Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Desktop Edition
Sivar writes "Red Hat plans to enter the desktop business OS market, The Register reports. Red Hat says that the move is in response to growing frustration with Microsoft which has peaked since the introduction of Microsoft's new licensing scheme. The article states that the desktop offering is due next year and, surprisingly "...the company is considering subscription-based pricing.""
All service-based things are generally subscribtion based... from the pool guy to the Cable TV. Enterprise software has always been sold this way.
So redhat making their free software available for free-per-year makes perfect sense.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Please tell me how with a subscription model, Red Hat is going to have a competitive advantage over Microsoft?
The only way I can see this happening is if the subscriptions are really cheap. But then again, we're talking about competiting not for small offices, but for large offices.
Please tell me how they are going to convince a large company that has invested in Microsoft helpdesk people to switch to Red Hat.
While you're at it, tell me how they're going to save them money from all the proprietary Windows software they're using.
Here's my current list of Windows software I would need replaced in order to maintain productivity - MS Project, MS Visio, Macromedia Dreamweaver, and Macromedia Fireworks.
Not a difficult list (note the general lack of MS Office, since I use OpenOffice), but not easy to overcome. I'm sure there are other people with far more obscure programmes they need.
I like open source and I like Linux. I just had stupid business models.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Theres only a few ways redhat can do this and make it a success. Heres what I hope they do. Offer an OS alternative to OSX, charge subcription fee, use this to generate income, and compete with OSX.
Or they can offer a typical Windows clone like lycoris and we wont get anywhere with being just as good as Windows, at least not anywhere besides the corperate desktop because users need a real reason to switch, they dont care about license fees.
I think Redhat has the chance to generate a ton of money if they do this right, making an desktop OS in the style of OSX which is easier to use than windows while offering the same functionality.
Or Redhat will simply be crushed by the likes of lycoris, OSX, and Windows OS.
Unless Redhat pours some serious $$ into this, and brings home some serious $$ from this, this is going to be a complete failure, the only way to bring home alot of money from this is to build a desktop better than every other desktop, and sell it in the USA, Japan, China, South America, Africa, Europe etc, Because the desktop battle has not yet begun in Asia, Africa or Europe, the battle may be over in the USA but theres 3 other continents to war on, and the only Company for linux which looks like it may dominate is lycoris.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
That wouldn't be very surprising since Mandrake Linux has become so popular in a so short time. Anyway, it's also surprising they didn't just buy them, since the company market-value is very small compared to Red Hat's IPO remaining cash.
/ faq )
(have a look at: http://www.mandrakesoft.com/company/investors/bsa
This is going to be intetersting to follow... will Red Hat include Mandrake's tuning such as supermount?
(sue me, I've got karma to spare)
Redhat only intends to go after the corperate workstation market, while this is fine for the short term, the long term goal should be to sell their Desktop OS in China, South America, Africa and Europe, places where Microsoft has not yet dominated is where Redhat can actually try to become the standard desktop OS.
Sure its good to compete on the business side of things, but dont make the same mistake IBM made with OS2, or that Apple made with MacOS, you have to be flexible enough to battle on both fronts, the business side and the user side, currently Linux looks like it may win over the Business side, but Apple and Microsoft are slowly trying to dominate the user end.
The user market overall is far far bigger than the corperate desktop market and I think redhat should use think both short term and long term, and release a Desktop OS for corperations while also making it easy enough to compete with OSX, this way they can expand their market over in China.
Currently redflag linux a redhat clone is taking over in China, Redhat should be going after that market, the question is how can you profit off of the users? The potential is there, but theres no way to do it? Actually there is.
Make a deal with ISPs to add a $5 a month fee to users bills for the OS, redhat will be responsible for managing their OS, providing updates automatically and transparently etc.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I fear that for linux to enter a business market on the desktop, there's still quite a long way to go in terms of user friendlyness. On all other fronts, linux equals or wins against MS, but on the desktop, GUI is the only thing that really matters :
- stability ? XP is stable enough for the desktop
- security ? XP with no services is secure enough behind a corporate firewall
- CPU efficiency ? When running Office and Outlook as sole applications on a 2GHz PC, you've got to go pretty ballistic to get inefifcient.
- open source ? You really thing any desktop user gives a flying donkey ?
- commandline unix underpinnings ? see 2 remarks above
all that matters is how well users can become at easy with their machine (in their own adorable shitty, messy and totally disorganized way. Remember that a desktop user does NOT WANT to understand his computer. He just wants the computer to adapt to his personal shitty messy and totally disorganized way of organizing things)
I did the test many times and put a linux box in front of a reasonably willing (although reasonably dumb) subject and frankly, they didn't even figure out how to reset their desktop. Linux just doesn't get it when it comes to dumb-ass desktop users.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
The hidden cost of MS's business desktops has always been the tools. You can't simply buy licenses for XP and call it a day: you need administration tools (SMS), antivirus tools, firewall tools for your mobile users, service pack distribution tools, etc. None of these are bundled with the cost of XP (crummy firewall notwithstanding), and the desktop costs get expensive quickly.
I'll bet RedHat is going to sell this as an alternative to the frustrating patchwork of programs required to administer a network of 50-250 PC's, because that's always been a MS weakness. MS has decent tools like SMS, but they require so much knowledge & work that they don't really pay off until you've got a bare minimum of 100 PC's.
Not that desktop Linux rollouts won't have a learning curve, of course.
What's your damage, Heather?
Sorry if I'm missing something here, but last time I checked, I'd been using Red Hat as my desktop o/s quite successfully for the past few years, with packages such as Mozilla and Nautilus are now included - and so going by the last few releases, one does get an inkling that they've already been making a significant effort to bring Red Hat to the desktop.
The announcement suggests therefore that they've decided to do something different about their approach to the desktop market, but doesn't exactly make it clear what, apart from hinting that they might be mixing in some proprietary software with it (such as Star Office 6). Any ideas?
While Mandrake has a good idea they lack the funding to do what they are trying to do.
Redhat has over 100 million dollars in the bank, more than enough money to launch a desktop OS. All Redhat needs to worry about is marketing, ease of use, and supporting standards, then they should go to governments, schools, libraries, etc in all countries and sell Redhat Linux Desktop Edition.
Redhat should make it as easy to use as OSX, Apple for a long long time survived off of this market alone, this is what Redhat should do.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Let see
MS demands subscriptions, people get upset, they don't want to have to upgrade.
Debian has free subscriptions, there is no mass exodus to the world of Debian/Linux
Redhat offers subscriptions, yippie skippie, the world will move to Linux. uhh why?
Subscription to support, you can still download it. up2date works too
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
However I'd say win2k is more stable than XP.
XP lacks in the speed department as in the OS itself is too slow.
XP can be secured by knowledgeable users but its not secure by default, viruses, trojans, hacking through scripts in email, or the browser prevent Xp from being secure enough for the casual user.
Ease of use is the main thing linux needs to improve on, until Linux is as easy to use as OSX its not going to beat Windows.
Being just as easy as Windows is not good enough.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Linux has functionality, all it needs is the quality of say OSX.
Functionality is fine but to beat Windows you have to look professional, nautilus is the most professional looking interface to work with so far, Redhat should fund development of nautilus, bring back Wozniak or whatever his name is who built Nautilus, and finish what they started.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
up2date works too
:-(
Yeah, in the 5% of cases were the update server isn't unavailable due to "extremely heavy traffic".
But perhaps you can set it to auto-reconnect, I've not looked into it that much.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
You know C, C++ etc, you are a developer, compile the code yourself.
make && make install
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Americans say , "put your money where your mouth is", and "money talks".
Well now, if your wallet is empty, and you want to continue your business, people get inventive. Linux is the lumber and wood lying around (for free) to make it happen.
The claim that all my tools, spreadsheets, documents are in ms office format, and thus i can't switch overnight is true. But company's should really focus on platform independant formats instead.
number 1 rule was/is still , never have your computing stuff tied into a single ICT company/supplier. Many company's still alive today took the wise decision in the past to just buy the custom made package including its source code. In such a position no software company in the world can stall your business.
Robert
Wage slaves don't want anything where they have to think about anything but the job at hand so they can get it done and get out.
I don't care if its KDE or Gnome but somebody's going to have to bite the bullet and make a look and work and feel Windows clone and the GUIs for the applications have to be look and work and feel Windows clones too.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
yes, but there's an easy way.
you've got up2date server deamon for clients on network. update server and all clients will have a fast connection and no connection lost
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Most corporate users who use PCs and do not work in the IT department need the following...
Browser
Email
2-3 Corporate Apps
Word Processing
Thats it... You will have some that require spreadsheets, calendaring, and document sharing - but really thats about it.
Making the argument against this type of decision from the point of view of a PowerUser, or Developer is pointless. Yes if all your apps are only available on Windows, it won't work for you. But you are not 90% of all desktop users.
http://windows.scares.us
In a corporate setting, PCs are not truly general purpose machines, so ease of use doesn't mean the same thing that it does in the home or SOHO settings. Employees are trained to use corporate systems, and that includes PCs as well as more specialized tools, both software and hardware.
For a corporation, a different side of ease of use is ease of licensing and purchasing. Maybe in a post LicenseV6 world Microsoft will have made this "easier", but in the transition there's a heck of a lot of turmoil, and their products have just become more "difficult" to use. That has nothing to do with the software itself, just the legal and purchasing implications.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
MS forces you to either buy, or subscribe (then cancel and own nothing, subscription doesn't make you permanent owner)
Redhat gives, and offers support subscription if you want it.
So, basically YES, you've got it right.
MS EVIL! BILL GATES SUXXORS! FIGHT THE DMCA!
Good for Red Hat! Hooray open source! I can't wait to sign up!
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
> Many large companys can't change that easily. My employer has many custom programs, and excel sheets that just won't work on anything else.
And sadly, many bosses will use that logic to justify digging themselves even deeper into the pit. But where will they be in 10 years, when Microsoft is really desperate for cash?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I have provided Linux desktops to several dumb Windows users in companies, and I typically tell them:
- Where the start menu is (click on the K-button).
- Where their e-mail program is (the icon with the E and a letter, kmail)
- Where the desktop office suite is (StarOffice 5.2 and OpenOffice.org 1.0)
Only very few users I told more information, like showing them konqueror and explaining them about not to worry about viruses etc. All users managed to use it successfully and effectively.
The result was, that the Linux desktop TCO, including user education and productivity stuff is far lower than Windows.
In the long run it even improves: Windows users typically call their hotline if they receive pdf files or zip files because they don't have software to display it. And if they want to create pdf files they have to buy extra software.
When users have to find their own files, Linux is a great thing for system administrators. The concept of home directory actually works on Linux, and with symbolic links, their home directory is all they have to care about.
And then there are crashes and users getting a new PC. On Windows, your laptop registry is deleted, which severely impacts user productivity after getting the new PC. On Linux, you just restore the configuration files from the backup after you reinstalled on a new harddisk, and the user is fully productive from day 1 with the new PC.
This increases the user productivity stability. So the real reason to switch to Linux is to lower cost and increase the availability of user productivity.
Hey guys and girls; take your 'leet hats off for a second and think.
It's about product DISTRIBUTION, SERVICE AND SUPPORT. It's about UPGRADES, PACKAGING AND BUGFIX. It's about NOTIFICATION, PROCESS AND BIDDING.
Can You Dig It, Can You Dig It? Caaaannn Yooooouuu Diiiig Iiiiiiiit.
I enjoy being something other than a paper-pusher. But then again, I've encountered other things in the corporate world.
I've worked in a call centre with Windows help files being the primary source of looking up information online. It wasn't a pretty system, but it TRULY was the IT department's call. I know there are also a lot of proprietary systems for retail stores and their retail offices, most of which I've seen run on DOS.
I know lots of departmental assistants and secretaries who have to scan in all kinds of paperwork (idiot-proof one-touch scanning works for them - does it work on Linux) and use FrontPage or FrontPage Express to update web pages for the departments.
Yes, 90% of the people use standard office-suite applications. Unfortunately most of the key support roles with the greatest influence on the purchasing requirements need applications outside that scope. (Oh yeah, project managers DO fall into that role often.)
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
I'm sat in front of a box that formally had an SBLive!, and still has a Logitech QuickCam Express plugged into it.
;)
Mandrake 8.0 detected both, installed the correct modules, and both worked perfectly well from the very first boot.
The same applied when I removed the SB Live! and re-enabled the onboard Via audio (Don't ask). Kudzu detected the change, removed the emu10k1 module, and loaded up the via82cxx module.
I see no reason why, if Mandrake can do this, the others (E.g. Redhat and SuSe) can't.
Admittedly, all of this is a bit of a kludge, and as we can see, the results differ across distributions. Maybe someone else can do it better?
Syllable : It's an Operating System
The enterprise is best place to start combatting the desktop front. Linux makes a great desktop OS for most people once it's setup and configured to there needs. That's were the rub comes in. You needed an experienced admin to do that. If employees can come into work, sit down and click on an icon to get their email, they'll be happy. I don't want to hear flames about application x is not available, bla bla bla. The majority of business computer use is email, web, and office tools. Linux has all of those things functioning well enough for most people. The ones who gripe, are the same ones who will gripe about the changes from 2000 to XP anyway.
Look, Caldera did much the same thing. Now RH is going to do this? I have no problem with them offering subscription services per se' as long as I get a shot at the desktop without support for myself. I hope this doesn't turn into a "corp user only" thing like Open Linux became in practice. Caldera went gunning for the enterprise at the expense of the average user. If Red Hat does this, they'll shoot themselves in the foot too. >
They offered this nice little thing called migration compatibility . the only product microsoft EVER created from scratch was windows, and even that claim is dubious. their business strategy was to purchase established products, give them a microsoft-esque look, spice the functionality up a bit, and offer it to the public (now pay attention here) WITH MIGRATION CAPABILITIES ALREADY IN PLACE. want to move your documents from wordperfect to word? no problem. how about migrating email from eudora to outlook? gotcha covered. that's where microsoft wraps your underwear around your ankles and gives it to you rotten.
and you know what? it's only gonna continue. it's like screwing a gorilla... you ain't gonna stop till the gorilla stops.
so, what's the solution? first of all, don't offer an alternative to microsoft, offer a migration. you might also consider actually using some of microsoft's products. how about this? i see all of these posts talking about working with major vendors on making their software work on linux... well, the one vendor i KNOW all you fascist, self-mutilating slashdotters (and by god you are, don't even try to deny it) are overlooking is microsoft. why not try and convince them to work on linux functionality? with the whole court thing going on (email me sometime to find out how much BS and how anti-democratic it is), they've got a vested interest in making other products at least viable enough so that they can claim that they're not monopolizing the market. take that and run with it.
you know who you guys remind me of? all the people who are hanging around bitching that racism/sexism/any other -ism you want is still rampant and that there's no equalization of opportunity when all they really want is for the government to hold everyone else down so they can walk on them. fuck that! if you want to operate based upon the lowest common denominator, go right ahead, but i'll be damned if i'm gonna work on it, and you'll just keep getting trampled on by those with the ambition and the capability.
nuff said
They don't need RedHat.. all they need to do is upgrade their IT staff. Find people who are competent with Linux (specifically Debian), know how to program well, and are plugged in to the Open Source community. Linux is ready for the desktop. And with KDE3, it's arguably the best solution. It just takes a little bit of expertise to configure all the great software now available so it's convenient for daily use by business types. But hey, that's what System Administrators are for right? The expectation of a turn-key desktop is silly. Even Windows needs a bit of configuration So listen up CIO's, fire your MSCE's and hire some Linux gurus in their place. There are lots of us out here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That allow Silent delivery and installation of an executable on a target computer,Arbitrary local file/folder deletion,Arbitrary local file reading,HTTPS spoofing - man-in-the-middle attacks,Elevating privileges, running script in the My Computer zone,stack and heap based buffer overflows, Denial Of Service, Overriding filetype handlers on local files,Reading cookies,Detect if a local file exists and read its size/date,Automatically opening IE + Executing attachment,Cross Site Scripting through non-HTTP ports.
Even with full access to the Mozilla source code, over the same time duration, only one single similar vulnerability was discovered in Mozilla. The fix was in the CVS source code within hours of the notifcation and new Mozilla binaries were avaliable within FOUR WORKING DAYS - Not MONTHS in the case of Microsoft's "Trustworthy" efforts.
They criticize Microsoft for the subscription-based pricing yet they go ahead and follow exactly the same path. What a bunch of hypocrites.
You're right in general, but wrong in specifics. OpenOffice can read and write Office format
The reason I still need to keep a Mac around is PageMaker.
Find free books.
I've used mandrake linux for specific tasks (mostly using xfig), but one of the things that surprised me the first time I booted up was significantly lower font quality than what I had in windows. It seems to me that is a hurdle for desktop adoption.
I know that quality fonts are difficult to create. What is the prospect for linux getting screen fonts of Windows quality?
The above comments hold true for individuals and small companies. However, try extrapolating to an organisation with 10,000+ desktops.
The amount of effort required to keep this up to the mark is tremendous, hardware replacement, software installs and upgrades, support etc.This is where the major amount of cost arises and where the TCO bites. If an organisation can use a desktop that is easier to maintain then they have a major win.
Remember also that the majority of desktops in an organisation this size will not be running Office, they will be running counter-top applications in front offices or communicating with backend databases. Many of the applications that these desktops use will be browser based, so all they need is a kiosk-like UI. They don't need all the bells and whistles of XP or Windows 2000.
To succeed on the desktop, linux CANNOT be an "alternative", no matter how much better, stronger, faster, etc. it may be. If a "better alternative" could make it, OSX would have a helluva lot more than 4% of desktop marketshare, even with Apple's draconian hardware tactics (remember, at one time Macs had over 20% of the market).
To succeed on the desktop, linux has to be able to REPLACE WINDOWS *FOR* WINDOWS USERS.
Replace. Not be an alternative, not be better than, but REPLACE, seamlessly enough that the AVERAGE user doesn't feel pain when they attempt their necessary and favourite functions thru said desktop.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm guessing the reason you can't do those things in Linux is
because you aren't a Linux user. You betray your ignorance on
a number of points, but here are some of the most glaring...
> I scan in business cards for quarter page, free form text and
> scanned images for large size ads. What Linux Frankenstein can
> do that?
Uh, one with a scanner? (Yes, there are some really cheap
scanners that only work in Windows, but in terms of other
criteria (quality, speed) they're junk anyway. Presumably,
a Linux user shopping for a scanner would get one that would
work with Linux, same as a Mac user shopping for a scanner
would get one that works with Mac.)
> Word isn't so hot when printing JPEGs smaller than 50k.
Who would use a lossily-compressed format for printing?
The only reason to do such a thing would be to demonstrate
that it looks bad by comparing it to something done right.
> what about formatting the pages? Open Office can't do it
Erhm, I've not had any trouble with such simple tasks as
that. Yes, you do have to set the properties on the image
after you paste it in and drag it to the spot on the page
where you want it, but how exactly is that hard?
> A program guide is a real world task. So is mail merging
> 10,000 letters for a fund raising campaign. Or issuing 1000
> thank you letters in a day to donors. Or a baronial fold
> brochure. Or a three fold brochure.
If you have a problem doing any of these, you need to take
a basic high-school-level computer class. There aren't even
any major differences in _how_ you do any of these from one
OS to the other.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Setting up a Unix system can be hell> for a novice if no one or nothing is there to help and provide guidance -- the most likely scenario in a corporate environment.
As for Windows, most folks don't set anything up. They just use whatever the IT department pushed out to them.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Moderators, please pay attention!
Just because you disagree with a statement doesn't make it the poster a Troll. Moderating like this makes you the Troll, and hopefully Meta-Moderation will see that you no longer have the priviledge of doing so.
put the what in the where?
Here's an easy test to determine if your Windows users have enough basic savvy to even think about moving them to Linux:
1. Using any application, create and save a new file.
2. Using any other application, find that file.
Sad to say, I've found that many people cannot do that. (A surprising number don't know what "application" means.)
Now, that doesn't mean they're any less intelligent than the rest of us. it just means that Windows allows them to successfully go about their business with no awareness of things like file systems, directories, etc.
So, yes, desktop Linux has a way to go.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Your theory doesnt hold weight.
Dreamcast had far more market share than PS2, everyone still switched to PS2.
Apple had far more market share than Microsoft, everyone still switched to Microsoft.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
the article mentions that it is unhappyness with the new MS licensing that prompt companies to "evaluate alternatives".
So if Red Hat against odds is successful in selling the desktop, Microsoft only have themselves to thanks for losing their monopoly.
The corporate users want a "known name" to buy their desktop OS from, and they already buy their server software from Red Hat. Their is no similar source for Debian.
They might have bought Debian from Corel, but Corel dropped out before Microsoft created a demand by changing their license.
Excel is the big stumbling block now, not Word. More and more people have shitty little VB scripts that do the "real" work within a spreadsheet. Excel creates mini-applications that include formatting, automation, etc.
The same holds true for AutoCAD; it isn't the software you buy that makes it hard to change, it is what you write in-house!
"I see no reason why, if Mandrake can do this, the others (E.g. Redhat and SuSe) can't"
You do realize where mandrake got their original code to even do this? Sound card detection has been like shooting fish in a barral for years now. The challenge comes with other hardware. At that point most people new to linux install it and pray for it to be setup.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I've not used a Logitech webcam in a while, but I remember it being easy. I even had some perl stuff grabbing images, putting text on them, etc.
As far as rebooting, I hate it. Though I might be alone in that feeling. And it's worth noting that MS doesn't eat their own dog food in that regard: to get the "designed for Windows" logo cert, your installer/app can't cause a reboot. I've never seen anything patch/update-like from MS that didn't require at least one reboot. Then again, I've never seen a "Designed for Windows XP" logo on a boxed copy of XP.
Having said all that, there's really no reason to begrudge people's use of Windows. It's the right tool for the job for some people. It can't be everything to everyone, just as Linux (or Mac OS X, or *BSD, or VMS, or ...) can't. Sometimes I don't understand why the desktop OS choice is a zero-sum game. There's room for more than one OS.
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
hehe I was just gonna say the same thing. Mod this up.
Absolutely agreed. However, until someone tries to put it out on the desktop, the situation will always stay that way.
One of the early open-source mantras was "release early, release often". Actually, that doesn't have to be confined to open-source stuff - far back in the mists of time my freeware Startupfrills was written like that. It's no longer developed, but eight years or so ago it did very well for itself by getting a wide distrubtion and lots of feedback from users. Though its basic premise was set, its features and interface were shaped by user requests and bug reports.
A Linux desktop distro needs to do that now. It needs to be released to a large group and then torn apart by real live users, who will berate it mercilessly. Only by listening to them, and implementing requests whilst staying true to the overall premise, will a genuinely good desktop distribution appear.
Oh, and personally my first step would be to concentrate on what to cut out, not what to put in. A thousand calculater programs, three web browsers and fourteen office suites might well be available, but that's no reason to overwhelm my machine with them. Pick your defaults, one app and one only for each area of functionality, then stick with 'em. Users advanced enough to both know of and also care about the alternatives are also advanced enough to install things themselves.
Cheers,
Ian
Everything is antialiased, there is a nice consistent theme, configuration is much easier, and you no-longer need to understand the difference between things like your Window Manager theme, and your GTK theme.
Installation was a breeze, and everything was auto-detected - the only problem I had was with lpr and my printer - I have reported the bug to redhat.
Open Office is integrated pretty seamlessly into the distro too.
I think Redhat has already got Linux pretty close to being an effective, solid, easy-to-use desktop OS. It will be cool to see what they come up with when this is their actual intention.
I work at a fairly largish lending institution, with roughly 2000 workstations in one of our buildings alone, with more being added weekly. The current setup is a reconfigured image of Win95. Even the new desktops that just arrived had XP wiped in favor of 95. Guess why? Yep, DOS based mainframe clients. Also, the win95 image they use works just fine, and is not very error prone. Haven't had a BSOD yet. Anyway, I could see my employer using a system like RH's except for a few things. First of all, we mostly make use of excel spreadsheets, word docs, Outlook/Exchage, web browser, and those old DOS client programs. Assuming open-source Office suites have improved since the last time I checked, the only reason we couldn't use Linux as a drop-in replacement are the client programs. How does wine hold up while running old DOS/Win95 era programs? Will those programs be able to talk to windows network printers? Is there a X program that can emulate the MSOffice Bar? Those are about the only issues that would need to be addressed for the IT dept to consider using Linux, much less RH's new marketing plan. I don't see my current employer hurrying to upgrade, since like I said, they dumped XP on the new machines in favor of 95, which they know 'just works' (most of the time). However, I would think that they will be foreced to upgrade in the next 5 years or so. Will linux be able to address normal corporate workstation issues by then?
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
the free office suites aren't compatible enough with MS Office, this would drastically impair my ability to get work done.
I would say MS Office isn't compatible with the free offerings. See, MS could bend to work with them since they hold the keys to the castle. Only MS can edit their code. If they could allow importing from OO easily and flawlessly then a mixed environment could work. The standard is published.
Of course this isn't going to happen, but look at it that way.
Get your Unix fortune now!
This is probably why redhat is standardizing their desktop. It's easier to support a common entity than a million and one different custumized GNOME desktops. So whether or not the admins want to use KDE or GNOME it'll work and function the same way. Smart move by redhat. Even in a free world business sense must prevail.
I think most companies can handle StarOffice / OpenOffice(.org) and Linux's desktops. The thing holding back our place of work is the lack of anything which comes close to M$ Access / VB.
Kylix is slow, buggy, runs under wine and forces you to use Object Pascal (oh BABY!) or C++. Rekall looks interesting if basic. But honestly, most small to medium size businesses want to code in VB or something very similar.
Where are our database front-ends?
Not trying to pick you apart because you are right about most of this, except the fact that you believe microsoft is distracted.
My point was, each new generation is an improvement upon the last. Microsoft is currently distracted, what with trying to patch XP into something the DOJ and those pesky 9 remaining states won't stomp all over, which must be done in concert with their secret, ever-vigilant adherence to the Microsoft Prime Directive:
Currently Microsoft is working on Longhorn, from what I hear about long horn its going to improve stability of Windows, Update the Windows GUI to the level of OSX or beyond, and have an object oriented file system.
This is cutting edge stuff, now its not going to be released until 2005, so Microsoft is very serious this time, and they have to be because they are backed into a corner.
My point is, Linux has to catch up to OSX, not tomorrow, but right now, Linux cannot afford to be in last place, yes Linux is improving, but Microsoft sees what Linux is doing and its going to be damn hard to keep ahead of Microsoft unless we take this seriously, if we are going to compete on the desktop we have to totally destroy Windows XP, and at least be competition to OSX, because Linux is after the spot OSX currently has.
Linux is after the #2 unix/linux desktop spot, they have to compete with Apple.
Currently its XP, OSX and then Linux.
The open slot is the slot OSX is currently trying to fill, Linux needs to be the OSX for the PC, until its that its not going to have its own niche market and it needs that to have at least a foundation besides geeks.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
There is one guy, count him, Keith Packard, working on Xrender exention.
.Net when they could be helping develop Xfree?
One guy! So of course its taking 2 years just to get anti alaising, yes you can debate and say one guy can build higher quality code in the long run, but the core of Xrender is nearly complete, now we just need ways to interface with it, the only other option is directFB.
So while linux development is fast its selectively fast, its fast in some areas and slow as hell in others.
So even if MS rolled out Longhorn on schedule (which is anyone's guess), Linux has a significant amount of time to improve. Breathing room. Looking back on the last two years, Linux then and now, and looking forward two years -- maybe my expectations are unrealistic, but the prospects are exciting (and, yeah, I know there's a word for people who find IT exciting).
True Linux has time, but we need the IBMs, Redhats and other big guys to support Linux desktop development, in order to get the quality up to the high levels of OSX, you need to spend real cash on this, hey I'd pay but theres no one to pay besides mandrake.
Corperations should pay, IBM should contribute several million dollars to develop Gnome or KDE, Redhat should contribute code or money for development, Suse and all the United Linux people should focus all their efforts on it.
Believe me when the whole community focuses their efforts on one thing yes we dominate, the problem right now is some people want to just focus on the server, Sun wants to focus on Java, unless we all decide the Desktop is vital just like we decided having a GUI was vital, we wont have a high enough quality desktop.
Its going to take a combined effort, and the main thing holding the Desktop back right now is Xfree, wheres Ximian? Why are they so busy focusing on copying
I admit, Xfree is very very difficult, but if you have enough money you can work with it as soon as Keith Packard writes an API of some sort or documents his code.
Also why are Linux people worried about Microsoft? Our biggest threat is Apple. IF Apple ported to the PC tomorrow there would be no more Linux on the Desktop, it would be over right there.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
if you don't now already is! go to freshmeat snd type up2date in projects search :-) compatible with redhat up2date, tested
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion