Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat's CEO Suggests Windows For Home Users
Selecter was one of many readers to point out a ZDNet story in which "the CEO of Red Hat now says that Linux is not ready for the desktop, but may be ready in a few more years. Curious - I'm wondering if this is the start of a corporate only retrenchment of Linux, or just a bump in the road to Linux having a wider desktop share?" Apropos that, Gwobl writes "Jim Lynch, over at ExtremeTech, weighs in on the fate of the Linux desktop, now that Red Hat has apparently turned its attention to the enterprise and Novell is buying SUSE (to go with Outlook clone Ximian, which it also owns). Lynch's take: Cheer them on! The Linux world needs these strong champions. And don't overlook Novell's networking roots. Time was, Big Red defined networking."
hmmn brilliant, The problem is not that windows "owns" the desktop its a matter of userbase. a lot of people who use computers aren't as knowledgable as most /. readers. Your ignorance to the fact that Linux is a superior operating system in all spectrums of performance, security and above all else stability. Leaves me puzzling why you even commented. I would much rather use a Linux desktop then XP anyday. Now I think XP and 2k are the better of the Windows line of operating systems but like anything from Microsoft its usually half done when you get it SP1 and soon to be SP2 did not and I suspect won't fix half the problems and security issues still to be found. So in one sense by marketshare yes Windows has a higher stake then *nix (including os X in that statement) but in the category of what its worth any *nix distro that has a name for itself is worth 3x the price you paid for your current operating system.
You have been sig'd
Redhat was one of the biggest Linux companies actually allowing the average consumer to switch from Windows to Redhat with their easy windowish install of linux and an install that actually would find and setup all my hardware for thos eof us not inclined to use a command line. Red Hat had an even better desktop chance now that the big Macromedia apps were running on linux. The time is now, and yet they are shrinking back into a corner where they should be coming out strong....
Ave Molech Setting
I agree, however I would go out on a limb and say that Linux installations require a little more knowledge than other operating systems. Look at Mac OS X, it's about as foolproof of an installation as you can get.
And yes, as a web surfing station, Linux performs just fine. However, when you start getting into things like digital photography, how easy is Linux compared to Windows? What's my mom going to touch up her photos in, gimp? Is there an "installer wizard" for it? I'd *love* to see her try and install a printer under Linux ;)
"vi? What?!"
Chris -- http://www.bitter.net/
Linux just isn't as fast, either. Things like UI speed matter more to me than filesystem fragmentation issues; you can schedule a defrag, but you can't schedule UI responsiveness.
Considering how sucky Linux drivers are (doesn't matter whose fault that is, BTW, end users only care for results) it's amazing that ANYbody gets Linux to run satisfactorily. Lord knows I've tried too many times to count, and Libranet's the closest thing to a decent Windows replacement -- for Windows 95, that is, if only its performance were as good.
Szulik is right; Linux won't meet 90% of people's needs.
just like the humble blood clot... turboporsche@telus.net
I just bought OSX and I'm having a lil trouble getting it to run on my new P4 system. Perhaps you can help me out?
Didn't think so..... Oh well, back to Windows I guess.
-]Phreak Out[-
Yep, this MSCE is looking mighty smart sticking with Windows.