Red Hat Desktop Unveiled 324
Gudlyf writes "Red Hat announced yesterday that they will be releasing a version of their OS -- dubbed 'Red Hat Desktop' -- targeted at corporations, universities and government agencies, "looking to upgrade their PCs but don't want or need all the features that ship with the latest version of Windows", said Matthew Szulik, Red Hat's chief executive, although it's not targeted at consumers. It will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available."
didn't they just announce... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:3, Insightful)
your support agreement is seperate and much higher than $5.00 per desktop.
this is where MS fud blows up in their face. XP when you buy it has ZERO support.
Just who is going to be on the other phone? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I thought I could get quality (geek level) support whenever I was having a Linux problem I would drop a five spot / month in a serious hurry,
but if the clown on the other end of the phone is neighbor to the guys giving phone support for Belkin and Dell
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the scoop. Time is money and in the corporate world, and the time to wade on the .net for answers costs the business money.
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:3, Interesting)
You've got a point about RedHat changing tunes, but don't thi
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:5, Insightful)
For the base price of a MS OS (98+) you get an online KB for free, windows update for free, support from hundreds of vendors and there KB's for free.
So "support" is an update service and the availability of on-line documentation. The "free" update service, by the way, no longer provides updates for Win98 or IE 5, so (2000+) would be more accurate. Nowhere is "support" claimed to be actually getting a question answered, for some strange reason.
But in the next sentence "support" is the availability of 3rd party applications, and their on-line documentation. There's a notion of the documenation being free. Certainly that term doesn't apply in any way to the common windows applications, which are expensive.
What do you get from Red Hat, a single point of contact for support or RTFM from people in the community?
You get an update service and a bunch of on-line documentation. Somehow it was "support" or "KB" when provided by Microsoft, but from Redhat it becomes "single point of contact" and "RTFM"... a distinction I don't quite understand.
It is true, of course, that most vendors like Adobe don't publish linux versions of their software (yet). However, the number of vendors who "support" linux, meaning they provide a linux native version of their software or instructions, is steadily increasing.
What you DO get from redhat and other linux distros is a LOT of software. You get Open Office, GIMP, Evolution (and many others). While these may not be quite as good as Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop and Outlook... they are included with the linux distribution. They also come with plenty of documentation. Somehow it's "support" when you can go buy they at (considerable) extra cost from 3rd party vendors, but it's not support if they're included?
If I were to purchase a desktop OS purely on the idea of support MS products would be top of my list due to the fact they actually might be around for awhile.
Again, the term "support" is illusive. First it an update service and on-line documentation.... but similar documentation on the linux side was RTFM instead of "support" or "KB". Then "support" became the availability of 3rd party applications. Now "support" is the long-term financial stability of the vendor.
The term "FUD" is also often used loosely. But this arguement, choose Windows because only Microsoft will "be around for a while", is a clear attempt to provoke Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that anything but Microsoft "might be around for a while". Therefore MS products should be on the top of my list, because anything else might not be around for a while. Therefore it wouldn't have any "support"... whatever "support" really means?
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:3, Insightful)
Excellent point. That's the very reason we droped Red Hat all together.
After the RHL end-of-life fiasco, I'd never give these jerks money, much less time of day. No one else should either... they had their chance and they blew it... you
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:4, Informative)
Szulik said Red Hat Desktop is less expensive to administer and more secure than Microsoft's offerings. It will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available, he said. (emphasis mine)
It sound so me that the $5/mo is just their estimate on how much it would take to administer a linux desktop, and does not include any purchase or support costs.
Take a look at the prices given [redhat.com] for this new desktop. That is a hell of a lot more than $5/mo. The cheapest option is the Extention Pack (50 seats/ no extra administration tools), which comes out to $70 per seat, and you only get 30 days of telephone support with any of them.
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:2)
at least with redhat, you won't be giving them the click-by-click on all those viruses and crap in addition to solving their real problem.
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why are the only people who seem to have actually transitioned happily, despite so many pre-announcements of people who were going to switch to Linux and be so happy they could cry, is Ernie Ball? That was the only post-switch story that was positive, and the only other post-switch story was the extra cost and pain and suffering in Germany (forget which city).
So it's this freebi
cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:cost (Score:5, Funny)
Linux: The only OS that can get away with touting a lack of features as a feature.
hey, don't laugh (Score:5, Insightful)
And people and corporations are much the same (Score:3)
Kjella
Re:hey, don't laugh (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hey, don't laugh (Score:3, Insightful)
The lack of features is a selling point. The Earnie Ball company was hit by a SPA lawsui and decided to rid themselves of all Microsoft software. Not only are they saving a huge amount of money, but they were able to offer a limited set of features to workers who didn't need particular features. The example given was "why give someone doing data entry a web browser". It doesn't sound like it would be as much fun to work there, but it is their computer and they are not playing you to check your E-Bay auction
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:2)
It sounds like they're trying to undercut Sun's Java Desktop System. Sun is selling a bundle of their software (JDS/StarOffice/Java Media Player/Java Development tools/etc.) for $100 per desktop per year. The $100 is for maintenance and upgrades, so you can stop paying at any time and keep using your current desktop.
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:5, Informative)
They were always interested in the desktop, it was just people spreading garbage so you wouldn't use Red Hat, If you'd have looked at thier career oppertunities you'd see they've been hiring / been looking for all desktop people for the last 6 months.
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:3, Informative)
Szulik, though, was talking about consumer desktops, IIRC (his example was people who just want to plug in a digital camera and have it work*), not about business desktops.
* Please don't go flaming me -- my digital camera works fine under Gentoo, with gphoto and the Konqueror kioslave.
RedHat 9 (Score:2, Interesting)
In terms of software itself, how is the new RH Desktop going to differ from old RedHat distros, RedHat Worksation, or Fedora? Is it simply Fedora + support or a come back to where they left off with RH 9?
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:2)
That would make Microsoft a forty-times-better employer, wouldn't it?
Heh, you laugh (Score:3, Informative)
Me: "You work for the Evil Empire!"
Them: "Making half again as much as you, with software discounts, and more vacation, and shiny work environment, and better equipment, and better bosses, and..."
Me: "I hate you."
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is fine, they've got to have that critical second step...
1. Create linux distriubtion
2. Charge money for distribution and services
3. Profit!
Re:didn't they just announce... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, that didn't stop people from spinning it as "Linux isn't ready for (any) desktop".
--
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Come along Redhat, do keep up..
re: interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
"szulik said red hat desktop will not be targeted at consumers."
yet. i'm convinced that the corp market is essentially a massive "toe-dangling", to see if this really represents a revenue stream for them to go after the retail market down the road. red hat has great brand-recognition among non-IT folk. if they can get this working and accepted, it's just a matter of time before you see it in your local [retailer].
remember how IBM-compatibles became popular? people used 'em in the off
Re: interesting... (Score:4, Funny)
We want something to bitch about.
Don't worry, we'll find someone to flame for being successful whether it's RedHat, Suse, or Gentoo.
Whenever we get bored with that, we'll start up a text editor flame-war. .
Better link (Score:3, Informative)
It's a Longhorn Killer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically if you read the whole Red Hat release it looks like $250 a user for a year of desktop support - which doesn't sound all that bad to me for a large environment...
Re:It's a Longhorn Killer! (Score:5, Interesting)
"To that end, The Red Hat Desktop offering will include the Citrix ICA Client as well as Vmware."
Re:It's a Longhorn Killer! (Score:2)
Re:It's a Longhorn Killer! (Score:2)
We're starting to use VMware; so far, looks sweet, but a bit pricy for the server stuff.
why? (Score:3, Interesting)
As any extra OS/Freeware programs you put on it
woudl probly have an equvelnet MS compatable version, i dont see too much of a saving hear as support is still extra..
Re:why? (Score:2)
In the long run, you are free to swap distros any time you want. It's not 'quite' as easy with Windows.
As any extra OS/Freeware programs you put on it
woudl probly have an equvelnet MS compatable version, i dont see too much of a saving hear as support is still extra..
And the equivalent MS compatible version would be free too?
Re: why not? (Score:3, Informative)
Check [redhat.com]
that I can work with but get no support on. I should be able to load this on as many machines as I want to.
Check, and check.
If I EVER need support on these systems OR want to use up2date on them, then I should have to pay.
The upgrade from Fedora to Redhat Enterprise should be quite smooth if you choose to pay for support. But why do you insist that you should have to pay to use up2date, when you can use it for free with Fedora?
Re:why? (Score:2)
for the very first time (Score:5, Interesting)
Haven't tracked down the detailed specs of this realease, but what can possibly make that true for Red Hat Desktop, but not for any previous Linux distro?
Re:for the very first time (Score:2)
Linux desktop is much more mature now than it was, say, 6 months ago. I don't think the sentence refers to rh desktop in particular, but the overall status of linux-on-desktop at the moment. I don't know the exact packages in the release, but if it has KDE 3.2 I can understand their sentiment.
Re:for the very first time (Score:2)
Just about every other distribution changes so rapidly that you generally need to roll your own distro to use Linux on a large number of desktops, unless you have the time to do yearly reimages.
RedHat Desktop! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, we have both SuSE and RedHat with their very smooth and stylable desktop gui's that should work for anyone interested in trying out Linux as a desktop OS.
I did some realtime testing with this, and gave my dad a SuSE Linux 9.0 Live-CD and told him to stick it in his brand new HP Pavilion. The distro fired up smoothly and within ten minutes my dad was surfing the net, reading his mail and listening to the local networked radio. :-)
If this release of RedHat can match the likes of SuSE and others I belive we're finally set for - the year of the Penguin
Re:Tad optimistic aren't you (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny you mention genology programs [sourceforge.net]. It's amazing what's available for Free (beer and freedom).
Obviously you have a point about the reams of third party software that exist only for Windows. But there's a large segment of users who would never wander into a software store and pick up a random program. It would just never occur to them. Their software universe consists of whatever they bought with the machine. In that market Linux can compete exceptionally well.
I think that most OSS programmers are happy that their software is getting wider distribution. Whatever motivated them to start the project in the first place can only be enhanced by having more users.
Not open source (Score:5, Informative)
That's what they said in their press release. This is what they include -which is not open source:
Adobe Acrobat Reader and plugin
Macromedia Flash plugin
Java (IBM and BEA) and plugin (IBM)
Real Player
Re:Not open source (Score:2, Funny)
I'm also boycotting Red Hat. Thanks for playing.
Re:Not open source (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not open source (Score:5, Insightful)
If users are not provided with the functionality they want, they will find another vendor. Red Hat is doing what they need to do to get Linux onto mainstream desktops. I, for one, applaud this move, and I hope they make inroads. Every computer that has Red Hat Desktop installed is a computer whose presence will help stop the spread of XAML/Avalon apps in a couple of years. And that's important, because unless we start to get some real market share soon, your precious little Debian uber-free utopiOS won't be viable for any mainstream tasks anymore.
Re:Not open source (Score:4, Interesting)
What Linux user doesn't have Acrobat Reader, Flash, a Java runtime, and RealPlayer loaded on their machine?
(Waves hand.) Me!
I'm actually thankful not to have most of that installed. For one thing it keeps me from viewing a lot of junky web content I'd prefer to just avoid. Yes, sometimes I'm hampered, but I have other machines for that stuff if need be.
Just last night I was reading a paper for school where gv on my RedHat 7.2 machine actually displayed better than Adobe Acrobat on my OS X ibook. I was astounded, as Adobe usually gives better performance.
I don't mind if a distribution includes non-free software; I'm still using some myself, just not on Linux. The thing that bothers me is when a distribution includes non-free software but claims to be 100% free. There's a place for hybrid distributions, those containing gratis software and/or shareware but still redistributable as well as, I suppose, Frankenstein distributions with enough proprietary crap to keep you locked in; however, there is also a place for the "100% free" (and/or "100% open source") distribution. I like the way Debian segregates things into three categories of "freeness" so you can easily set your distribution to be just what you want.
The thing that distresses me about this decision (and deception) on RedHat's part is that previously they committed to being 100% free, back when they finally replaced Netscape with Mozilla. I remember specifically seeing a statement that the only piece of software left in the distribution that didn't meet the Open Source definition was Netscape, that they were waiting for Mozilla to catch up, and that the minute it did they would drop Netscape and be 100% free. I remember after a RedHat install I used to specifically go replace the Netscape launcher on the panel with Mozilla, until I upgraded to 7.2.
I understand the economic realities that make them want to distribute this kind of software, but I do not appreciate the change in policy, and I appreciate the duplicity even less.
Actually, can anyone confirm that the product really does have these packages? Or is that just something a troll threw in?
Whew! That was a close one... (Score:5, Insightful)
[Ranting power...ACTIVATE!]
For all of you who don't understand this yet, let me spell it out one more time. 99% of the population doesn't give two shits what the license terms of thier software is. To these people, free-as-in-beer will always be way more important than free-as-in-speech. They don't care if it's open-source. They don't even care if RedHat says it's open-source and it's really not. They want to know two things..."Will it work?" and "How much does it cost?"
The vast majority of people (and the last time I checked, the users of RedHat's distro were people) want Java pre-installed. They want Acrobat pre-installed. They even want RealPlayer pre-installed because they just want thier computer to work and they don't want to have to spend a lot of time and money getting it to work.
RedHat knows exactly what they're doing. And they don't (and shouldn't) care if they ruffle the feathers of a few open-source zealots. One of the great things about the GPL is that you don't have to get anyone's permission to use the software...even if it means somebody does something you don't like and actually manages to make money with it.
I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:5, Interesting)
I spend several hours a month supporting my mother-in-law and her skanky disease-ridden Windows laptop. I'd love to get her onto a nice Linux system, supported by somebody who's not me.
I'll install it, and train her, and then she can call the nice Help Desk boys when she can't execute the free screen-saver software that she got in her e-mail.
Hell, I'd go ten bucks.
Re:I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:2)
I spend several hours a month supporting my mother-in-law and her skanky disease-ridden Windows laptop. I'd love to get her onto a nice Linux system, supported by somebody who's not me.
*That's* the reason. Sure, Linux isn't Windows so the post install issues will be minimal, though 2 calls a year will crush any profit from $5/month payments if we're talking g-ma.
The $5-per-machine/month is for groups that can hear the answer to a question a couple times and then not call back ag
Re:I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:3, Funny)
so that you don't have tech support calls that go like:
tekkie: "now boot the cd to the cd marked boot cdrom"...
mother-in-law: "ok".. 10 second pause. "so, how do i do that?".
tekkie: "open the cdrom drive"
mother-in-law: "ok, it's open"
tekkie: "find the cd marked "boot cdrom"
Re:I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:2)
Problem is, she'll never be happy with it if she can't install her lame ass Windows apps like all her friends have. So then you're back to installing lame ass Linux apps for her and configuring them so she can use it just like Windows.
I'd rather get it for myself (:
Re:I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'd pay five bucks for my MOTHER-IN-LAW (Score:2)
It is all about marketing to the pointy haired.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, they can put a dollar amount on TCO for linux boxes. That makes it much easier to sell to a bean counter. They hate not knowing wha the cost is. That is one of the lessons I learned while working for myself. If you can not package it with a fixed dollar amount, most will skip it, even if your dollar range is cheaper than the compeition.
This is something Linux needs to have to go bigtime on the desktop. A marketing and pricing model that the beannies can understand. They have no clue about anything else (beg pardon to those beannies who are actually cl - computer literate). Now, I think you will start to see more Linux usage on the desktop. They will start to approve it more since they can actually pump a fixed cost into their spreadsheets!
InnerWeb
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2)
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:3, Insightful)
InnerWeb
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2, Troll)
Red Hat did FAR worse than Microsoft ever did in regards to EOLs.
Microsoft did the EOL on Windows 98 SE a few months ago. I think MS gave it about a five year run. Windows ME is still supported NOW. Windows 2000 will still be supported for at least another year.
Red Hat's one year run they gave to RH9 is unacceptable from a business perspective. You don't do surprise EOLs. Even Microsoft knows that.
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2)
-DMZ
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2)
It is easier to install a batch of computers and deploy it than have to bring them all back back to install another OS because the software company suddenly decided it didn't want to support it anymore.
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Can be (and is) supported by third parties, because they have the source.
b) Can be upgraded *for free* to the current Fedora.
c) Can be easily migrated to many different distributions.
When MS pulls up stakes and EOLs a product, you don't really have any choice but to pay for an upgrade. When RH EOL's something, you have lots of good options.
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2)
Re:It is all about marketing to the pointy haired. (Score:2)
Confusing. (Score:5, Informative)
So no small or medium business environments have dual-CPU workstations? It seems odd that Redhat wouldn't try to cater to that potential environment.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
And of course, this isn't to be confused with the Fedora [redhat.com] desktop, which is meant for end-users, and isn't supported by Redhat. Argh. I wish Redhat would officially support home users, but I guess that's not where the potential money is.
Re:Confusing. (Score:4, Insightful)
In my experience, no. Actually yes, but the number are pretty insignificant. SMB that need dual-CPU machine usually do so because of a specific application (graphism, CAD, etc), so their choice of platform is dictated by the core application they need. Your typical administrative assistant and marketing drone certainly do not need dual CPU.
Re:Confusing. (Score:3, Funny)
I can almost see the light bulb going off in your head.
Re:Confusing. (Score:2)
Competes with Lindows/Linspire (Score:5, Informative)
Red Hat, please do try and keep up.
Still too expensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
For large organizations software doesn't cost nearly as much as Tier 1 technical support does.
So - even if Linux was free (which it is), at least in the reasonably long term the Tier 1 'How do I' questions pretty much eat up any financial advantage to open source solutions.
Right now Level 1 helpdesk calls cost a bit less than $20 each for an organization the size of my employer - when you switch OS a spike in helpdesk calls is inevitable; hell, we're planning for a helpdesk spike when we roll out Outlook 2003 - just because it *looks* different than the version of Outlook currrently deployed.
Software costs aren't the only factor in determining network architecture in a large organization - as a matter of fact most of the time it's one of the last things considered.
I'm doing Windows for less than $5 a month now - and a switch to Linux would *increase* support costs - at least for the foreseeable future.
I think RedHat's gonna have to find some way to market this that might include support - since that's the biggest annual expense in our organization. Some people will call the helpdesk if an icon has moved a quarter inch on their desktop - giving them something that's *completely* different may send Tier 1 costs through the roof ;-)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
RH isn't going to be answering the 'where is the any key?' and 'broke my cupholder' support calls.
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
Can you post more details? Number of servers (Outlook, SQL Server, IIS), clients, etc.
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
31,000 server and Exchange CALs, probably 800 mixed servers. Currently more than 100 Exchange servers but that's in the process of moving to eight clustered data centers worldwide. I don't know about SQL licensing.
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
If there are different numbers I'd be happy to compare them - but again, software licensing isn't much of a factor when costing out enterprise architecture for a large organization - support costs are the single biggest expense.
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
Their pricing structure doesn't incluse *any* end-user support - they're positioning themselves at Tier 2 and 3. They'll respond to calls from your helpdesk, but not from end users - at least that's what RedHat [redhat.com] says.
I'm actually enjoying this discussion - it's nice to be able to kick things around without a buncha finger-pointing ;-)
Okay, I did the volume licensing thing... (Score:2)
(31000 users / 50 users per extension pack license) = 620 licenses required.
(620 * $3500 price per extension pack) / 31000 users = $70 per user
MS enterprise licensing costs less than half that.
Support: RedHat is still only providing Tier 2 and 3 support - my organization would still have to field all Tier 1 questions. From RedHat [redhat.com]:
"Red Hat Desktop users will receive their day-to-day support from your company's Help Desk. To assist your Help Desk staff
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sheesh!
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
To be fair I went out to RedHat's website and checked pricing - apparently 30 days of phone support and one year of web support are included - but the SLA for that support leaves a bit to be desired: installation and configuration only (which would normally be performed by Tier 2 technicians, not end users).
My users don't call the help desk to find out how to install or configure Windows - they call with
Re:Still too expensive? (Score:2)
But you're right - the network is a mess. Too many servers, too many network "engineers" who couldn't admin their way out of a paper bag - but at least they're expensive ;-)
My job is ADP R&D - I'd like to redo the network from the ground up.
interesting thoughts for the future (Score:5, Insightful)
Then alot of linux's traction has been "windows is insecure". But when windows XP SP2 comes out, the worms will die away a bit, and it will only be social engineering attachment trojans in outlook.
Then what will linux's attraction be? A better the desktop right? Better browser etc. But when Longhorn finally comes, that might be gone too.
Linux, to my mind will always be better for myriad reasons, but it has to be alot better to make people change. And winXP stability, firewalls cutting the worms down, and a better GUI... will it be *that* much better to get people to change?
This makes the "linux on the desktop" window of opportunity quite finite.
I, for one, believe we can best microsoft on the home desktop but we need the corporate desktop for the following reason; hardware compatability.
"Why?" you ask, well I'll tell you. We need the corporate desktop for hardware support. OSX has a hardware rendered desktop, longhorn will have it too. No linux will be able to have a hardware rendered desktop without GPLed drivers. To get GPLed drivers for most graphics cards, we are going to need the slugging power of at least a 30% stake in business desktops. This makes Ximian/MS intergration type projects, mozilla/firefox/thunderbird and openoffice some of the most important battlegrounds you will see in the next few years. Once we have the hardware, we can take them - but don't fire until you see the whites of their CGI rendered eyes.
And here are some thoughts on that matter, my head's in the clouds for some of it - but we can dream right?;
Convince XGI to GPL Volari drivers. Standard tactic of an underdog is to use open-source to sling-shot ahead of the competition through features and performance. Directx9 is heavily shader based, but I prefer opengl myself and if you look at these performance statistics http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/inde
the only thing a volari needs is GPLed drivers and a linux following.
GPLed Nvidia and ATI drivers might follow. Who knows.
The other thing is, put some weight behind an "opensource hardware" movement to get an openGL performance beast that can be manufactured and sold by anyone, as it is an open design. I think with DRM we are going to see the ground ripe for open source hardware configurations. And don't think electrical engineers won't be able to do what software engineers have done with linux.
Anyway, that's just some memes I wanted to spread around, AC because I don't care about authorship. Just mull them over, because we need all the ideas we can get for the battle to gain a foothold. I am not saying I want to destroy MS, I just want enough market share to be able to have hardware compat and make sure things like DRM don't make their way into hardware (or make sure there is an alternative). from minix to now we have only seen the end of the begining business and home desktops, DRM and the very nature of hardware await.
Re:interesting thoughts for the future (Score:2)
I have not used Longhorn, but guaging from past MS upgrades the products get more annoying to use for me. IE6 is web browsing hell, popups, popunders, no control over javascript etc. Windows Explorer has lacking ftp support and NILL scp or sftp support. Networking is hell and the programs a cyclically dependant on half implemente
Re:interesting thoughts for the future (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, if Windows can't access the default network printer, Word crashes.
Not a problem with XP or Office 2003. Actually never seen the problem with prior version. Sure, thats not the best answer but if I complained that there was a bug in cute-tux linux 6 when version 9 just came out what would you say?
Word 2003 and Windows XP Home.
To clarify my earlier point, those were the reasons I use Linux and the people who I know use Linux use Linux. While CS majors at Georgia Tech may not be an objective
Linux going mainstream (Score:3, Interesting)
Confusing message from RH (Score:5, Interesting)
News flash: Elvis has left the building. Many enterprise customers, being confused by RH's current strategy and feeling less than satisfied by the Fedora have already moved to some other Linux distro for the desktop and are looking to consolidate behind one vendor that can cover their needs top to bottom (SuSE and to a lesser extent Mandrake come to mind).
Why, Red Hat, did you not announce this product long before the RH9 EOL, positioning it as RH10, for example? Many of my clients would have been reassured that they weren't being abandoned. Many were already happily paying the $5/month for support and feel betrayed. I've done my best to keep them in the fold, but your message hasn't been consistent and forthcoming enough. They don't trust you any longer.
Re:Confusing message from RH (Score:5, Informative)
Begin the 'its too expensive' (Score:2)
Its just another alternative to getting an OS on your desktop...
People will choose what they want.. pretty simple.
I think this is a stab at MS's core business (Score:3, Insightful)
1) the explanation page at redhat doesn't list any packages, other than those that have to do specifically with office-level work.
2) they are making sure to mention how compatible with MS Office all the software is.
3) they cover their asses in the case of special software with the Citrix and VMware thing
4)someone above commented that it only supports single cpu machines. How many secretaries and managers do you know with dual cpu machines? they don't need them, simple as that. I will grant it's kinda sad that they are not including the smp kernel, but still, it removes support issues
5) also note the support for diskless clients (under features and benefits) for those terminal-type environments.
I agree with most people that it seems a little pricy for stripped down, bundled up AW3 though. But I still wish I would have had this when we were deploying AW3 initially. I might have gotten a bunch of these for regular terminals and desktop machines for people who don't do much compiling.
Re:I think this is a stab at MS's core business (Score:2)
Special software? I'm really not convinced the Citrix/VMware thing will fly - almost any company of a size that would find desktop Linux interesting will have multiple custom or specialist apps deployed. This is especially true of things like some popular HR apps which despite being "web apps" tend to have bizarre dependencies on Internet Explorer and particular JVMs, etc - basically I find it hard to imagine that a
Untapped Linux Market: Kiosks (Score:5, Insightful)
Lately, I've been seeing Windows error messages in the most unexpected places: at gift registry kiosks in department stores, news screens in train stations, and Metrocard vending machines here in New York. Chances are, if it's a kiosk that acts like a web browser or a flash application, it's running Windows.
Why do these need to be running MS Windows when they are essentially web browswers? What else do they need to do? Let employees play Minesweeper? It seems to me that Linux could do the job just as well - for less cost and no unsightly Blue Screens.
It would be interesting if someone could offer some insight into what Windows provides that Linux doesn't in the realm of public kiosks.
Re:Untapped Linux Market: Kiosks (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Untapped Linux Market: Kiosks (Score:2)
Yada, yada (Score:5, Insightful)
They've had that for a while--Macintosh. And you don't have to rent the software per month, nor pay the MS tax that you'll still be paying if you convert your PCs.
The article has it wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:From redhat.com: (Score:2)
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/ [redhat.com]