Slashdot Mirror
OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux
Psyke writes "The Australian Financial Review is reporting that 'IBM, Red Hat and a consortium of computer makers backed by the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Intel will push to move the Linux operating system out of the back office from next year.' and 'Meanwhile, the OSDL, which has largely worked on improving Linux's ability to run large servers, said it would work on improving Linux's performance on ordinary desktop computers.'" The article itself is a little off- those companies are working *through* the OSDL of which they are members - along with a number of additional companies as well.
The only two problems with desktop linux that needs
to be overcomed are
Pre-installation on new PC by default on mainstream computers
Support by the mainstream computers' builders.
..until the product is ready.
Linux needs a lot of work before it is ready to be deployed at large in the home users market.
Blogzine
clifgriffin > blog
It strikes me as very strange that Red Hat have made a company-wide move to concentrate on exterprise systems (relegating other stuff to the Fedora project) while at the same time joining a consortium to promote Linux on the desktop and move it away from being an enterprise-only product.
Especially when RedHat was one of the companies backing away from the desktop in favour of enterprise installations. In the coming chaotic times for the desktop, I expect that we'll see lots of mixed signals as companies change directions or move in multiple directions at the same time. (In the last chaotic times, look at Microsoft's sudden shift from OS/2 to Win 3.)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS I would imagine. They abandoned the free desktop version, not their overpriced enterprise Linux distribution. Red Hat finally woke up and realized, no matter how much you try, you're not going to successful selling nothing but support for an otherwise free product. That's where the GNU model is flawed unfortunately. Writing books and offering tech support will not be enough to satisfy today's stock holders. That's also the problem with using a public company's open source product. Today they can be your friend, but tomorrow the stockholders could vote to charge you $699 for the same product.
Of course Linux* is based on Unix. It may not be derived from the sources of Unix, but the idea and the running of it most certainly is based on Unix.
*I'm prepared to accept arguments from the GNU/Linux crowd here.
Cheers,
Ian
Is this the same Redhat that says people should use Windows(tm) on the desktop?
Seeing Linux distros as an option pre-installed into major OEMs systems would be great. Desktop linux has all the tools that the average consumer needs (especially those buying from OEMs). Not to mention that consumers might be more willing to use linux if they didn't have to actually buy Windows first.
Other things like, I dunno being able to buy software off the shelf in Best Buy, taking it home and simply running some autorun or one-click installation process, regardless of which distribution of Linux you are using needs to happen...
Easier configuration, better transparency for applications and functions, a common clip-board and many more things...
Even corporate desktops need a more cohesive system to be able to install, then later update individual packages without needing to install a dozen other packages, requiring a dozen other packages to be installed, which require still more packages to be installed.
I have personally run into issues like that when wanting to update things like the version of Mr Project that came with Red Hat 7.3 to the latest release of Mr Project in order to take advantage of some new features. Since there was not a single Red Hat 7.3 Binary package made available, I downloaded the 'generic' RPM and found that I needed to install a dozen things to be able to install it. So... I downloaded the tarbal source and found the SAME problem.
I love Linux, but it just sucks that I am unable to take a piece of recent software and install on an OS that is NEWER then Windows 98SE without having to update dozens of other pieces of software, when I can still take that old Windows 98SE and run MOST every piece of software that has recently become available. That is one of the largest usability issues keeping Linux from taking desktops over very easily.
Not everyone wants to update their ENTIRE OS all of the time. Why should people take a handful of hours to most of a day every 6 months or so in order to migrate to the latest release of their chosen Operating System? They shouldn't have to do that. They should be able to install it and update the pieces they need to and then when and IF, they have the time, then they can upgrade to the latest release. There should also be no major issues with doing so...
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Well, it is not like Redhat is the only company supporting Linux. They might say what they please, but imho players like IBM and Intel want linux to succeed, and more often than not, they get what they want.
I think the grandparent's last paragraph is interresting. Combine the power of some of the "more geeky" distros with the easy of use of others. Might be a winner.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
When people say that linux is not ready for the desktop, they mean that the average user will not be able to use it.
What do you mean exactly by "the average user"? Clearly the average user, as in the user who is the average of all users in every respect doesn't exist, and people even closely aproximating him are pretty rare.
Do you mean the median user? (That is to say, when 50% of the people can use it.) Or do you mean a higher percentile? Or is 100% necessary? (Including illiterate people?)
You cant say, it is erady, but only for the geeks desktops. That kinda defeats the purpose.
Why not? Why does it have to black and white? Why can't an OS be ready for some peoples desktops and not for others? If Linux has 2.6% of the market today, would going to 15% not be an improvement? Would those 15% be using an OS that wasn't "ready" simply because it was unsuitable for the other 85%?
Your thinking makes no sense to me. Linux is ready for the desktop, and has been for some time. It is not ready for everybody's desktop, but it is ready for more users today than it was two years ago, and will be ready for even more in another two years. I see no contradiction.
In my opinion, the current state of Linux is still not going to match what Windows 2000/XP now supports.
For Linux to succeed in the desktop/laptop market on a large scale, they need to do the following:
1. Standardize on the programs installed. That means no more KDE-vs-Gnome wars, Mozilla Thunderbird/Firebird Internet access programs as standard, and most likely OpenOffice as standard. I hope the Linux Standards Base project will aim for such a standard for "base install" of Linux.
2. It MUST have widespread hardware support. That means it supports the latest graphics cards, sound cards, network cards and I/O cards at full functionality of the device.
3. We need the equivalent of Microsoft DirectX on Linux to make it easier to program and access multimedia devices. Hopefully, the SDL project will fulfill this need.
4. It really needs support for the Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) for truly automated system configuration and the ability to easily hot-dock devices through the USB and IEEE-1394 ports.
If Linux succeeds in these four goals, then I can see its adoption by everyone become much more widespread.
I'd be aiming more for the enterprise and business desktop. Better defined hardware configuration issues, productivity tools for Linux are already out there and it could be bundled with back-end services in a very attractive end-to-end package, both in terms of price and function.
This is really an exciting time in Linux development. It's fun to watch it coming together.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
This isn't a troll, it's an honest question.
I'm looking at switching to Linux because Windows SUCKS. But Linux can't really be very good; I mean, almost all of the Slashdot editors (Slashdot being owned, of course by "the sinister OSDN keiretsu") admit that they use Mac OS X. If OSDN themselves don't use it, why should I? Why should I go out of my way to use something that even these guys don't think is worth the trouble? Why help code/debug/improve/write docs for/ my own operating system when I can have someone else do all the work for me, all I lose is a little freedom?
I noticed that Doc Searls, editor of Linux Magazine, uses a Mac running OS X, and he raves about it daily in his blog. The EDITOR of Linux Magazine doesn't use it! Why should I?
No, Linux may be TECHNICALLY ready for the desktop, but if even Linux' biggest supporters (save RMS, of course) use alternate (proprietary, prebuilt, corporate-made, 'Cathedral') systems, it really can't be that good. You don't see Steve Jobs running WindowsXP or Bill Gates toting a PowerBook. Why do the Linux gurus alone refuse to "eat their own dogfood"?
I just don't get it.
What too many hard core Linux folks forget is that diversity and choice in the desktop isn't what most of the market wants. The vast majority of users see a computer as a tool and don't care about all the nuances of GNOME versus KDE. They want an integrated package with a few tweaking options and are happy to have a vendor pick a single stack and deliver it.
Microsoft does this and has 90+% of the market. Apple tightly controls their stack, including tight hardware control, and while their share isn't growing, they've tuned to their users and hold their base. But most Linux folks are developers or hobbysists. Many care passionately about what are inconsequential differences between KDE and GNOME.
Each technical point about everything is debated and the choice is usually no choice but another splinter project or variation. So much god work, but also a tremendous amount of wasted energy. MS and Apple are businesses. They look at alternatives and make choices and compromises to meet market needs. Linux is a hobby. The purpose os to tweak, customize and change, not to have the same Linux as everyone else.
The Enterprise / back office stuff is different. There the IT staffs are customers. They do want to tweak and customize the stack. Even though most of the time they really don't need to, they have the skills and time and $$ to do this so that they get the kind of custom IT shop environment they want.
These folks are not the home user / desktop user. They are geeks just like the folks who make Linux. They speak the same language and often care passionately about the same minor and irrelevant issues. And since this is where the $$ are for Linux (Red Hat's recent announcements confirm this)this is where the paid Linux folks will spend their energies. A different Linux is worth $$ here.
Why can't people accept that Linux on the desktop is just like APple. There is a niche market, geeks/hobbyists, and they want Linux on their desktop. The rest of the world doesn't care. Windows is just fine for them.
They're talking about corporate desktops. Linux is arguably better suited to that desktop environment than Windows is. Not to say there isn't the occasional thing which needs careful consideration.
I'm currently managing several hundred Gnome desktops on Solaris for engineers at the moment but there's absolutely no reason it couldn't be Linux instead. Using the right architecture and using the workstation edition of redhat for the login servers and execution nodes you can scale to thousands of concurrent sessions fairly easily on very modest hardware indeed and with a significant saving in support and licensing costs.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
IF - and that's a big if in the linux world - you're a "Linux desktop for the rest of us" fan, you're in for a real treat.
:-)))
You'll have the pleasure of handling with a lot of gripes and user requests that you suddenly have to take serious.
The moment you say "Whip out Terminal" you'll have lost 90% of your user-base. Compare with W95 "Go to DOS" comments. Yeah, right, that's why users like GUI's, so that they can give commands.
Furthermore, you'll have the pleasure of contemplating a shitheap of philosophical and usability issues, resort to real-world testing, redesigns and what not ALL FOR SOME STUPID BUTTONS!
And this is only the enterprise desktop we're looking at. These people can still be trained (although after 20 years of mass computing we finally know training is the worst waste of your time and money since you could have put the effort in making a better application...).
As for manuals... I want to see the IT geek who for the first time explains to a group of account executives they should read the MAN pages.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
They are unable to remember back to the time that they first encountered a windows/dos machine and were totally baffled by it. The idea for them that linux will have to be learned just like they once learned to use windows seems repulsive or even insane to them. I certainly remember being totally lost at the dos prompt cause I was expecting something like the C64.
First time users like the people in this article are ofcourse totally unaffected by this.
Of course the article you refer talks about something that MIGHT happen. It has not yet happened. The 70% stick rate is a prediction not a measured fact.
Still having good support, from a friend, local user group, co-workers, IT-staff, is essential for all newbies to learn any new tool. If the thai goverment has really done this well, not just installed a couple of script readers going, "please reboot your computer", then it might work. If it doesn't work then nothing is lost. That is the great thing about being last. You can only get better. The leader on the other hand can only lose. Neat eh?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
X is faster than windows, it's the bloated desktop environments and toolkits that bog it down.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What I never really understood is why there is no such thing as an enduser gcc-frontend.
It might just be a small app where you drag&drop your tar.gz. The app then asks "Do you want me to install this package?" The beast could then run the "./configure && make && make install" stuff.
In case of trouble it would just fire up the console, so nothings lost, but a lot is won. I know it wouldn't work with any file but with quite a lot of the latest source-packages it would work fine and help desktop users to install software without even seeing the console that scares them oh so much.
Maybe I should start this project although I'm a lousy programmer. What do you think?
cu,
Lispy