Red Hat Returns To the Linux Desktop 192
CWmike writes "Red Hat used to be in the desktop business along with all the other Linux distributors. Then, they left. Now, however, Red Hat is switching from Xen to KVM for virtualization. As part of that switchover, Red Hat will be using not only KVM, but the SolidICE/SPICE desktop virtualization and management software suite to introduce a new server-based desktop virtualization system. Does this mean that Red Hat will be getting back into the Linux desktop business? That's the question I posed to Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens, in a phone call after the Red Hat/KVM press conference, and he told me that, 'Yes. Red Hat will indeed be pushing the Linux desktop again.'"
The meaning of the article is unclear (Score:5, Informative)
The article seems to conflate "desktop" and "desktop virtualization."
RH has been on the desktop since the beginning. They offered Red Hat Linux 1.0 in 1995, all the way up through RHL 9 in 2003. They followed that with 10 bleeding-edge releases of Fedora and five main releases of RH Enterprise Linux. All 100% open, including their own work on utilities, Gnome/KDE, and kernel development. They have done more for linux on the desktop than just about any other company. And now we all reap the benefit, even if we use another distribution like Ubuntu.
So it is nonsense to say RH "returns" to the desktop. They never left.
Now, the article goes on to talk a lot about desktop *virtualization.* That's a totally different topic. Maybe the article should have been titled RH returns to desktop virtualization.
Re:About time (Score:3, Informative)
Do you care to expand on your argument, this time laying out your reasons for making it in clear, concise manner with appropriate references? Because I can.
OTOH, you have given us no reason to accept your argument.
Re:They had their chance (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you say Fedora is crap? I have used it since inception up through 9, have not tried 10 yet. I have also installed and tried various versions of Ubuntu, most recently 8.10. The only difference I have seen is that Ubuntu includes non-free codecs that will will play dvd and mp3 out of the box. With Fedora it takes an extra 2 minutes to get that capability. Other than that the color scheme is different. As far as usability I see no other differences. There may be some deep down feature differences but for my home desktop of web surfing, open office, etc there is no noticeable difference.
yum has been in fedora from the start and was/is just as good or better than up2date.
Re:Cost-Performance Utopia (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't for server virtual machines. its for pushing apps and environments out to clients seamlessly. Microsoft has something similar, APP-V, and VMWare is working on it too. Why have office installed on every machine? Why not just push or stream an image out to the machine, and then you only have one spot to update, one spot to upgrade, etc. Think LTSP but on steroids... Companies are once again realizing that the biggest cost in computers is keeping the things secure and running...
Re:With RedHat. (Score:3, Informative)
Is this a joke post? I seriously can't tell.
- I just tried using GNOME at 640x480, the screen resolution dialog box fits perfectly fine even with tons of space on every side of the window. Either Ubuntu seriously fucked things up (I use Debian), or you are spreading shit.
- Netscape software? What are you doing using that ancient piece of crap? the Network-Manager in GNOME supports dialup just fine.
- Applications -> System Tools -> System Monitor. Has tabs for filesystems and general hardware specs. Amazing, huh?
Re:They had their chance (Score:3, Informative)
My point is that the Red Hat distribution prior to RHEL was more like Fedora than the current RHEL. RHEL was the new product. RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases. I started with 2.0.2 in 1995 and was on 9 in 2003, the OS changed massively during that time as well.
Take a look at the version history here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux [wikipedia.org]
Anyone that could have dealt with that release pace could deal with Fedora for servers. I like the new RHEL pace for server installs and currently use CentOS. But for the desktop Fedora is much better and the quick upgrade cycle is a good thing.
Re:With RedHat. (Score:5, Informative)
If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.
It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.
Re:They had their chance (Score:1, Informative)
IIRC this is a %post script issue in the kernel RPMs that depends on having a skeleton there. When you remove the last kernel, it toasts the skeleton, so adding back is problematic. This isn't a "Fedora" problem (exists on RHEL/CentOS too), or even an RPM problem- this is a packaging / scripting problem.
Re:They had their chance (Score:3, Informative)
And how exactly is synaptic better than yumex (yum extender) ?