Slashdot Mirror
Novell, RedHat and Sun Commit to a Linux Desktop
DeckerEgo writes "InfoWorld reports on the Linux desktop and how Novell, Sun and RedHat (wha?) are working on making 2004 the year corporations start adopting open desktops. But which desktop? Most interesting to note is how Novell is planning to beef up the number of Ximian, Gnome, Mozilla and OpenOffice developers after its SuSE aquisition is complete. Does this mean that SuSE will stop being one of the best KDE distros out there and follow the way of the Gnome?"
Some top players committing to bolster the options available to those looking for an alternative to the stuff from Redmond. VERY good news.
"Ok you hippies, get cracking on that code so we can quickly package your hard work"
Sure wish someone large company w/ deep coffers would buy Mandrake and support the *best* KDE distro IMHO.
This guy is way out there
The 2000.00+ USD cost per developer to write commerical QT apps might be an issue with corp. adoption of KDE.
Everyone that has ever commented on the state of the Linux desktop has begged for consolidation. And now with Novell/SuSE, RedHat, Sun, HP, and IBM all backing Gnome it would appear that said consolidation is finally going to happen.
I suppose this means that one desktop environment (probably Gnome, at this point) will get enough support to bring Linux to the desktop, something that alot of people have been denying Linux is ready for in the past few weeks.
The only thing that really bothers me is that Random Corperate Giant is making the decision, not the users. When it comes down to it KDE and Gnome are both on top because they are both Really Good, and that fuels competition, etc. They've stayed "euqally" as popular because their respective user bases like them so much. So the most well known, in my opinion, Linux, Network OS, and Unix providers get to pick what they like and back it... Frightening.
Which will really happen first? In many ways the end result will determine the REST OF HISTORY. Or maybe not. There will have to be a unified vision and presentation before Inux on the desktop makes it to the coperate space or the consumer. And as we all know Longhorn will be ready when flying monkees fly out of my butt. Any one want to place bets? Please, No Macheads, i"m strictly talking x86/ platform.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The reason KDE and GNOME have come so far so quickly (within 5 years) is that they've had each other to feed off of and compete with. If there is any considerable swing in one that the other dies off, it'll mean suckage for the "winning" desktop.
Just look what happened with CDE and OpenLook in the previous UNIX desktop war. After people standardized on CDE, it started stagnating until KDE was founded and eventually GNOME killed it off.
I've been a GNOME user since GNOME 1.0, and I would hate to see Suse switch to GNOME, since they've been a driving force behind KDE, and thus a driving force behind GNOME.
KDE's better. Hell, even Linus uses it. But just because KDE's better doesn't mean Gnome sucks. Gnome's faster, GTK is better than QT and GTK apps look better in Gnome, and Gnome is overall less bloated. But KDE is far more configurable, so I like it better.
-1, trollbiter
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
once SUSE is acquired by Novell. Personally experiencing two cases of acquisitions of smaller company by the larger one, I know how much those promises worth. Less than 'my 2 cents'.
What do you mean "now part of"? KDE's been in debian for as long as pretty much anything else, and I don't know of any sort of partnership between debian and KDE, so what are you talking about exactly?
Ummm, more like Solaris needs something a little more modern than Motif.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
They just said they would improve GNOME.
Personally i prefer KDE for business reasons, but hey, if a better GNOME helps the cause.. why not..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But I'm going to keep scratching my head until I find a site dedicated to Linux improvements (from our, the users, standpoint). If you've ever been to kde-look.org you should have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about. Slashdot is a great forum for commenting on exactly what it is you believe 'Linux' needs (or why it sucks), but that isn't its purpose and it doesn't collect or organize this information so Red Hat execs can skim through and see just what the uncleaned masses are griping about now..
Quack, quack.
I'm a died-in-the-wool Windows sysadmin (7+ years), just new to Linux (Libranet 2.8.1, Debian + extras) and in the middle of the learning curve (so take my comments for what they are worth -- probably not much), but already I think the great virtue of Linux/desktop is the organic, user-driven nature of development. It's not corporate-driven (that is, tied to quarterly project planned) milestones, but rather user-determined utility. This requires TIME. Linux is on a different schedule and that's fine. It will win the race against Redmond in the long run. The current drive toward the desktop stinks of corporate expediency. I can't fully articulate my concerns, but it's something like "wolf in sheep's clothing"...
Certainly the competition between the two has created some "drive" in the projects but even if one of them were to recede there are still at least two other significant desktops with which to compete, Windows and OS X.
The fight for the open desktop is a tiny battle compared to the fight for all desktops. Perhaps KDE and GNOME have reached a maturity where greater focus on the large battle might be beneficial.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
We are an educational environment, so we have to prepare them for what they use when they grow up...
By the time they get to the business world, will win2k be that applicable either? It seems to me that kids will pick up on it faster (particularly then the 55 year old grandmother you mention above), and when they do get into business, maybe they will have more of a clue and won't be "average (read as DUMB) users".
Sure Linux still isn't (yet) the mainstream solution, and you would be considered a bit of a vanguard, but is that so wrong?
If nothing else, having a mixture of OSes for students to learn on, including MS if you will, would be very advantageous to students, and I think would give them a much better education, allowing them to adapt easier to change, as they would understand concepts better, instead of relying on rote (?) memory.
And for those that excel in computer sciences, in particular, you would be doing them a great service, as I think they would stand to learn much quicker than being boxed into one way of thinking and doing things.
By limiting their choices for them, I think you are limiting their opportunity to learn.
Just my 2 red pennies...
JWall: GUI client for IPTables
The title is accurate - Red Hat, Novell/SuSE, and Sun would love to have every desktop run GNU/Linux. (Actually, Sun would rather have Solaris on every box, but that's never going to happen - Solaris has nothing GNU/Linux doesn't have, and lacks the most important feature of all: Freedom.) However, the idea that they are promoting an "open desktop" is incorrect. While any GNU/Linux desktop is "more open" than a Windows or Mac desktop, Red Hat, Novell/SuSE, and Sun think every desktop should have Java, Flash, Acrobat, and tons of other proprietary junk that they claim is "essential" to a desktop. The only essential is Freedom - with it, we can create anything else we need.
Americans typically like to talk present tense so it would sound odd to use a present tense form of a verb in the past tense, completed sense.
I asked because I've noticed a lot of books written by American authors use the word "spit" where I would have used the word "spat" - it always leaps out at me because it "sounds wrong". Indeed, I've noticed that American writers (be they professional or otherwise) almost never seem to use the word "spat", which is why I worded the question as I did. It seems to be a word Americans avoid - I just thought there might have been some cultural reason.
For example, an American would probably write "I was drinking coke, but after reading that post I spit it out all over my keyboard", whereas I would write "I was drinking coke, but after reading that post I spat it out all over my keyboard".
As for petting vs. patting, petting connotes a caring, loving manner (http://m-w.com) while patting connotes merely showing approval. Again, cultural interpretations put a broader sense on these nuances, however slight.
See, to me pet is only a noun - it's a word for some domesticated animals like cats and dogs. I would never use it as a verb, nor would it ever occur to me to use it as a verb - saying it as a verb just "sounds wrong". Again, this is something I've only ever noticed in American writings, not British or Australian ones and it always leaps out at me because it just looks so wrong. I've always just assume that there's some weird reason you use the word "petting" the same way everyone else uses te word "patting".
Do return the favor and tell me why you use the form 'USians'. US is not a geographical area, nor is it a regional declaration. It is a political delineation, however, its principle stands on the unification of distinct and disparate elements. (Remember, the US was and is conceived of nations forgoing sovereignty to better guarantee their liberties.)
On informal forums like /., I use the terms "Americans", "USians", "Seppos", "Yanks" and the like pretty much interchangeably and at random. I don't consider them to be - and hence don't use them with the intention of being - derogatory or derisive. But then again I'm an Aussie and we call ourselves and others all sorts of nasty names without ill intent, so I can see how others might not realise that.
Having said that, I was under the impression "Americans" was not technically the right word because it theoretically included residents of both North *and* South America. My understand is "The United States of America" is designated name for the home country of people generally referred to as "Americans", but technically the term "Americans" also includes those indigenous to Canada, Mexico, etc, etc. Thus, "USians" - as a slang term - is a reasonable abbreviation.
Was going to implement RH9 to showcase Linux in our data center(Oracle on one and Network monitoring on another). Well EOL on RH9 was announced and my boss asks "what the hell am I doing showcasing on an OS at EOL?". After a few months of back pedaling I finally get the green light on Linux again. Do you think it will be Redhat? Hell no. You only have to burn me once. Matthew Szulik does the double speak almost as well as Darl Mcbribe. The guy has come off sleazy in his defense of the asinine decision to stop workstation support. ass talking like a jackass
The greatest advantage about Windows/Solaris server is that admins can run the same environment on their desktop. The same process of installing apps on the server is mostly the same for the workstation. RH had this advantage before but sadly not for a very long time. The EOL on RH9 was just a post mortem. When RH separated the workstation and server lines I was so pissed I started working with SUSE and Mandrake but unfortunately my hardware was not as compatible with them as RH out of the box and it was just too time consuming to track down all drivers and dependencies so back to Redhat I crawled like the unwashed admin I was. Now though both SUSE and Mandrake are on par with Redhat's server product and workstation. So I am moving on. No Redhat on my workstations no Redhat on my servers and I feel fine. How are you feeling Matthew? Nervous I bet.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
I have moments of intense frustration, but I'm learning. And the things that are cool in Free OS's outweigh the things that suck (dependency hell). There just aren't any things that strike me as cool in the Windows world.
I don't want a teletubby desktop. I don't want arbitrary restrictions driving my costs. I don't want to keep track of licenses. The SPA tried to extort some money from us and the ensuing audit took many, many hours that could have been spent doing cool shit with our network. Figure that in the TCO. Figure end of life forcing an otherwise unecessary upgrade. RH pulling support for 9.0 is a bit of a problem, but I have learned to compile from source! I can even build an rpm. So I don't need Redhat to support my now-legacy servers. I can nurse them along until the pain of that outweighs the pain of switching. My call. Staying on NT 4.0? Not if you connect it to anything. Uh uhhh. Not your call.
It is cool to use stuff made as a labor of love, an act of generosity, or simple itch-scratching. We can go so much farther with the source!
>> But the nagging lack of applications for desktop Linux,
>> notably Microsoft Office, still hangs in the air.
Huh? Is it "Office" or "applications compatible with the inscrutable, obese, proprietary POWERPOINT and WORD formats"?
Why don't companies just stipulate "junk the proprietary formats"?
In my opinion, from there onwards, moving to alternatives to MS is a downhill race.
* Desktop behaviour is relatively easy to tune up.
* Dumping Outlook for Evolution by migrating the whole message and contact base AUTOMATICALLY is just a few scripts away.
* Office productivity functionality is basically there, 'cept a large number of baroque MSFT flourishings few will miss
- and BY THE WAY... I see it's only fitting that corporations and governments are beginning to bite: they may WANT a well targeted, limited-scope desktop for their worker bees to replace the MSFT bottomless gusher of uncontrollable, undocumented, unrequested, useless funkshownality.
Now if your bosses are playing games with the MS rep, its a good idea that the salesdrroid thinks this is for real. So, just deploy a few Linux systems for 'evaluation'.
See my journal, I write things there