Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSDL To Start Pushing on Desktop Linux

Posted by Hemos on from the beyond-the-backroom dept.

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.

11 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Redhat by samadhi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Strange I thought Redhat had just abandoned the desktop. If Redhat are going to push Linux out of the back office, where are they going to push it too?

  2. I am really looking forward to the day... by lee7guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...when the number of Linux desktops reaches the critical mass where hardware manufacturers have no choice but to support linux with drivers, etc. If you'd asked me a year ago I would have told you that that day probably is a decent amount of time into the future. Now, I say we will most likely soon start seeing the signs on the horizon.

    Often we hear people talk about how "linux isn't ready for desktop". Bah. Nonsense. I would rather say; Some people aren't ready for the linux desktop. It might not be as easy as Windows or OSX, but nothing really stops you from using linux instead of windows, except for specialized applications only available on that platform.

    The only thing needed for success is a distro as easy to set up as Mandrake/Suse/Redhat, with the ease of upgrading of Gentoo or Debian. Maybe Fedora is the choosen one, tho I doubt it.

    --
    Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
    1. Re:I am really looking forward to the day... by Theatetus · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Often we hear people talk about how "linux isn't ready for desktop". Bah. Nonsense.

      I got sick of my friends' and relatives' asking me to help them configure their home computers. I installed SuSE for them and they've found it much easier and more intuitive than Windows XP (I'm not a SuSE fan, but it seems to work for them).

      Just goes to show that Linux is ready for the desktop, and Windows XP still has some catching up to do before people like my grandmother can use it as easily as they can use the desktop Linux distros.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    2. Re:I am really looking forward to the day... by Phantasmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There's nothing stopping the Free software community from replicating the success that OS X is experiencing.

      To succeed on the desktop, we need drivers. There are way more people writing drivers for Linux than for Darwin, but in order for those drivers to be any good we'll need cooperation from the manufacturers. So, we'd need to create a viable desktop solution that runs extremely well on commonly available hardware (i.e. NVidia cards) to show the smaller manufacturers that if they help a Free software developer write a driver, they may sell more units.

      GNU/Linux with X is slower than Windows, and way slower than OS X. Linux 2.6 is going to help a lot, but it isn't going to fix things. The X people say that the widget developers don't know what they're doing. The widget developers say that they've done they best they can with what X has to offer...

      So it seems to me that X is either too complicated, or not sufficiently optimized. I think that we need a complete X replacement. Forget about X compatability.

      It needs to be networked, like X, but have a standard widget set and clipboard. GTK+ and QT can be implemented in this environment, just like they are in Windows.

      A faster, graphical bootup, no editing of config files by hand, yadda yadda yadda...
      you've all heard this before.

      But is it beyond our reach? I don't think so. What we need to do is admit that a lot of the stuff that we're doing on the desktop isn't working that well, and then change it.

      --

      The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
  3. Bleh! by POds · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What happened with IBM telling the UK gov that Linux wasnt ready for the desktop?

    Also will the choose a certain linux distributing? Or just linux in general. Cause normal consumers would be able to choose for themselfs you know! They've going to have to have a list of suitable linux distros cause some of them are no wear near usable for newbies... And i assume thats what they are trying to do when they say they are pushing it for the desktop?

    --


    Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
  4. Did i read this right?? by floydman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Red Hat, the leading supplier of Linux to business, also said it would produce major enhancements to its distribution of Linux, which would make it easier to use the operating system on corporate desktops."

    Because i swear i read a couple of days ago that RedaHat will stop its RedHat Linux line, and stick with the RedHat Advanced server

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  5. Joe Sixpack-friendly desktop Linux is possible. by Vandil+X · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apple successfully brought Unix to the desktop with MacOS X. It's a very pleasing and easy-to-use GUI on top of unix.

    It gives you the easy usability Joe Sixpack needs ("It just works."), yet still gives you access to a console (Terminal) and developer tools for technical people to do technical things with it.

    If some group out there could slap on an OS X-like GUI on top of Linux that looks, runs, and plays as well as OS X does ontop of Unix (for non technical people and technical people alike), and have the OS be free, Windows would be done for.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  6. A little market segmentation might help by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is difficult and wasteful to try to market products at too large a market. So, "Linux for the Desktop" is probably an unattainable and moving goal.

    This is how I see the real market segments for desktop computers, their percentage value, and how well Linux fits. I apologise in advance for doing zero research and just basing this on my experience of the field, but... hey... this is Slashdot, exactly the place for uninformed opinion.

    Here goes.

    1. "Small Office" use. Value: 20%. Requirements: edit/print documents, spreadsheets, graphics. Web. Email. Music. Linux: perfect. Windows: perfect.

    2. "Medium Office" use. As above, but add support for exotic hardware such as notebooks, scanners, DVD burners, whatever. Value: 10%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.

    3. "Large Office" use. As above, but add integration with enterprise information systems, currently done mainly through Exchange and Office macros :-). Value: 20%. Linux: some work to do. Windows: perfect.

    4. "Cybershop" use. Value 10%. Requirements: web, chat, email, office, VoIP, p2p, trivial (re)installation, efficiency on cheap, old systems. Linux: perfect. Windows: too expensive and complex.

    5. "Game boy" use. Value 15%. Requirements: support for latest video, audio, and large software library. Linux: needs work. Windows: perfect.

    6. "Serious home user". Value: 10%. Requirements: as for Small Office, but more solid, tighter on the budgets, slightly hackable, and with loads of free software. Linux: perfect. Windows: slightly too expensive, but otherwise perfect.

    7. "Naive home user", Value: 15%. Requirements: as for cybershop, but with ability to plug in digital camera to download snaps of baby. Linux: perfect, with some limitations on range of exotic hardware. Windows: perfect, except for security.

    Overall analysis: Linux can cover 60-70% of the market with nothing more than some good marketing.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  7. Re:Way Off... by evilad · · Score: 3, Interesting
    In The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Cooper argues that the easiest application install of all is implemented by a web-browser, and that no application install needs to be harder than that. There is a single specification of the "application" you want to run, whether that be clicking a link or entering a URL, and then the browser does the rest of the work.

    I agree with this. Any well-written application should be able to determine reasonable defaults based on context. Therefore, on general principles, there is no need for an interactive installation process.

    The only exception I can think of right now is for security. Even there, digital signatures can go a long way towards streamlining the "install" process.

  8. Re:Way Off... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Cooper argues that the easiest application install of all is implemented by a web-browser, and that no application install needs to be harder than that.

    I agree. The long term UI plan for autopackage is clicking directly on icons in the web browser. You can of course drag the icon to your panel or menu as well, if you wish to make a permenant link. This isn't impossible to implement though it is fairly hard.

    Any well-written application should be able to determine reasonable defaults based on context. Therefore, on general principles, there is no need for an interactive installation process.

    Well, autopackage supports user interaction, however it forces the package developer to specify sane defaults. I'm not 100% sure this is the right way to go, but there are some things that just make a lot more sense to do in the installer (like choosing 'components' and such).

  9. Software drives Linux Adoptation, not hardware by rigolo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For the last 2 months I am trying to convert my desktop in the office to linux.

    I am currently almost there, but the biggest problem that is holding me back at the moment is that certain business software is not available under Linux. The GUI for my accounting software package does not run under linux (it might under WINE, but not nativly). My Order Management System does not run under Linux, My Billing Application does not run under linux.

    All the rest works via open office, outlook web access and other applications, but the biggest problem is that unless the core applications of your company are available for Linux, you can not switch.

    So all this talk about hardware should be supported, USB should plug and play etc etc means nothing when my software does not work.

    Rigolo