Red Hat CEO Questions Relevance of Desktop Linux 615
snydeq writes "Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC. 'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it,' Whitehurst said, adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing, as well as VDI. 'The concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age. I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.' Despite increasing awareness that desktop Linux is ready for widespread mainstream adoption, fellow panelists questioned the practicality of switching to Linux, noting that even some Linux developers prefer Macs to Linux. 'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'"
Give up control? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't want to give up control of 'MY' unit to the cloud...ever!
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Funny)
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
I had to. (Score:5, Funny)
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
Must be slashdot... (Score:4, Funny)
!but then remembered what it was i was doing and where i was doing it and then....
I'm sorry... where was i?
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Insightful)
***Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet.***
Quite true, but then neither is Windows. I often become quite frustrated with the usability, documentation, and quality problems in PC Unixes. Then, I'm forced to use Windows for some reason or another, and memories of the reasons that I quit using it come flooding back. The fact that Windows is an unmaintainable, malware riddled, shambles with severe usability and performance problems doesn't stop people from using it and often even (incomprehensibly) paying money for it. I don't imagine that the fact that Unix desktops are not really ready for prime time is going to discourage their slow adoption.
Maximize service contract revenue! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop.
Re:Maximize service contract revenue! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop."
My thoughts were more or less on the same path. How is it that I've been using Linux on the destop both at home and at work since about 2000 and it's still "not ready" for the desktop? And while I'm professionally tied to computers I'm not on the league of the uberfreaks. I mostly limit myself on the desktop to "use" the system.
Re:Give up control? (Score:4, Interesting)
I use ubuntu for my desktop at work. All my servers run either Solaris or Linux.
That said, I've never had my home gaming XP machine refuse to boot windows or have the sound not work after any upgrade (system or driver).
This year alone, my ubuntu desktop X has refused to startx 2 times after various updates, and hda-intel alsa sound has not worked for months after an update. I finally had to purge alsa and install oss by hand to make it work.
I might be in the minority, and this could purely be anecdotal, but linux distro's on the desktop still are not ready imo.
I suppose if no one updated drivers or their system ever, it would be nice and stable:), but that isn't very realistic.
Re:Give up control? (Score:4, Interesting)
I suppose if no one updated drivers or their system ever, it would be nice and stable:), but that isn't very realistic.
I set my mother up on Fedora 5 several years ago. Before that she was using Windows. With Windows set up do auto update, I was guaranteed to have a phone call about once every couple of months because something stopped working. Now that she is on Fedora, I manually do the updates about once a year when I go home to visit. I have not had one phone call asking for help because something stopped working. Obviously, I wouldn't wait that long to update a Windows box, but I feel confident that she won't be hacked with the Fedora box. The reduced workload was well worth it for me.
Re:Give up control? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give up control? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:4, Interesting)
have they not fixed that yet?
I suffered from the same on my Vaio. I could here it doing it, spinning down and up again every few seconds. There were workarounds but I recall the Ubuntu guys saying "not our problem" yet at the same time other distros and OSs were fine.
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:4, Informative)
Fixed in Ubuntu in 8.10 IIRC, and I'd guess a patch also went out to 8.04.
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:4, Informative)
"It's hard as hell to make it your only desktop; you'll spend all your time wrangling with WINE."
I would dispute that, I've been using it as sole desktop for a couple of years now.
I'm not a (PC) gamer, which probably helps, but I've yet to find anything I want to do that I need windows-only programs for. Of course I'm not one of these seemingly billions of users that absolutely must have Photoshop, and pirate it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This may well be true.
It's also funny because a decade or so back we may have said the same about apps on commercial UNIX boxes.
I may well be lucky because I fit precisely the demographic that is making linux and making it for themselves. I am a UNIX focused software developer. Pretty much everything I want and need is there, for home and business use. At work I have need for a couple of commercial apps, but they're available for Linux too.
"While Linux itself is very much ready from a stability standpoint,
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Insightful)
For the record:
1. I'm a desktop linux user of almost 2 years.
2. I'm a gamer, and all my games run just fine in Linux.
3. Photoshop works just fine, out of the box, in Linux through WINE if you *really* must have it.
So yeah... all is well for me. I also do video editing and DVD authoring work in Linux, which I find has better tools and better control over the end product than any package I've found for Windows.
Is there a learning curve?
Of course there is. But go visit the Helios project blog and you'll be awakened to a world in which desktop Linux is distributed to underprivileged children who pick it up in a matter of minutes. Keeping in mind that these are children who have never used a computer of *ANY* kind.
If you want Linux adoption, the children is where to target it. Our generation grew up with windows, and a vast many people don't want to let go of the past.
Teach your children Linux, and do the future a favor.
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:4, Informative)
I assume you're talking about winmail.dat files? Try the LookOut [mozilla.org] addon for Thunderbird. I think this is what I have installed at home to deal with those occasional annoyances.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My desktop PC has been exclusively Linux for 6 years now, and I don't even have Wine installed (and never have installed it). I have no Windows systems at all. There is no need to touch Wine for the vast majority of desktop use.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Huh, better tell me how about grapes?!
(For those who didn't get...yeah, that story about fox)
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Lenovo 3000 N500 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Lenovo 3000 N500 #2 - Gentoo 2008.1 - some issues (WTF, IT'S GENTOO)
Dell Inspiron e1505 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Acer Extensa 4220 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
Acer Extensa 4620 - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
HP 6710b - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
HP 6730b - Ubuntu 8.10 - 0 issues
IBM Thinkpad X41 Tablet - Ubuntu 8.10 - Some issues, mostly related to the tablet functionality.
Did you have a point, or were you just assuming that your (or your "friend's") one experience made a trend?
Re:Oh Yeah?! (Score:5, Funny)
He's just angry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Making a profit and being relevant are two different things.
I use Linux for desktop both at work (RHEL/PC) and home (Ubuntu/netbook).
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Funny)
Making a profit and being relevant are two different things.
Not if you're a Ferengi [yahoo.com]
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly! I find it annoying that people point to Ubuntu as if Canonical was a perfect example of an open source company. Canonical would not exist if Shuttleworth didn't have a lot of money. He's not making anything on this Ubuntu thing, as far as I know.
Not to say Canonical is bad or Ubuntu stinks, I use it at home actually... but it's being supported by one of those evil corporate people that made money in business. (I don't think made money == evil, but you know...)
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, put the right spin on it, and Canonical/Ubuntu is the best example of Open Source success: guy harnesses F/OSS stuff to get rich, pays the community back by putting his money where his mouth is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hm. To get rich?
According to wikipedia:
Shuttleworth founded Thawte in 1995, which specialised in digital certificates and Internet security and then sold it to VeriSign in December 1999, earning R 3.5 billion (about US$ 575 million at the time).
In September 2000, Shuttleworth formed HBD Venture Capital, a business incubator and venture capital provider.
In March 2004 he formed Canonical Ltd., for the promotion and commercial support of free software projects.
Sounds like he started his own company and sold it. Like a normal business entrepreneur. Unless I'm mistaken, Thawte isn't F/OSS... and he's definitely not getting rich on Canonical/Ubuntu (yet, at least). And they even sell t-shirts ;)
There is more information you need to know here. (Score:5, Informative)
Shuttleworth has stated before that he was able to start Thawte due directly to F/OSS.
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Last you checked... (Score:3, Informative)
He won't need to wait that much. In fact, according to Shuttleworth [nytimes.com], Canonicalâ(TM)s annual revenue is creeping toward $30 million.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
\No idea how they are making a revenue other than with t-shirts and bags, but apparently they do make a profit. It's not just one person or fund. Or the fund is large enough for sufficient interest.
Training [canonical.com] and support [canonical.com]?
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Interesting)
that Canonical is doing what he's been trying to do for years.
What would that be, bring Linux to a <1% [hitslink.com] market share? I'd say Canonical is doing pretty much exactly the same as Red Hat. Back in its day RHL was pretty much *the* desktop distro (sorry, debian), building a name for themselves, getting certifications and so on. The only reason RHEL got anywhere is because half the geeks had already played with RHL. When they finally had enough legs to stand on in the business world alone, they dropped RHL and went with RHEL exclusive. Canonical definately wouldn't mind breaking into that known profitable market along with RHEL and SLES, and Ubuntu is the promotion package. If they carve out a market for Ubuntu LTS and drop Ubuntu in favor of a Fedora "testbed", the likeness would be complete. I hope things will be different this time around, but there's been a few too many "Year of the Linux desktop" for me to be very convinced.
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
And probably frustrated.
His statements not withstanding, Red Hat announced a short while ago that they were "re-entering" the Desktop market. It's beginning to look like RH has a leadership problem where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing or saying.
Novell's Hovsepian said he made "the deal" with Microsoft because HE could not sell SUSE Linux against XP Pro. Will RH sign a similar "deal" with Microsoft for the same reason? Is a trend being established where Linux companies hire big name CEOs with WINDOWS experience only to learn they have NO knowledge of Linux or how to sell it against Windows, and soon give up?
His statement about "usability" is laughable and ludicrous. Millions of Linux Desktops around the world are giving their users a fast, stable, functional AND secure environment.
This Sony VAIO VGN-FW140E/H laptop is running Kubuntu 9.04 ALPHA 6 (that's right - ALPHA, and it is rock solid stable for me) with KDE 4.2.1 like a silk glove. It used to run VISTA Home Premium but Jaunty Jackalope is better looking and works better than VISTA. There is nothing I want to do that Jaunty can't do, and do better than any version of Windows I've ever used. I also like the fact that it doesn't tell me what I can and can't do, and it is NOT calling home with my personal info and demographics.
Re:He's just angry... (Score:4, Insightful)
I love linux, but you need some reality check.
Re:He's just angry... (Score:5, Informative)
Put it in a shiny box. (Score:2, Interesting)
Put it on the shelf, and sell it for $50. Use the $50 to pay for 1) 24-hour tech support phone line and 2) Licensing for MPEG, MP3, etc so that DVD and music playback Just Works, out of the box. I'll buy half a dozen copies and GIVE them to all my relatives. Please, somebody do this already.
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:5, Insightful)
One support call by each buyer will exhaust the 50$.
And people who buy rather than download will be kind of people who will need support.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're developing for multiple platforms, in which case it's actually pretty cost effective to be a reboot away from Linux/Windows/OSX rather than purchasing separate machines.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I decided to take the plunge and finally learn C with the ultimate goal of moving on to Objective C to build apps for my MacBook. Mac users seem to actually pay for this little app or that little app... that's not as much the case for Windows, and absolutely not the case for *nix.
It may not be a better dev environment, but people will actually pay a couple bucks for what I write if it works well. That alone's enough incentive for me.
Anecdotes (Score:5, Insightful)
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
What weird company did this occur on? It makes no sense. First you say that OS X saved people effort in managing configurations, then you say that the IT department configured users computers. I also find it very hard to believe that OS X saved IT 20 hours in configuration time. That's 2 and a half full working day and not even Windows takes that long to configure. So how the hell could OS X SAVE them 20 hours compared to Linux?
At a previous job all engineers used SLED10, with machines remotely ghost-insta
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What weird company did this occur on?
I'd rather not say for reasons of anonymity.
It makes no sense. First you say that OS X saved people effort in managing configurations, then you say that the IT department configured users computers.
No, I said it saved them time managing configurations, as measured by the IT department.
I also find it very hard to believe that OS X saved IT 20 hours in configuration time.
That's the amount of time less it took the average, new user to install and configure software during the first two weeks, based upon reported hours. Given that we were in startup mode at the time and reporting "read Slashdot" or "shot QA engineers with Nerf gun" for an hour was considered perfectly acceptable, I don't see they had a lot of reason to lie.
So how the hell could OS X SAVE them 20 hours compared to Linux?
There were several theo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conclusion: Apple lock-in works.
???
What lock in? THey could easily install Linux or Windows if they wanted. They could get a different OS for their next machine if they wanted. Our company services were pretty much all standards based so that they worked with Linux, BSD, Windows, and OS X. So, where's the lock-in? Having a product people prefer to use is not lock-in.
How is Apple any different than Microsoft? They both are proprietary, both use the lock-in tactic a lot, both have some BSD-code in them.
Well, with regard to OSS Apple actually has kept their BSD derived components open and contributes all their changes back to the OSS community. So I'd say that is a difference
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the interesting things you constantly hear about Desktop Linux: vendors must provide support.
Have you EVER heard of an end user calling Microsoft for support? I'm sure people do, but I've never heard of such a thing.
People just assume they should know, else they ask me or other geeks for help. Corporation hire experts who are trained or self taught. Even THEY don't call Microsoft for help.
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:4, Informative)
I worked on a team that paid Microsoft for support. I actually used it, and had them fix a problem (that I couldn't figure out via google and newsgroups). Of course, my boss commented that it was the first time Microsoft support had actually managed to fix a problem, so YMMV.
We also paid a premium for the privilege. But this was a product that generated enough revenue that the higher-ups paid a huge premium to have a Microsoft engineer come out and sit around while we were deploying certain SQL Server replication changes, just in case something went wrong.
Re:Put it in a shiny box. (Score:4, Informative)
We had an MSDN Universal subscription. We had a case where an app needed to access Card & Socket services to determine what actually was in the PCMCIA slot (This was under NT4).
Nothing in MSDN. Called support and got an answer from them. Of course, they said "This is undocumented, and is not guaranteed to work on any other release.".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Use the $50 to pay for 1) 24-hour tech support phone line
Why??? Windows does not have that. I cant call any magical Microsoft tech support number and get free tech support. I have to pay them.
Why is it that Linux must have free support with it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple makes money selling an integrated package of hardware, coupled with attractive & easy-to-use software that allow that hardware to do things easily that lots of people want to do. They *sell* the same commodity hardware that Dell, HP, and every other Intel-based vendor does, wrapped up in a pretty case. The differentiator is the software that runs on that hardware, and the "experience" that software offers.
perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not be ready for his desktop be it has been on my desktop for 7+ years.
His main problem is that he doesn't know how to make money off of Desktop Linux.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes me think that... if I don't know how to make money from orange juice, should I tell people that drinking it is stupid?
Well, no - but maybe it means you tell people you don't think it's worth being in the orange juice business...
As for preferring Macs over Linux - I've been down that road and I came back. In the end OS X just didn't make me happy. Replacing my Mac laptop with a Linux one has been delightful. It just feels right.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, what's with the assumption that the desktop won't be relevant in 5 years? That seems highly unlikely.
It's already been around and mainstream for maybe 15 years, and I don't see it going away any time soon. Sure, mobile devices are going to play an increasing role, but I get the feeling that people are still going to be heading into an office five days a week five years from now.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
To hell with CAD, let me know when a mobile phone can act as a functional word processor.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me know when a mobile phone can serve as a CAD workstation, video editing workstation, or other high performance need. We have plenty of those around here where I work. Also need to mention dual wide screen monitors in imaging departments like radiology (they rotate them vertically for x-rays, etc.) It's more likely that thin clients will become the norm again before mobile devices replace desktops. We have a lot of Citrix thin clients here and that number is growing steadily...
Whitehurst is a CEO. He thinks that all anyone uses a computer for is sending and receiving email.
Re:perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
People have been predicting the death of the desktop computer almost since it was invented. Thin clients attached to powerful servers (or the newest buzzword "the cloud") have been touted as the future of computing for decades.
The simple fact is that even if these things worked flawlessly and without latency (they don't), the consumer just doesn't want to give up that kind of control to a central entity. We like to have our own applications on our own box, and we don't trust some big company to keep our stuff safe and private. The desktop hardware may continue to shrink, but it will still be the desktop. The death of the desktop has been 5 years away for the past 30 years, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I see it changing next YEAR! And I will PROOF IT! (Score:3, Funny)
NEXT YEAR, the death of the desktop will have been 5 years away for 31 YEARS!!!
Times are changing my friend! A bold new world is about to dawn!
Re:perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why Microsoft is afraid of Desktop Linux – no money to be made.
I make money off of linux (Score:5, Interesting)
First, I am not in the IT industry. I run small law firm.
My entire buisness, two offices, 30 computers, routers, servers, all Linux (PClos 2009 is my flavor). Not a single copy of anything else in my office, all running free or open source software legally. I save over $250,000 a year and climbing over what I would have needed to pay for the equivalent (and most is not equivalent). Since I started my biz about 4 years ago, that could be seen as something around $1 million dollars. In real money, that is something likly closer to $400,000 in cash, because I likly simply would have had to do without most of the stuff I take for granted (e.g. loading up a backup mail server on an old computer, rather than forking out $2,000+ for new one ). Thus, my buisness likly would be much smaller.
The savings is even greater on the desktop. Somewhere in neighborhood of $1,000 per seat or more. Hardware alone, as I live in a country with expensive outdated hardware, is 50% over walking in to a store to buy a new computer because I run Linux.
I would likly not be able to afford to be in biz without Linux.
Making money comes in two basic forms. You either raise the price, or reduce your cost. I am making more money using linux and OS, because I reduced my cost. I can afford not to raise prices on clients, I get more clients, and make more money.
Not my problem the old guard IT industry can not figure out how to make money with Linux, because I am sure I am not the only small buisness out there that is making money on Open Source.
Re:I make money off of linux (Score:4, Informative)
No way I can give you a full accounting here, but just and idea.
Again, where I operate in Latin America either it simply does not exist or it will cost 2 to 10 times what it does in the States. I am sure there is a lot of the developing World in a similar situation. Thus, all the screaming about all the pirated software in the developing World (they can't afford it).
Most of the savings is in deploying servers and office infrastructure mostly. Web server (3 servers), PBX phone system (asterisks), mail servers (3), databases (not even sure how many), a bunch of other stuff I am sure I overlooked. FOSS web sites and databases are a big one as I run about a dozen different sites for promotion. If I had to run those on say a .NET framework, each would likly cost me $5,000 US a pop on the low end. Likely more around $10,000 a year or more with hiring people to build and maintain them.
The per desktop cost is big here. Stock windows vista home edition computers (just about all that is sold) will start at around $1000 to $1200 US, with no software (add office, adobe, etc). Hardware will be at least 12 to 24 months behind what is sold in the States, single core processors are still common. I am not even sure where I would find a licensed copy of windows server, let alone any other common advanced server apps. I even have PIII IBM T21 I just took out of service in my office. Cost $600 three years ago factory recertified with win98, and it was already 8 years old. Got Three years out of it with Linux, and I still could use it if needed.
This is all aside from labor cost (competent IT labor also does not exist). The real savings is in my time, if you are looking for an easy way to justify that number. One competent full time IT person to do all the above (chances I would need way more) if I could find them, would run me an easy $80,000 US to start per year.
Don't forget total virus infections in my company ever: 0.00000000
Just now I am starting to really cash in, because the big upfront cost are done (especially in terms of my time to do homework). I can cheaply scale from 30 to 300 employees in IT terms with very little new investment and likly well beyond. Someday, with a little luck, I really will need to hire someone like Red Hat. That is how they will make their money off of me.
You can run the numbers in a bunch of different ways, depending on where you shop for prices; but there is still a big savings over going all closed source equivalents. There is simply no way to recalculate all that in a way that closed source equivalent functionality / capabilities comes out cheaper, without using pirated software.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well it isn't really all that clear to me that anyone has to make money off of desktop Linux distributions. At least at the moment, Linux distros seem to be making pretty good progress as it is.
But also I think the summary may be misleading. From the article, it seems like he's pointing out the problems with switching to Linux on the desktop right now, and then going on to say that he isn't very interested in trying to push Linux on the desktop because he's questioning the relevance of desktop computing
Oh golly... (Score:4, Funny)
Flip flop (Score:5, Interesting)
Didn't I just read something about Redhat moving back into the desktop?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1721248 [slashdot.org]
Really? Again? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or is he talking about the desktop computer? Well, I'll put his name on the pile of people proclaiming the doom of the desktop. While laptops are almost everywhere, they haven't replaced the desktop in the workplace. In fact, at the firm i used to work for, they bought everyone laptops for a round of buys, but then switched back to towers.
Also, I shudder to imagine how slow and botched a thin client rollout would have been. It seemed like every day one server or another was going down for something. I know that's not how you run your shop, but I can't imagine my old 150 person firm was unique.
The desktop is likely to still be relevant (Score:4, Interesting)
One example that comes to mind is doing development work, including both traditional programming and CAD work as well as graphics design. To be responsive to the user it seems those would want to keep most of the processing near the end user. Similarly, anything dealing with sensitive information must tread lightly when dealing with the cloud or any other server which is not under direct and immediate control.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I don't think a Smartphone or sub-netbook could really qualify for many folks as a full-time portal to the Net. Desktops and notebooks will still be part of the show for many years to come, if for no other reason than typing speeds of 12 words a minute don't really cut it in a lot of fields.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Desktop irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, in 5 years the hundreds of millions of desktop computers running various OS's will all go away because of massive investments by companies in huge single points of failu^H^H^H cloud computing facilities. And with this booming economy, those billion dollar future tech gambles will be coming along any day now...
Dumbest. CEO. Ever (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times have we heard the 'Death of the Desktop'. Just because he can't figure out how to make money on it does not mean it is going away.
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
Re:Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 yea (Score:5, Funny)
wat u meen?!!
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Millions of Ubuntu users question the relevance of Red Hat on the desktop.
Re:This just in (Score:4, Insightful)
> Millions of Ubuntu users question the relevance of Red Hat on the desktop.
That's the key point. Though Red Hat's server systems are exceptionally good, its desktop operating systems are of very low quality. Add to that Red Hat's schizophrenic commitment (or lack thereof) to a desktop system, and there's little wonder Red Hat can't do a damn thing in the desktop space.
In came Canonical with a focus on the desktop and increasingly high quality with every release, and Red Hat became completely irrelevant as a desktop player. At this point, most of the barriers to widespread Linux desktop adoption are more imagined than real.
Sounds like Larry Ellison's "Network Computer" (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone old enough here to remember that? Bill Gates responded to Ellison's claim that the PC was dead, by saying, "I like my PC."
I think a lot of folks still like the freedom of being able to install what *they* want, not what is available in some cloud, or what their company's IT folks claim to be "the standard application set" that is more than anyone else might need.
Now, whether Jim Whitehurst can make money off how *I* like to handle my computing needs, well, that's his problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. Every couple of weeks, there's some sort of submission on Slashdot about some limitation in what Apple will let people install on the iPhone. I can install not just a huge number of software applications on my PC, I can even install different operating systems. There's no one telling me that I can't run Java on my box, or forcing me to only use one messaging client.
I realize that some folks need to be on the bleeding edge, but giving Apple your money so they can tell you what you can run on y
Revealing statement (Score:4, Funny)
I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.
We've just learned two things about Jim Whitehurst:
Isn't Cloud computing simply 70s-era technology? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I want ownership.
I use Linux on my laptop, but (Score:5, Interesting)
I use Linux on my laptop, but even I have to agree.
What I want is a $50 add-on that will:
1. Fully and legally support bytecode interpreter and hinting for fonts. Bonus points for including decent fonts as well.
2. Support all major audio and video codecs. I shouldn't have to break any laws to get support for my digital media. Bonus points for not having to buy another codec pack when I upgrade my OS.
3. Support multi-monitor automatically when I connect a monitor (like Mac or Windows).
4. Work well on laptops. I should not see error messages about my hard drive failing to soft-reset every time I wake my laptop up from sleep.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The world only needs 5 "real" computers.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This never happened, and may never happen because the bandwidth speed isn't going up faster than computers speed. Maybe we will reach a point where all the user input and computer output can be piped about and the latency isn't a problem, but even then I'm not sure people will want it. The freedom implications seams sinister to me, and I'm untrusting of storing stuff only online as I've had data lost for me before (ok, ten years ago, but still).
I think things will continue as today, fat clients. I can do whatever I want the limits being only myself, time and my machine specs.
Scales nicely too.
The desktop is infrastructure (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because he can't make a profit on the desktop, doesn't mean the desktop is irrelevant. Just because no one else can either, doesn't make desktops valueless. They're part of the computing infrastructure, and without them we can't get to certain other profits. Stores don't make any money on their parking lots, yet they still use them so that their customer can park. Same with desktops. Commercial distros might not make any money on GNOME or KDE, but they should still consider funding them because it expands the distros' market.
p.s. Oh, and if you're going to base your business decisions on trends, you need to look at ALL trends. Mobile devices are indeed booming, but so are large monitors. More and more people are going dual-screen and/or 20+" monitors. The desktop isn't dying, it's getting breathing room!
Re:I agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux lost me on the desktop 8 years ago when OSX came out. Most of the "switchers" I knew didn't go from windows to Mac in those days, they went from Linux to Mac. Especially developers. With OSX, we had our unix stack for *AMP development plus something Linux didn't: commercial applications. The fact we could still run MS Office, Photoshop, and other such programs made it easy to switch. Plus the hardware just worked. There were no driver issues, especially with laptops, etc..
When computers stopped being something I toyed with on the side to my main source of income, my priority shifted because my time became worth something. I no longer had time to try to recompile a driver for my sound card 6 different ways depending on the Linux Flavour of the moment. In fact, I found Linux to be annoying as hell because it's a kernel, not an operating system. All the different distros but libraries and such in different directories based on whatever their reasonings were. So if you were working on a Redhat box one day and tried to test on a debain or slackware box the next, nothing would work.
That's why I left the Linux world for FreeBSD on the server side and the reason why I dumped both Windows and Linux desktop for MacOSX back in 2001.
What the Linux community still doesn't understand is that it's all about the apps. Now with Intel Macs, I run XP via parallels. I have one 24" iMac sitting on my desk that does it all. (I'm still using my older 12.1" powerbook as my laptop).
Last year when we were first starting up this operation, we bought barebones machines and slapped linux on them for developers. After, they were more than enough to run Eclipse for Java development. Well they all got frustrated with this or that and ended up bringing in XP discs and installing on their machines. (Which was a problem for a variety of reasons). So we replaced the barebones boxes with MacMinis that came with parallels and a copy of XP pro already installed. Everyone's been a lot happier.
I disagree (Score:4, Informative)
And the reason why you could not virtualize windows xp inside linux is ...?
I mean, if you want your developpers to have a mac mini, by all ways, do it. Do no try to bullshit us saying that your guys are happier now because they run xp on parallels, you know xp can easily run virtualized under linux. O, you didn't? Well, now you know ;-)
By the way: it has been ages since I have had to recompile a kernel. Are you using gentoo or something like that? You know, some people just install ubuntu or fedora or debian and get on with their lives. Stuff just works nowadays (I re-read your post and see that your experiences are 8 years old. Maybe you should not be so fast to prejudge what you obviously do no longer know so well).
I am a sysadmin at a citrix/vmware shop. My desktop is fedora, I quite like seeing how linux improves every 6 months. Every 6 months I download the iso, install it and in 20 minutes am ready (2 monitors, citrix client, openoffice, flash, java, ready for action in our network). 20 minutes, that's all it takes. No fiddling around with drivers, no kernel recompiling. Nothing. I spent much more time helping our webmaster configure his brandnew mac box, go figure.
It gets even boring, actually. Installing printers is just a matter of point, klik, point, klik, enter ip address of network printer, wait, yes, this is a sharp or a hp or a brother, it detects the right driver and installs it. It no longer is funny :-), it just works. And for outlook, I just launch a citrix session and use it in citrix. This will probably change in the next Fedora, because it comes with the first free mapi client integrated into Evolution. We will see how that works.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So why didn't you install VirtualBox+WinXP on the Linux machines instead? if you're gonna use the OS as nothing more than a VM launcher, I can't see why you'd pay the extra price of a Mac in the first place. And I've yet to meet any dev that doesn't use XP on a VM to do their 'real work' so forgive me if I'm not convinced of OSX's benefits yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real problem is that Windows is trying to be Linux, and most people are too stupid to see it the right way around.
Re:Linux on the Desktop is easy (Score:4, Insightful)
And once again, those same metrics APPLY to Mac OS X just as it does to Linux, so if people will claim Mac is ready for the desktop and that Linux isn't, I think that there is probably something broken in their assessment.
OS X does have something that Linux on the desktop is mostly lacking. That is OS X is championed by a hardware and services company (Apple) dedicated to making a very nice user experience for people who buy their hardware. It comes pre-installed, pre-configured, and working smoothly. There is support and services and a good commercial hardware ecosystem and stores individual people can go to to actually buy them at the mall.
If a large company were to start dumping money into making desktop/laptop hardware that runs Linux just as well and keeping Linux working well for those users and promoting the software and add-on ecosystem... well it would cost them a pile of money to really get it going. Then, they'd probably do quite well if they managed their brand well. That said, I really don't think Linux on the desktop is ready because the experience really isn't as polished and the hardware and software ecosystem just doesn't exist. It could with some investment, but it really isn't there yet. Netbooks and corporate desktops are fighting for which will be the first real desktops that are the exception to this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you run an Apple and tried to run it against an Exchange server?
Yes. It worked fine for everything I tried, except the Web interface (which also failed for Windows and IE).
Nothing works 100%.
Of course nothing works 100%. Windows doesn't work 100% when trying to talk to other Windows boxes. In fact it fails quite often and always has. This isn't about getting everything to work perfectly. It is about getting it to work smoothly and well enough that the average target user performing average tasks has an acceptable experience. And by experience, I don't mean they can look at their favorite
Re:Why have a linux desktop? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, linux needs threads because they are useful and so much easier to code for than multi-process applications. Multi-process programming sucks.
Threads are a great addition to linux.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And in doing so, very convientantly fought a war against Germany which was inveitable (or at least looked that way to American political elite of the time) well away from American soil and while Germany was already fighting on multiple fronts
I'm not saying American involvment in the war wasn't decisive from an industrial and manpower point of view, but Americas entry at the time it did was also about the most advantagous t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, as I said I am not a real Linux user, So the number of Window managers and desktop environments is irrelevant to me. I just use one at a time.
If I bring up KDE, I use the apps listed... They just work. In KDE I use Opera for web browsing and mail. Why do I need Evolution? When I am using KDE I rarely need to bring up a GNOME app!
When I use GNOME (Ubuntu Studio), I use the Apps they provide.
Even when there are slight differences in appearance, big deal, they didn't stop me from using the MAC, they a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And yum is every bit as usable as apt
Does yum still do the apt equivalent of an update before it does an install? I remember years ago yum taking forever to install software over a slow link. I eventually installed debian (I was using yellowdog) and I never looked back at the RPM world.