Red Hat Avoids Desktop Linux, Says Too Tough 472
eldavojohn writes "We recently discussed the Linux Foundation's decision to leave desktop Linux alone but Red Hat is also steering clear of that goal. The reason? It's too tough. From the company blog: 'It's worth pointing out what's missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future. An explanation: as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers.'"
Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as they don't inhibit other people from making desktop distros, I see nothing wrong with this.
Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:5, Interesting)
Will Canonical's Ubuntu distribution be short lived if they fail to target the enterprise? I don't mean to spread FUD, just wondering. I think Canonical is Europe or South Africa based, perhaps America's economic woes are driving Red Hat away from funding things that, frankly, have no return on investment? Is desktop Linux for the end user merely an economic drain on a company? I certainly hope not but that's kind of how I interpreted Red Hat's blog
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Year of the "I Don't Care What's on the Headlines" (Score:5, Interesting)
Right now, Ubuntu provides everything I need in a desktop. The interface is excellent, tons of apps in the repositories that can do pretty much everything I need out of a computer. I'm not sure of all the business and technical nuts and bolts of what that company is doing, but I sincerely hope they keep doing it. I love their product. The distro installs after about 7-8 clicks and 30 minutes. From my experience, everything has been plug and play.
Now, I know this is a simplistic approach and my experiences will not be the same as many others' out there. But the cool thing about Linux is it's free, so if something doesn't work, you can just try something else.
Example, I was happily running PCLinuxOS for a few months. Eventually, it gave me a boot error and wouldn't start up. I tried at it for a few days, but eventually gave up and moved on. I had tried Ubuntu before and came back again to where I am now. I'm sure I'll try PCLinuxOS again because there were some things about that distro that I loved, also.
Catch my general drift, here? What happens if your Windows PC has a bust? You either beat your head against the wall until it's fixed (yes, you have to do that with Linux also) or you pay someone who can fix it for you.
With Linux, all you need is hardware, a high speed internet connection (I do NOT recommend trying Linux out without hi-speed internet), and an open mind to explore and try out.
You could probably count me as a mini-mini power user. I am not afraid to wipe a hard drive and install an OS. But on a regular basis, I try to stay away from the command line as much as possible and I can't code anything.
(gosh, this guy isn't a coder and he's posting on Slashdot?!? who let him in?)
My point is that I love what the Linux/FOSS movement provides for me RIGHT NOW. I know there are some greater and global economic/social pressures that might force what we have now off the internet. But as a little person who can't control those things, I hope to the heavens above that what's provided for us currently, continues to be so because I'm very happy with it. Worst case scenario - years from now, I'll still be running my old Ubuntu 7.10 version. I'd bet it will still be just as stable, too.
To answer the parent, I think companies like Ubuntu and Firefox have a strong enough hold on the market that they aren't going to die any time soon. (Hopefully)
Re:Year of the "I Don't Care What's on the Headlin (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason Linux will fail on the desktop and succeed as a server platform is (in my mind) due to fragmentation and duplicate effort. If you look at the development of the kernel itself, it's IBM, novell, redhat, and a relatively small set of individuals. The changes they are submitting are being filtered through an even smaller set of gatekeepers. This prevents random features from just popping up inside the kernel and it ensures that things that people don't want to work on that should be actually get fixed. Remember if a customer complains about a kernel bug, then IBM or someone who's getting paid will probably have to work on it. You can also look at device drivers. How man drivers do you have for a device? Probably one.
Now look at the UI/Desktop. We have a half-dozen or more media players, window managers, widget sets, etc. And now with Mono everything is being done again but in C#. It's more of a playground than a stable platform. We (as the Linux community) never finished the first 5 media players and now we're building another one. This leads to fragmentation of development effort and to people abandoning projects before they're complete. Sure it's choice, but I'd rather have a choice between 2 good media players rather than 10 unfinished ones. I'm using the media player here as an example, but this pretty much applies to all things on the desktop. Too many people doing the same thing over and over.
I'm not saying it's bad, Linux is a nice environment to simply learn a new language or API, but as far as bringing it up to commercial grade level... probably never.
Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
From an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective. What is the easily communicated value that more than overcomes the network effect of Windows' accumulated user knowledge (already knows how to use Windows and Office), file interoperability (nearly everyone else is using office), informal support (family and friends can often help),
Now a company with support capacity and marketing abilities is needed if we want to see more than a 2% market share
Look at Macintosh. It is unix based, has a better user interface than Linux, more informal support, a major consumer brand name behind it, MS Office is natively available,
In short, merely being perfectly usable by grandma does not make Linux the viable alternative to Windows from the perspective of an *average consumer*. Our techno babble means nothing to them. Linux needs far more work to justify the switching costs in their eyes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I like it personally because it is:
1) customizable (no broad appeal)
2) easier to do advanced things, especially for free (hellaNZB, video codecs, Simple DVD authoring)
3) secure (as in lower profile at the very least)
I don't think those things appeal at all to the general population though. Afterall, how many even know what a news group is?
With Ubuntu 7.04 and then especially with 7.10 I have not booted into wind
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look at Crossover Games if Wine won't do it for you. It's based on Wine, but they're putting a lot of focus on getting games to work. I use Crossover Office and it works really well for me, worth the money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose we could try and get those geeks that crack windows to switch but they'll probably get whatever your selling for free anyway, so they're is no money in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking as someone who's just had to switch from Office 2000 to 2007, at this point I'm seriously considering going for OO instead. I'll have to pretty much learn how to use the damn suite all over again anyway, might as well get the right thing while I'm at it.
Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:4, Interesting)
at home i use OpenOffice, and i think it still has a far way to go. (atleast when it comes to writing equations and stuff, i guess i should switch to latex)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if most people use Windows? All we need is enough of a Linux community to ensure a thriving and evolving platform for those who find that Windows and/or OS X does not meet their needs. You can easily achieve that with a market share of 0.5%.
Please, no more "World Domination" bullshit.
Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:5, Insightful)
As another AC in this thread noted:
The underlying issue here is that software and hardware rarely gets targeted at Linux at this point. I'm a long-term Linux desktop user and fan... and I'm still pleasantly surprised when I take a random piece of hardware and it works seamlessly with my desktop (its happening more and more often). I'm shocked whenever a shrinkwrapped app is available for Linux.
Once this last hurdle is overcome, we'll get acceptance. That's when Linux's "good enough" functionality and low cost really shines.
If only one wasn't dependant on the other. Of course - this is the same Catch-22 that's been around as long as the "year of the Linux desktop."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. That has been a Linux advantage for *many* years and failed to overcome inertia. The switching costs of Linux exceeds getting AV software and learning not to run things sent to you in email or downloaded from unknown web sites.
Not having to reinstall the machine every six months is a very important advantage.
A delusional anecdote. That is not part of the average Windows home user's experience.
Then we have the licensing costs of windows and applications.
Largely i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No it is not, buying a new computer is exactly where most people get new operating systems. Few home users upgrade the OS on old machines. The same will be true for migration to Linux, the easiest point to get someone to switch is when they are shopping for a new system.
Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? (Score:5, Interesting)
According to W3Counter, Linux passed 2% in January.
If their figures are believable, Linux use has close to doubled in the past nine months.
Nothing Doubled is still Nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? Nothing double is still nothing. If you have one user and gain a second, you've doubled, but quite frankly, given the number of users out there, that is neither hard nor impressive. So Linux goes from 1% to 2%. Big deal. It isn't that hard (or notable) to get 1% or 2% of the market (or even 3% or 4%). If you have 45% of computer users, which is probably a bi
1% doubled in 9 months is huge. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing times 2 is nothing but 1% times two in less than a year is huge. If it continues at that rate it gets to your 45% target in 3 1/2 years and has 2/3 of the market in 3 3/4.
Of course there are retarding effects as the market fraction increases which will make
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah; it isn't, and it can't ever be. The explanation is straightforward.
If you look through this or any other discussion of "Is linux ready for the Desktop?", you'll quickly see that the only test is: Can a Windows user start using linux with no learning period, and find that everything is familiar?
Now, not that this isn't something that is required of Microsoft. If a W98 user goes to buy a new workstation or laptop, they'll find that they can't buy it with W98
Whither Fedora? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Insightful)
The year of the Linux desktop isn't going to happen. the year of the Linux mobile, the Linux server, and the Linux hand-held computer, however are fast approaching.
Linux will take the desktop market through the back door. By getting in on every other device first.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep hearing the "news", but have yet to see anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just a way manufacturers found to avoid hiring 2 or 3 more programmers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like when Linus makes a change in the way the kernel works, and the nvidia drivers break, and no one can fix them? Is this the usability you're referring to?
You can't have usability when someone else is in control and they're not interested in your problems. It's really that simple.
Re:Whither Fedora? Where??? (Score:2, Funny)
I keep hearing the "news", but have yet to see anything
2. ??
3. Boot linux
4. Profit? No, enjoy it!
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Funny)
On the contrary, I think it's Windows that has been taking the desktop market through the back door, for quite a while now. Roughly, without lube.
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Interesting)
I know you were ranked funny because of how it is worded. But there is truth to it.
Lets go back to before PCs. I/T and business didn't bring them in, the real McCoy "hackers" and engineers did. Then the users got on board, often with their own dime or in at least the department business unit bought them. There was no direction from I/T or senior management. The PC crept in through the back doors. I/T even used to say use the mainframe, we don't support the PCs.
At some point the business and I/T woke up and found these PCs took over the workplace, and finally invested in it. The business was driven by the users.
The Linux desktop is no different, get the home users and it will be dragged into business. The other way around isn't going to work.
If anything, Red Hat aught to produce a home user version that is so easy to install a 5 year old could do it. And leverage the Vista mess and hand me down computers. Sell it for $20 a download. Get it out there as a choice for new laptops.
PCs, DOS and MS-Windows came in the back door, and if X-Windows Linux wants it, that is the way in.
The desktop market isn't profitable?? (Score:2)
Linux on the descktop is already available (Score:2)
Thus mass market desktop worthiness is almost antithetical to Linux's nature.
But the reverse, Linux on the desktop, where you think of Linux as application running inside a proven desktop is not only possible it ex
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Informative)
A semantic issue, for sure.
There is nothing inherently illegal with their monopoly, but many of their actions which created a barrier to entry into the market as well as blatantly killing off emerging technologies by leveraging their monopoly in other areas are what is abusive and illegal. It's what they got "busted" for, if you can call what the DoJ did to them "busting".
The Bush era DoJ should have had the cajones to split them up as per the judges decree, but I suspect too many people in the Bush administration have too much cash tied up in M$ to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A monopoly can be ruled illegal if it is abused. Microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly so it is appropriate to clarify that their monopoly is technically of the illegal variety.
You should be more careful before throwing insults around- it has the potential to backfire.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While you're right that not all monopolies are illegal, that doesn't mean that there isn't a subset of monopolies that are illegal. From a layperson's perspective, any monopoly taken through the court systems and found to be in violation of the region-specific version of anti-trust laws can be called an illegal monopoly without fear of slander/libel charges (using truth as a defense).
From the prosecutorial perspective, it's a bit more convoluted, but simply put, we could say they were charged with being a
Re:Whither Fedora? (yay for semantics) (Score:3, Informative)
Convicted, abusive monopoly, yeah. We have court rulings proving that.
Their actions are illegal, not their monopoly. Should they, by their actions, abuse their power too egregiously, the government has a duty to bust up the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Creating and supporting a desktop OS for end-users is a HUGELY expensive and complicated undertaking.
Re:Whither Fedora? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
which means that Fedora stays within the community - it has no reach beyond its base.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I wonder where this leaves Fedora in the long term? I can't say I fault them, but honestly I would hope Red Hat would rise to the challenge rather than shrink away from it.
Lets hope Fedora continues, it is my favorite desktop distro. I like how the menus pull down from the top and are clean and organized. And have always had good stable use from it. In fact, I am counting the days to Fedora 9's release. (Fedora's site [fedoraproject.org].
I really don't think RedHat can afford to let Fedora die. It is after all related
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The article title is inaccurate (the press release specifically say they're avoiding the *consumer* desktop, not desktops in general), and misleading (note they're *avoiding* the consumer desktop market, as they always have, not dropping anything new). The release specifically claims that they continue to support Fedora, their enterprise desktop, and their "global" desktop.
They're doing what I'd expect most companies would do in the face of a large entrenched competitor: finding a few niches where they c
Smart move (Score:5, Insightful)
Desktop Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I find Linux to be great as a server OS doing very specific things for my home network. Webserver, you bet. Fileserver, yep. Firewall, no doubt. Mail server, of course. But on the desktop, I find that Windows (XP) just works without any fuss. I've tried "desktop Linuces" and found them all pretty clunky for the stuff I wanted to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
i guess it wont hurt to lea
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly an idiot that wanted the students to learn the newest version of the by far dominant set of tools.
I'm a programmer, so no one really cares about my Word/Excel skills. Try to get any number of non-technical office jobs and you'll be surprised how many employers do. You don't have to be completely insane or in Microsoft's pocket (although I'm sure in some cases those are the reasons) to try to provide your graduates with skills that ar
Re:Desktop Linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, (most) end users don't really care, as long as it "works" for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The biggest one, IMHO, is that the open source community has high esteem/respect for developers, but other tasks that go into producing a polished product meant to be used by less technical people aren't valued the same way. I think someday the community will come around and place high values on rigorous testing, UI design, user documentation, etc., and that really will be "the year of Linux on the desktop."
Agreed, as long as it's understood that no matter how hard the community works at anything, it's irrelevant if hardware manufacturers keep producing products that are dependent upon Windows' proprietary technologies (remember "Winmodems?") as well as making it extremely hard -- if not frequently impossible -- to get technical information on hardware just so that the community can begin to code drivers.
The community works as hard as it can, but it sometimes seems like companies are almost working actively a
Re: (Score:2)
Linux just seems faster and I have less to worry about than with WindowsXP.
My wife finds Linux just as frendly and easy to use.
The only thing lacking in Linux for my wife and I are some specfic programs.
My wife really wants ACDC for Linux as well as infraview.
I want FS2004 and FSX but I am not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:2)
Confused ... (Score:5, Interesting)
But, seriously
WTF is fundamentally missing that it can't be a "desktop"?? Are we talking administration? Apps? Screen savers? Spinning cursor add-ons? iTunes? Virus scanners? Boxed software?
I'm afraid I just don't get what is fundamentally missing here. What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?
Cheers
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple answer: easy installation.
FreeBSD with Gnome or KDE is simply not comparable to Ubuntu Hardy (for example) in terms of installation and administration for the average Joe.
I agree that for the desktop might not be the right terminology but if you step in Joe's shoes and compare both solutions you'll notice a huge difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I've found Gentoo easier to install than XP. Especially when something goes wrong. Not that I'd suggest to my mother or wife to try to install either...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An example:
Leopard has a very shiny feature called time machine
The same thing can be done in Linux in a variety of different ways.
What's missing then?
No linux distribution has *one* nicely flagged easy way to do this, that makes the user feel confident about what they're doing. There are no rounded corners, or neat animations to bring up the GUI for it, or beautifully simple browsers with big friendly buttons sa
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Me too (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that that this "not ready for the desktop" meme that I see constantly being reinforced is just part of the FUD campaign that Microsoft and its stakeholders have waged for years. It doesn't matter that experienced Linux users know it's a load of crap if they can keep their own customers too afraid to try it.
I've also noticed lately that posts like this one get modded down pretty quickly, now that there are companies that perform this service for a fee. Let's see if it happens this time...
Re:Me too (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux doesn't have the apps - Quicken? Nope. QuickTax? Nope. Photoshop? Nope. Office? Nope (although CrossOver is pretty good these days). Garage Band? Nope. And on and on and on...
However, if you are like me and have very simple needs - coding, browsing, email, Skype - then it's fine. I've been using it on the desktop since 1997, although my main desktop is now a Mac, which is the best of all worlds: commercial apps, Unix, and a beautiful, solid desktop.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Money spe
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It used to be "No serious office software". Then OpenOffice came to be.
Then it was "very difficult to configure" (never mind that in businesses, where much of the money is, a dedicated IT department does all the configuring and they sure as hell don't go around like monkeys clicking "Next Next Next" on every PC). Then Ubuntu came to be.
Right now there are a few more - the first two that spring to mind are "very difficult to manage across a large group in a similar easy fashion to Windows - you can't easily click a button and - poof! - an icon for an application will appear on the desktop of everyone belonging to a particular group, you can't easily centrally disable UI functionality on a per-group basis so end users don't see anything that might confuse them." The general answer to that one is "it's not that hard to roll your own" - which is certainly true but few IT departments want to re-invent the wheel. Canonical have a product called "Landscape" which supposedly solves this but it's only available when you pay for support so how good it is I don't know.
The second argument right now is "all the little business applications which handle boring things like payroll and accounts, of which there are myriad, are conspicuous by their absence on Linux".
Once this problem is solved, I imagine something else will come up. I think what it really boils down to is "a migration would provide little benefit and cause a great deal of work which we can't justify". Which is probably the most sound business reason that exists - make no mistake, it will continue to exist for a very long time. Lots of companies stuck with dumb terminals for years, only to migrate to PCs with a terminal emulator for the business application.
There's No Money In it (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not it is possible to put together a collection of Linux software that qualifies a a "desktop" is not at issue.
Why tell the world? (Score:2)
And Ubuntu will take over in the long run. (Score:5, Insightful)
And corporations like to keep things simple. Why have two distributions (one for the desktops, one for the servers) when one could do the job? This is where Ubuntu outshines.
I am not too familiar with using Ubuntu on the server side. It lacks support from big ISV such as Rational (IBM) and maybe Oracle. However, since it is Debian derived, I would trust the OS for most server tasks. So while in the past we were more inclined to use RHEL, in my organization we are considering Ubuntu for the server side.
Red Hat is concentrating too much on the short term. Yes, they should not spend too much money marketing a desktop version or polishing it. Canonical barely does any marketing (ever saw an add from Ubuntu?). But Red Hat should have a presence on the desktop to remain in the race in the long term.
I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical owner). He has a long term vision and while part of his goal is too be profitable, he also has a social goal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, they plan to offer an enterprise version of the Desktop, but that requires a license. Organization with Linux on the Desktop will eventually influence what their employees run at home. But employees will probably get another free distribution. And if they are familiar and comfortable with a free and libre version at home, managers might be eventually enticed to switch the corporate desktops to this version too.
And AFAIK, free version usually have a bigger repository of software th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And corporations like to keep things simple. Why have two distributions (one for the desktops, one for the servers) when one could do the job? This is where Ubuntu outshines.
Really?
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/serveredition [ubuntu.com]
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/WhatIsUbuntu/desktopedition [ubuntu.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is not like RedHat isn't already spending money on the "Linux Desktop". Or do you think all those fancy stuff people from @redhat.com write and find their way to the Ubuntu desktop get all reinvented and rewritten from scratch. Fedora is free to the user, but not to RedHat.
Ubuntu is okay and all that, but I believe that RedHat does more than their fair share for the community. If they feel they don't have enough resources reaming to package a proper desktop distro, then so be it. If Ubuntu people want to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Canonical barely does any marketing (ever saw an add from Ubuntu?)
Your post was the last time I saw a Ubuntu commercial.
Fedora isn't a try out of RHEL
If Ubuntu is taking over Red Hat let me know when all the ISV's certify ubuntu, when it becomes EAL4 certified (if it does you can thank redhat for pushing SElinux into ubuntu), when they are opening more code than any other company, when they have a cert nearly as respectable as RHC*.
I mean Ubuntu doesn't even contribute to the kernel hardly, or anything else for that matter yet they're going to take over? RedHat has been
Desktop Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat targeting the server market makes more sense, they still support Fedora Project so nothing new to see here.
hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
Shame though, I used to use RH. before dallying with 'drake, 'diva, and 'dora on the way to (K)Ubuntu. Each to their own though.
Re:hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
lol! Look at all the little Ubuntunoobs modding this "Insightful".
tell you the truth I'm a little startled by that myself, bot don't you worry there, the /. regulars will be along shortly to crank me back down. :-) I miss early RH, I know Ubuntu makes things easy - even my gf uses it - but it removes the glamour of slaving away for hours to make you latest download distro work and be "just so", the exact way you like it.
When you can get a top notch install for just three clicks my sensible side likes it, but my inner geek mourns.
The problem is software. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is needed on Linux is the same panoply of software that is at the same level of quality as found on MacOS or Windows. What is missing on Linux:
1. The Adobe/Macromedia collection of software â" from Photoshop to Dreamweaver to Flash.
2. A really good video editor (think AVID)
3. A really good audio/music program (think ProTools and Ableton Live)
4. A low level video layer (think quickTime/Quartz / WindowsMedia)
I'm sure there's more. Frankly, NOTHING on Linux rivals the Adobe CS collection. NOTHING on Linux rivals AVID (or even Final Cut Pro). NOTHING on Linux rivals ProTools. Why don't I have a Linux box? Because the above mentioned software packages (and a host of others) are not available on Linux, and the stuff that is similar to it is inferior. If Adobe / AVID / Digidesign / Ableton / etc. ported their stuff over to Linux, I'd get a Linux box in a heartbeat. But until then, I'm going to hang with my MacBookPro, thank you very much.
And since this is The Truth On The Ground, that's why places like RedHat are hesitant to bother with desktop Linux. They could build it, but there's nothing to do there, and thus no money to be made.
RS
Re:The problem is software. (Score:5, Insightful)
I couldn't disagree more. How many users do you think, are actually using one of these professional tools?
I think only a few. Most users still use there computer for web browsing, emailing wordprocessing and IM.
Although it would be nice to have those professional applications ported or seriously replaced with Open Source versions, it's definitely not the BIG problem of Linux on the desktop
Re: (Score:2)
And if they are satisfied with the software they're using for those basic tasks, they have no incentive to consider an alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
People have to sit down and let it sink in that money rules the world, even the Free Software world (with a couple of notable exceptions).
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that no one is going to take the time to write "high quality" software for linux, unless they're going to make money on it. Since they know most Linux users will either
A. Attack them for not being "free and open"
B. Steal the software anyway
It's not likely you'll ever see such an animal.
I (sadly) agree, and that's why Linux is going to die in a ghetto. On the flip side: Adobe could port their entire CS to Linux, sell the software and Throw In The Computer For Free (buy CS
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe is quite happy to remain a significant Apple player I'm sure. That is their platform and it has always shined there.
True, but only so far. Adobe has a very dysfunctional relationship with Apple, especially since Apple became a Serious Software Company. Example: Final Cut Pro (FCP). FCP was aimed at AVID, but the results were the destruction of Adobe Premiere. At the time (1999) Premiere 4 was the deal, and it sucked really badly. It was so disruptive that AVID said they would cea
Post Inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully the moderators will correct this very missleading title.
No, Red Hat hasn't given up (Score:4, Informative)
Like a utility (Score:3, Interesting)
what about corp. users (Score:2)
It's all about about corp. users (Score:5, Informative)
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop. This is our fully supported, commercial product. It is 100 percent compatible with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux server products. Its focus is to provide a desktop environment that is secure and easily managed. And it is upgradeable with the Multi-OS option (which provides virtualization support) or the Workstation option (which provides high-end workstation capabilities).
* Fedora. This is a Red Hat sponsored, fast-growing, free product. While Red Hat doesn't formally support Fedora, users can turn to a healthy online community to obtain help when they need it.
* Red Hat Global Desktop (RHGD). Plans for this product were originally announced at the 2007 Summit Conference. It is designed exclusively for small, reseller supplied, deployments in emerging markets (e.g. primarily the BRIC countries), and will be supplied by a number of Intel channel partners.
We originally hoped to deliver RHGD within a few months, and indeed the technology side of the product is complete. There have, however, been a number of business issues that have conspired to delay the product for almost a year. These include hardware and market changes, startup delays with resellers, getting the design and delivery of appropriate services nailed down and, unsurprisingly, some multimedia codec licensing knotholes. Right now we are still working our way through these issues. As mentioned earlier, the desktop business model is tough, so we want to be prepared before delivering a product to the emerging markets.
The headline should be: "Red Hat Delays Low-Cost Consumer Desktop, Says Business Model Is Tough".
Did they just hire Chris Crocker or something? (Score:2)
LEAVE IT ALONE!1!
What is so hard? (Score:2)
I know that there are folks out there that are accomplishing [all] desktop functions with free software. Again, what's hard for Redhat to bundle software that such folks are using, into a fully functional desktop that will work as advertised?
From Java, to Adobe's flash it's all free software
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Simple. Because only Linux geeks will say that GIMP=Photoshop. The rest of us have tried both and know better.
That's not saying that it will never get there (or get close enough, like OpenOffice, that it won't matter to 70% of people.
But right now, it's just delusional to say GIMP=Photoshop. Those applications DON'T exist on Linux.
Plus, companies have decades worth of Access, C++, .NET, etc. apps on every desktop that they are not about to switch. So until it runs all of those, they're not switchi
Until Linux can install as easily as Windows... (Score:4, Interesting)
Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
I bought a Mac because of this realization (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)