is stupid. Who is actually going to run a filesystem debugger and rescue their lost inodes manually? Once upon a time that may have made sense, and I think I may still have a packet telling me how to do that on SCO 3.2 somewhere, but nowadays the answer is to just do backups of anything important. Of course, that was the correct answer then, too.

        This is the thing that should be fixed in all linux distributions, first and foremost. Of course those of us running journaled filesystems (I'm using XFS myself, just for the novelty of it) don't really have this problem; fsck still needs to run at boot for some reason, but it's unlikely to ever encounter an error requiring human intervention.

      • >> ...a case of what people are used to..

        And most people are used to Windows. Inertia will keep them there unless something motivates them to switch. In a business environment, that might be a boss who replaces Windows with Linux. (In my experience, tho, people in that environment go ballistic when the slighest change is made to the stock desktop. Can't imagine what a switch to Linux might provoke -- beyond demands for a week's worth of training.)

        For people who buy their own computers and software, and discounting the few with latent geek tendencies, Linux doesn't yet offer a compelling reason to switch.
    • Linux has a long way to go simply because of the pre-existing comfort level most corporate users have with 2K/XP (95/98).

      - security ? XP with no services is secure enough behind a corporate firewall

      Hmmm... Instant Messaging... IE... Outlook... Word... Excel... ID10T users installing virus/backdoors. I'm not saying you wouldn't face some of the same issues on a Linux desktop - because you would. But in my opinion on the desktop, security is a wash. You either have intelligent users or you don't.

      - CPU efficiency ? When running Office and Outlook as sole applications on a 2GHz PC, you've got to go pretty ballistic to get inefifcient.

      Well actually its more like Office, Outlook, Excel, Corporate Apps (TN3270? Java? VB? C? Fat/Thin), IE... Certainly still plenty of power left over at 2GHz. But in most corporate offices I've been in over the past 2 years there are more P2s than P4s. Heh, and even the P4s still dog it on some Java apps.

      - open source ? You really thing any desktop user gives a flying donkey ?

      No I tend to think that the IT Director footing the bill for OEM pricing of Office; EOL licensing upgrades; and sick subscription pricing for everything MS might give a flying donkey.

      - commandline unix underpinnings ? see 2 remarks above

      No I don't really see this as an argument either. But it seems to me you just threw it in to give the illusion of a better argument too, so...

      Personally I'd hate to see what you attempted to put in front of them. But lets use your example against your argument anyway. MacOS X. Argument over. Opensource on the desktop can work. Red Hat has now seen it work and they are obviously going to try to duplicate Apple's success (much as Apple did after seeing Opensource succeed).

      The only way the change will take place is through sheer force of will from corporate executives who believe they can in fact save money from making the change.
    • Wage slaves don't want anything where they have to think about anything but the job at hand so they can get it done and get out.

      I don't care if its KDE or Gnome but somebody's going to have to bite the bullet and make a look and work and feel Windows clone and the GUIs for the applications have to be look and work and feel Windows clones too.
    • I totally agree with you, and allow me to add few more points...

      * When you buy Windows (any windows) you get a decent package of fonts which looks really great. So far Red Hat gives you a really shitty pack of fonts, which looks really bad in non latin-1 packages. If Red Hat wants to get into the desktop - they need to license some fonts, which I hardly see them doing so.

      * Easiness of software install - the last thing a man wants is to mess with dependencies! up2date installation is nice, but only if you install something from the Red Hat packages. Got an RPMS from somewhere else? good luck with dependencies nightmore!

      * Hardware support - a corporate doesn't give a flying fuck if NVidia releases binary only drivers or not, same for ATI, same for Matrox, same for 3DLabs. As of today - Red Hat only supports those open source drivers which means you'll have less-then-well drivers, no dual screen support, and barely 3D - that needs to be change! Almost everything in Red Hat is hard to setup for a user which came from Windows! have you tried to setup DMA on RedHat? dual screen? modem? scanner? webcam? these are NIGHTMARE settings for newbie in RH Linux!

      Another prime example - Sound Blaster live card which I'm sure lots of people here have it. The RedHat package barely gives you stereo support! no bass/treble, no AC3, no digital channel support and those ARE open source drivers!

      In short - Red Hat got a LONG way to go to make something which even compared to the easiness of Windows 95! Mandrake right now is much more friendly on the desktop then any version of Red Hat (IMHO).

      As for Microsoft - I'm pretty sure few people there are heaving a big laugh from RH move..
      • You haven't tested null version I see.

        Null version has international fonts, beutifully rendered, render chooser and complete intenational set of fonts. At least for language I'm using.

        "In short - Red Hat got a LONG way to go to make something which even compared to the easiness of Windows 95! Mandrake right now is much more friendly on the desktop then any version of Red Hat (IMHO)."

        In shorter - test the null beta. I've tested 9beta4.mdk and rh.7.3.94.null, guess what mdk has a long way to go. 9.0 just isn't competitor to rhnull
        • I'm actually using null right now ;)

          With NULL, RedHat has "mixed" KDE components into GNOME, added a new theme so all GNOME & KDE components looks the same, and instead of Konqueror and KMail on KDE panel - you're getting evolution and Mozilla. Why? ask Red Hat.

          In terms of better hardware support, not much news there. Sure, some more graphics cards are added to kudzu, Xconfigurator has gone (now it's "redhat-config-xfree") but the same issue remains - if your vendor gives a binary only driver - then you'll have to manually get it install it..

    • I have provided Linux desktops to several dumb Windows users in companies, and I typically tell them:

      - Where the start menu is (click on the K-button).
      - Where their e-mail program is (the icon with the E and a letter, kmail)
      - Where the desktop office suite is (StarOffice 5.2 and OpenOffice.org 1.0)

      Only very few users I told more information, like showing them konqueror and explaining them about not to worry about viruses etc. All users managed to use it successfully and effectively.

      The result was, that the Linux desktop TCO, including user education and productivity stuff is far lower than Windows.

      In the long run it even improves: Windows users typically call their hotline if they receive pdf files or zip files because they don't have software to display it. And if they want to create pdf files they have to buy extra software.

      When users have to find their own files, Linux is a great thing for system administrators. The concept of home directory actually works on Linux, and with symbolic links, their home directory is all they have to care about.

      And then there are crashes and users getting a new PC. On Windows, your laptop registry is deleted, which severely impacts user productivity after getting the new PC. On Linux, you just restore the configuration files from the backup after you reinstalled on a new harddisk, and the user is fully productive from day 1 with the new PC.

      This increases the user productivity stability. So the real reason to switch to Linux is to lower cost and increase the availability of user productivity.
      • When users have to find their own files, Linux is a great thing for system administrators. The concept of home directory actually works on Linux, and with symbolic links, their home directory is all they have to care about.

        Ah, the ambiguity of a home directory... my parents can't grasp it, even on MacOSX. They both have a login, so when they click mail.app in their dock, they have their own settings. However, often my dad gets a mail with a photo of a grandchild, he can't transfer it to mum. I tried to explain the concept of drop boxes, but they just get utterly frustrated after 10secs. They don't WANT to understand it. They just want it to work the way they have it inside their heads :
        'why can't I just put it on the desktop for her to see ? ? ?'...
        'because your desktop is not her desktop dad'....
        'whaddayamean ? there's only one desktop isn't there ?'
        'sigh'

        trust me, the average user is far dumbder than you can possibly imagine, and (which is worse!) far more reluctant to change and learning.
    • ... but on the desktop, GUI is the only thing that really matters :

      Actually you are wrong. On the home user desktop maybe, but we're talking corporates here. To IT administrators, things like cost, stability, security, CPU efficiency, open source and unix underpinnings do in fact matter a great deal.

      Especially the open source thing of course, as it means "no lockin" - virtually every IT using company today has been bitten on the backside by this, so that's a major win.

      As an aside where do you see companies with 2ghz chips that just run Office? Most company machines I've seen are fairly low end by todays standard.

    • You're forgetting administration.

      Administering Windows PCs sucks. There are a host of problems that just can't be solved by reading the frickin' manual or searching the web. It's closed source--no one knows how it works. So it's just back-up, reinstall; back-up, reinstall.

      Reinstall Windows, reinstall Internet Explorer, reinstall the service pack again after you install software XYZ. I probably spend half my time at work staring at an InstallShield wizard (or reading a book while it's sliding along.)

      With Linux, there are people out there who know why you are getting the problem you are getting and can tell you how to fix it without reinstalling the entire damn machine. I'm very new to Linux, but I find the whole process of debugging and fixing problems much more rewarding. With Windows, maintenance is more witchcraft than anything else.

      Erik
    • The above comments hold true for individuals and small companies. However, try extrapolating to an organisation with 10,000+ desktops.

      The amount of effort required to keep this up to the mark is tremendous, hardware replacement, software installs and upgrades, support etc.This is where the major amount of cost arises and where the TCO bites. If an organisation can use a desktop that is easier to maintain then they have a major win.

      Remember also that the majority of desktops in an organisation this size will not be running Office, they will be running counter-top applications in front offices or communicating with backend databases. Many of the applications that these desktops use will be browser based, so all they need is a kiosk-like UI. They don't need all the bells and whistles of XP or Windows 2000.
    • Use XFce as the desktop environment. It is complete, and fully configured via a simple GUI dialog.

      In 5 minutes, the most dense users will figure it out. They'll even be able to easilly change their background, themes, etc.
    • the article mentions that it is unhappyness with the new MS licensing that prompt companies to "evaluate alternatives".

      So if Red Hat against odds is successful in selling the desktop, Microsoft only have themselves to thanks for losing their monopoly.

  • MS business desktop is more than just the OS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento.brentozar@com> on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:42AM (#4175871) Homepage
    The hidden cost of MS's business desktops has always been the tools. You can't simply buy licenses for XP and call it a day: you need administration tools (SMS), antivirus tools, firewall tools for your mobile users, service pack distribution tools, etc. None of these are bundled with the cost of XP (crummy firewall notwithstanding), and the desktop costs get expensive quickly.

    I'll bet RedHat is going to sell this as an alternative to the frustrating patchwork of programs required to administer a network of 50-250 PC's, because that's always been a MS weakness. MS has decent tools like SMS, but they require so much knowledge & work that they don't really pay off until you've got a bare minimum of 100 PC's.

    Not that desktop Linux rollouts won't have a learning curve, of course.
    • considering your comment that you're an administrator over such network.

      Administration tools?
      ssh over X11 client calling desktop control panels. webmin. name it, there's plenty of them

      automated administration of network with 50-250 clients?
      service nfs share mounted on every desktop with a simple restoring deamon to please your likes?

      firewall on clients? firestarter is gonna be included in future gnome releases

      service pack distribution client?
      up2date in cron set to your local intranet ftp folder, with up2date deamon running on server

      antivirus?
      that is an option

      why an SMS option? if you're admin that knows what he needs, you can simply make your own, took me two days to finish and dispatch over all of my networks. now I update my own and remote lients restore all info they need and update them self
    • In a corporate setting, PCs are not truly general purpose machines, so ease of use doesn't mean the same thing that it does in the home or SOHO settings. Employees are trained to use corporate systems, and that includes PCs as well as more specialized tools, both software and hardware.

      For a corporation, a different side of ease of use is ease of licensing and purchasing. Maybe in a post LicenseV6 world Microsoft will have made this "easier", but in the transition there's a heck of a lot of turmoil, and their products have just become more "difficult" to use. That has nothing to do with the software itself, just the legal and purchasing implications.
  • Sorry if I'm missing something here, but last time I checked, I'd been using Red Hat as my desktop o/s quite successfully for the past few years, with packages such as Mozilla and Nautilus are now included - and so going by the last few releases, one does get an inkling that they've already been making a significant effort to bring Red Hat to the desktop.

    The announcement suggests therefore that they've decided to do something different about their approach to the desktop market, but doesn't exactly make it clear what, apart from hinting that they might be mixing in some proprietary software with it (such as Star Office 6). Any ideas?

    • Linux has functionality, all it needs is the quality of say OSX.

      Functionality is fine but to beat Windows you have to look professional, nautilus is the most professional looking interface to work with so far, Redhat should fund development of nautilus, bring back Wozniak or whatever his name is who built Nautilus, and finish what they started.

  • Already exists, few care (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:54AM (#4175894) Homepage
    Let see

    MS demands subscriptions, people get upset, they don't want to have to upgrade.

    Debian has free subscriptions, there is no mass exodus to the world of Debian/Linux

    Redhat offers subscriptions, yippie skippie, the world will move to Linux. uhh why?
    • Debian has free subscriptions, there is no mass exodus to the world of Debian/Linux

      Oh great, a free subscription for some uber-geek to tell people to RTFM newbie! There is no mass exodous to debian because its installer and community is not newbie friendly. Finally no company is going to install debian on their servers, especially when support consists of a google groups search.

    • The corporate users want a "known name" to buy their desktop OS from, and they already buy their server software from Red Hat. Their is no similar source for Debian.

      They might have bought Debian from Corel, but Corel dropped out before Microsoft created a demand by changing their license.

  • The big difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cowscows ( 103644 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @08:59AM (#4175910) Journal
    I think the big difference here is that when your red hat linux subscription runs out, you'll still have linux running on your computer, you'll still be able to run it legally, all you'll probably lose is support.

    It makes an amazing amount of sense to me. Since redhat is primarily selling support, this way they can offer it for cheaper, because they're not locked in to providing it indeterminately for each copy they move, only for as long as the person really needs it and is willing to pay for it.

    That being said, I have my doubts how sucessful it will be. But good luck to them.

  • It could work (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @09:06AM (#4175927)
    Redhat - or any other Linux distributor - could kick Microsoft's ass as a consumer desktop OS, if only they could recognize what really needs to be done.

    1. GUI and fonts that are an integrated part of the OS, not 3rd party stuff slapped on top. I laugh every time I hear somebody complain that a particular Linux program has "crappy fonts". This should be part of the OS and application independent -- if stupid Microsoft can do it, then certainly "smart" Linux programmers can too.

    2. Partner with major software vendors to create Linux versions of their software (Photoshop, etc.).
    I've got a lot of time and effort invested in learning a dozen different programs -- none of which are available in native Linux versions.

    3. Partner with hardware vendors to develop Linux drivers. I'd love to switch to Linux, but after weeks of searching the Internet, I've discovered that there is no way to use my scanner, or the TV output of my video card with Linux. However, I can go to the manufacturer's websites for both these products and download Windows drivers.

    • Re:It could work (Score:5, Insightful)

      by feldsteins ( 313201 ) <scott.scottfeldstein@net> on Saturday August 31, 2002 @09:53AM (#4176056) Homepage


      1. GUI

      Amen, brother. I fear and loath Microsoft but for gods sake Linux needs help in this area. One of the biggest obstacles toward getting this done is surely the flat out denial found in the Linux community. The idea that Linux is even "pretty close" is ludicrous. Having menus and close-window widgets don't even get you in the ball park IMO.

      2. Partner with major software vendors to create Linux versions of their software

      Interesting idea. But I'm sure they would ask "what's in it for us?" The small installed base of Linux coupled with the fact that most of its current users seem willing - no delighted - to put up with the likes of GIMP make sales projections seem pretty grim. Do GIMP users use it because it's the only thing there is or because it's free or because they believe free alternatives to commercial products are the wave of the future and are doing it for political reasons? The answer might matter a lot to Adobe.

      3. Partner with hardware vendors to develop Linux drivers.

      Again I would ask what's in it for them? How would you sell such an idea? The almost non-existant installed base on the desktop, virtually no OEM licensing, users who are using Linux are disproportionately using it on old hardware...

      I wish Redhat the best of luck. I want them to succeed. Someone has to, otherwise Linux will forever remain a geek toy and a server OS and that would be a shame.
    • 1. GUI and fonts...

      Good luck convincing the community to put solid development effort behind this. Good luck finding desingers willing to put up with the elitist crap many OSS projects are inundated with. I can speak from experience as a designer on an OSS project and I find it frustrating, to say the least, trying to get simple points across about proper GUI design, and I don't just mean the eye candy, though this is important to the general acceptance of the application or OS.

      2. Partner with major software vendors...

      Eveery now and then a Linux troll strolls into the Adobe Photoshop forums and asks why Adobe doesn't develop a version of Photoshop for Linux. Every time the same general answers pop up. Standards in the Windowing environment need to be established, font support needs to be standardized at the OS level period and the userbase needs to grow on the desktop. Sometimes it's the Photoshop developers answering these questions themselves and sometimes it's those of us who have heard the answers enough times we just jump the gun and spare the developers the effort required to answer the questions once more.

      3. You need to give hardware developers a financial reason why they should help you out. Good will doesn't pay their employees.

    • Re:It could work (Score:3, Insightful)

      by evilviper ( 135110 )
      How many times have we already heard people saying exactly just what Linux needs to kill MS on the desktop? There is one common thread... It happens, and Linux market share doesn't change.

      What makes your vision of the desktop so right, where everyone else just got it wrong?

      if stupid Microsoft can do it, then certainly "smart" Linux programmers can too.

      MS also figured out how to have multiple default routes, and seperate "TEMP" folders for each user. Unfortunately, the 'smart' Linux programmers haven't been able to do that yet.

  • Its not there yet BS .. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 31, 2002 @09:24AM (#4175969)
    Lets see .. when Windows 3.0 was released was it "there yet"? I'd have to say no .. most people were toying with it, but all of their serious apps were still DOS based ...

    Sure Desktop Linux does not have all the apps, sure there isn't a huge 100% following from hardware vendors.. But I would have to argue that there has yet been a distro that has really focused on bringing desktop linux to the corporation.

    Sure there is Mandrake, Lycoris, etc..etc.. and they are getting better by the day ... however, I only hear of these being used by a few home users here and there..

    If Red Hat pushed the marketing to get desktop linux deployed in corporations and in larger numbers so the community had some real case studies to push, then you will start to see increased demand for Desktop Linux for lots of other uses as well..

    Its all a matter of marketshare .. if RedHat+Lycoris+Mandrake can push it to get enough desktops running Linux, then you will SEE developers porting their apps to Linux, you will see native driver support for hardware, and then its the snowball effect.

    My prediction is it will be here sooner than many of you think .. This time 2 years from now, there will be a significant number of commercial software packages available for Linux.

  • Consider Microsoft's 'Migration' Strategy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ites ( 600337 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @09:40AM (#4176011) Journal
    Defectors from Microsoft's platform are there.
    But they take some convincing.
    Remember how Microsoft made it easy for
    WordPerfect users to defect to Word.
    Compatability. And do not do it subtly.
    Take the top 5 Windows applications.
    Office. Visio. DreamWeaver. MSIE. Etc.
    Provide straight alternatives.
    Make them cheaper and better.
    And people will come...
    The key is this: business have no loyalties.
    Only interests.
    RedHat can do this but they need to aim higher
    than the operating system.

  • It's about service not product (Score:3, Informative)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Saturday August 31, 2002 @10:12AM (#4176100) Homepage Journal
    Hey guys and girls; take your 'leet hats off for a second and think.

    It's about product DISTRIBUTION, SERVICE AND SUPPORT. It's about UPGRADES, PACKAGING AND BUGFIX. It's about NOTIFICATION, PROCESS AND BIDDING.

    Can You Dig It, Can You Dig It? Caaaannn Yooooouuu Diiiig Iiiiiiiit.

  • The Best Place to Start. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bocaj ( 84920 )
    The enterprise is best place to start combatting the desktop front. Linux makes a great desktop OS for most people once it's setup and configured to there needs. That's were the rub comes in. You needed an experienced admin to do that. If employees can come into work, sit down and click on an icon to get their email, they'll be happy. I don't want to hear flames about application x is not available, bla bla bla. The majority of business computer use is email, web, and office tools. Linux has all of those things functioning well enough for most people. The ones who gripe, are the same ones who will gripe about the changes from 2000 to XP anyway.

  • Subscribe...hmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jav1231 ( 539129 )
    Look, Caldera did much the same thing. Now RH is going to do this? I have no problem with them offering subscription services per se' as long as I get a shot at the desktop without support for myself. I hope this doesn't turn into a "corp user only" thing like Open Linux became in practice. Caldera went gunning for the enterprise at the expense of the average user. If Red Hat does this, they'll shoot themselves in the foot too. >
  • Alright, people, here's why microsoft kicked everyone else's ass:

    They offered this nice little thing called migration compatibility . the only product microsoft EVER created from scratch was windows, and even that claim is dubious. their business strategy was to purchase established products, give them a microsoft-esque look, spice the functionality up a bit, and offer it to the public (now pay attention here) WITH MIGRATION CAPABILITIES ALREADY IN PLACE. want to move your documents from wordperfect to word? no problem. how about migrating email from eudora to outlook? gotcha covered. that's where microsoft wraps your underwear around your ankles and gives it to you rotten.

    and you know what? it's only gonna continue. it's like screwing a gorilla... you ain't gonna stop till the gorilla stops.

    so, what's the solution? first of all, don't offer an alternative to microsoft, offer a migration. you might also consider actually using some of microsoft's products. how about this? i see all of these posts talking about working with major vendors on making their software work on linux... well, the one vendor i KNOW all you fascist, self-mutilating slashdotters (and by god you are, don't even try to deny it) are overlooking is microsoft. why not try and convince them to work on linux functionality? with the whole court thing going on (email me sometime to find out how much BS and how anti-democratic it is), they've got a vested interest in making other products at least viable enough so that they can claim that they're not monopolizing the market. take that and run with it.

    you know who you guys remind me of? all the people who are hanging around bitching that racism/sexism/any other -ism you want is still rampant and that there's no equalization of opportunity when all they really want is for the government to hold everyone else down so they can walk on them. fuck that! if you want to operate based upon the lowest common denominator, go right ahead, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna work on it, and you'll just keep getting trampled on by those with the ambition and the capability.

    nuff said

  • They don't need RedHat.. all they need to do is upgrade their IT staff. Find people who are competent with Linux (specifically Debian), know how to program well, and are plugged in to the Open Source community. Linux is ready for the desktop. And with KDE3, it's arguably the best solution. It just takes a little bit of expertise to configure all the great software now available so it's convenient for daily use by business types. But hey, that's what System Administrators are for right? The expectation of a turn-key desktop is silly. Even Windows needs a bit of configuration So listen up CIO's, fire your MSCE's and hire some Linux gurus in their place. There are lots of us out here.
  • They criticize Microsoft for the subscription-based pricing yet they go ahead and follow exactly the same path. What a bunch of hypocrites.

  • Fonts? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rmcd ( 53236 )
    I've used mandrake linux for specific tasks (mostly using xfig), but one of the things that surprised me the first time I booted up was significantly lower font quality than what I had in windows. It seems to me that is a hurdle for desktop adoption.

    I know that quality fonts are difficult to create. What is the prospect for linux getting screen fonts of Windows quality?
  • Here's an easy test to determine if your Windows users have enough basic savvy to even think about moving them to Linux:

    1. Using any application, create and save a new file.

    2. Using any other application, find that file.

    Sad to say, I've found that many people cannot do that. (A surprising number don't know what "application" means.)

    Now, that doesn't mean they're any less intelligent than the rest of us. it just means that Windows allows them to successfully go about their business with no awareness of things like file systems, directories, etc.

    So, yes, desktop Linux has a way to go.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close