Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Desktop Unveiled
Gudlyf writes "Red Hat announced yesterday that they will be releasing a version of their OS -- dubbed 'Red Hat Desktop' -- targeted at corporations, universities and government agencies, "looking to upgrade their PCs but don't want or need all the features that ship with the latest version of Windows", said Matthew Szulik, Red Hat's chief executive, although it's not targeted at consumers. It will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available."
that they weren't interested in the desktop a few months ago... ?
~dijjnn
First they sync their release cycle with SUSE, then then rename their desktop products to personal and professional - just like SUSE, and now their releasing a Linux Desktop for the enterprise.
Come along Redhat, do keep up..
This one has pictures.
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
This story would make you believe that the Red Hat Desktop is a Longhorn killer.
Basically if you read the whole Red Hat release it looks like $250 a user for a year of desktop support - which doesn't sound all that bad to me for a large environment...
at $5 a month, it dosent seem too much cheeper then the upgrade windows ever 3 years option in the long run.
As any extra OS/Freeware programs you put on it
woudl probly have an equvelnet MS compatable version, i dont see too much of a saving hear as support is still extra..
You have 5 Moderator Points!
Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
"These organizations now, for the very first time, have an alternative to the historical Microsoft-desktop paradigm," he said.
Haven't tracked down the detailed specs of this realease, but what can possibly make that true for Red Hat Desktop, but not for any previous Linux distro?
Oh no... it's the future.
Now, we have both SuSE and RedHat with their very smooth and stylable desktop gui's that should work for anyone interested in trying out Linux as a desktop OS.
I did some realtime testing with this, and gave my dad a SuSE Linux 9.0 Live-CD and told him to stick it in his brand new HP Pavilion. The distro fired up smoothly and within ten minutes my dad was surfing the net, reading his mail and listening to the local networked radio. :-)
If this release of RedHat can match the likes of SuSE and others I belive we're finally set for - the year of the Penguin
"-Who said sit down?!"
-- S. Ballmer @ MSDC 2003.
...Red Hat Desktop includes the Linux operating system, a Web browser and office productivity tools. It's entirely open-source software...
That's what they said in their press release. This is what they include -which is not open source:
Adobe Acrobat Reader and plugin
Macromedia Flash plugin
Java (IBM and BEA) and plugin (IBM)
Real Player
I spend several hours a month supporting my mother-in-law and her skanky disease-ridden Windows laptop. I'd love to get her onto a nice Linux system, supported by somebody who's not me.
I'll install it, and train her, and then she can call the nice Help Desk boys when she can't execute the free screen-saver software that she got in her e-mail.
Hell, I'd go ten bucks.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
http://www.redhat.com/about/presscenter/
Now, they can put a dollar amount on TCO for linux boxes. That makes it much easier to sell to a bean counter. They hate not knowing wha the cost is. That is one of the lessons I learned while working for myself. If you can not package it with a fixed dollar amount, most will skip it, even if your dollar range is cheaper than the compeition.
This is something Linux needs to have to go bigtime on the desktop. A marketing and pricing model that the beannies can understand. They have no clue about anything else (beg pardon to those beannies who are actually cl - computer literate). Now, I think you will start to see more Linux usage on the desktop. They will start to approve it more since they can actually pump a fixed cost into their spreadsheets!
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
The information page for Red Hat Desktop mentions that it is "attractive for use in small and medium business environments". Two sentences later, it states, "Red Hat Desktop supports single CPU systems".
So no small or medium business environments have dual-CPU workstations? It seems odd that Redhat wouldn't try to cater to that potential environment.
Additionally, Red Hat Desktop is only available in Proxy (10 system) or Satellite (50 system) deployments, which means that if you're a small business looking to set up 35 machines, you're going to have to buy either 4 Proxy packs or 1 Satellite pack. Either way, you're overpaying. Proxy packs are $2500, and Satellites are $13500; not exactly cheap. This means you're paying between $250 and $270 per machine, per year.
And of course, this isn't to be confused with the Fedora desktop, which is meant for end-users, and isn't supported by Redhat. Argh. I wish Redhat would officially support home users, but I guess that's not where the potential money is.
$50-$60 gets you a Lindows/Linspire CD, $5 a month gets you basic suport and the CNR (Click N Run) online storage library to reinstall your paid for programs from and update the OS se the tech forums, etc. For about $25 you can BitTorrent download Lindows/Linspire and save some money. Lindows/Linspire supports BitTorrent downloads for the purchase of their product.
;)
Red Hat, please do try and keep up.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
For large organizations software doesn't cost nearly as much as Tier 1 technical support does.
So - even if Linux was free (which it is), at least in the reasonably long term the Tier 1 'How do I' questions pretty much eat up any financial advantage to open source solutions.
Right now Level 1 helpdesk calls cost a bit less than $20 each for an organization the size of my employer - when you switch OS a spike in helpdesk calls is inevitable; hell, we're planning for a helpdesk spike when we roll out Outlook 2003 - just because it *looks* different than the version of Outlook currrently deployed.
Software costs aren't the only factor in determining network architecture in a large organization - as a matter of fact most of the time it's one of the last things considered.
I'm doing Windows for less than $5 a month now - and a switch to Linux would *increase* support costs - at least for the foreseeable future.
I think RedHat's gonna have to find some way to market this that might include support - since that's the biggest annual expense in our organization. Some people will call the helpdesk if an icon has moved a quarter inch on their desktop - giving them something that's *completely* different may send Tier 1 costs through the roof ;-)
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
$75 for the initial package, maybe. Real support isn't included with that price. Nor is all the many extras you need with a Windows machine, like a virus scanner (that's more than $5/month right there).
At first linux's traction on the desktop was because "windows isn't stable". Then there came windows XP, where most instability is from third party drivers.
x .html
Then alot of linux's traction has been "windows is insecure". But when windows XP SP2 comes out, the worms will die away a bit, and it will only be social engineering attachment trojans in outlook.
Then what will linux's attraction be? A better the desktop right? Better browser etc. But when Longhorn finally comes, that might be gone too.
Linux, to my mind will always be better for myriad reasons, but it has to be alot better to make people change. And winXP stability, firewalls cutting the worms down, and a better GUI... will it be *that* much better to get people to change?
This makes the "linux on the desktop" window of opportunity quite finite.
I, for one, believe we can best microsoft on the home desktop but we need the corporate desktop for the following reason; hardware compatability.
"Why?" you ask, well I'll tell you. We need the corporate desktop for hardware support. OSX has a hardware rendered desktop, longhorn will have it too. No linux will be able to have a hardware rendered desktop without GPLed drivers. To get GPLed drivers for most graphics cards, we are going to need the slugging power of at least a 30% stake in business desktops. This makes Ximian/MS intergration type projects, mozilla/firefox/thunderbird and openoffice some of the most important battlegrounds you will see in the next few years. Once we have the hardware, we can take them - but don't fire until you see the whites of their CGI rendered eyes.
And here are some thoughts on that matter, my head's in the clouds for some of it - but we can dream right?;
Convince XGI to GPL Volari drivers. Standard tactic of an underdog is to use open-source to sling-shot ahead of the competition through features and performance. Directx9 is heavily shader based, but I prefer opengl myself and if you look at these performance statistics http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031107/inde
the only thing a volari needs is GPLed drivers and a linux following.
GPLed Nvidia and ATI drivers might follow. Who knows.
The other thing is, put some weight behind an "opensource hardware" movement to get an openGL performance beast that can be manufactured and sold by anyone, as it is an open design. I think with DRM we are going to see the ground ripe for open source hardware configurations. And don't think electrical engineers won't be able to do what software engineers have done with linux.
Anyway, that's just some memes I wanted to spread around, AC because I don't care about authorship. Just mull them over, because we need all the ideas we can get for the battle to gain a foothold. I am not saying I want to destroy MS, I just want enough market share to be able to have hardware compat and make sure things like DRM don't make their way into hardware (or make sure there is an alternative). from minix to now we have only seen the end of the begining business and home desktops, DRM and the very nature of hardware await.
This made the Minneapolis Star Tribune home page.
...keep your tinfoil hat from blowing off on windy days?
- tried Linspire 4.5 on an MPC w/SATA... the 4.5 release was out for a week or so... - no go! - so i took my six-month old Fedora Core 1 release and tried... - FC1 works like a charm and costs much less! :-)
If you don't need support, fedora 2 will be coming out soon! With Gnome 2.6/Kernel 2.6, You can have a 2.6 times better experiance for less! I personally can't wait!
First, Red Hat decide that the desktop is not where they want to focus, and fire off the Fedora project to shift the focus for support to the community a la Debian for their non-enterprise focused distro. Fedora takes off well, certainly better than many expected, before RH9 EOLs, but not without causing a lot of grief for many of their existing enterprise customers, who don't feel that RH's existing lineup will work for them. Then, four days after the end of the Red Hat line, the announcement is made that there's a new Desktop offering that somehow slots in below Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS.
News flash: Elvis has left the building. Many enterprise customers, being confused by RH's current strategy and feeling less than satisfied by the Fedora have already moved to some other Linux distro for the desktop and are looking to consolidate behind one vendor that can cover their needs top to bottom (SuSE and to a lesser extent Mandrake come to mind).
Why, Red Hat, did you not announce this product long before the RH9 EOL, positioning it as RH10, for example? Many of my clients would have been reassured that they weren't being abandoned. Many were already happily paying the $5/month for support and feel betrayed. I've done my best to keep them in the fold, but your message hasn't been consistent and forthcoming enough. They don't trust you any longer.
What games can I run on it? If I can't have unproductive time at work and home, I don't need it.
Its not too expensive, its not too cheap. its a product.. that is how their business model is. They sell support on their products.
Its just another alternative to getting an OS on your desktop...
People will choose what they want.. pretty simple.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I would say that people would be right to reject Redhat anyways. If they are willing to pull the support rug out of a one year old software release, there's no telling what they will do if they decide this doesn't work for them.
Take a look at it:
1) the explanation page at redhat doesn't list any packages, other than those that have to do specifically with office-level work.
2) they are making sure to mention how compatible with MS Office all the software is.
3) they cover their asses in the case of special software with the Citrix and VMware thing
4)someone above commented that it only supports single cpu machines. How many secretaries and managers do you know with dual cpu machines? they don't need them, simple as that. I will grant it's kinda sad that they are not including the smp kernel, but still, it removes support issues
5) also note the support for diskless clients (under features and benefits) for those terminal-type environments.
I agree with most people that it seems a little pricy for stripped down, bundled up AW3 though. But I still wish I would have had this when we were deploying AW3 initially. I might have gotten a bunch of these for regular terminals and desktop machines for people who don't do much compiling.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
That's fine and dandy if all he does is surf the web, read mail, and the like. The problem will be when he wants to, say, run a geneology program, or a financial program like quickbooks, or if he wants to fire up a game he picked up at the store that he thought looked interesting. Not saying your dad in particular is into any of this, but lots of other people's parents are. Until you get some more software support, this is definately not the year of the penguin, and that year is still quite a ways away.
Aside from that, its interesting how none of the OSS programmers are upset about how all of this software that they wrote for the great free linux movement is now being packaged up and sold at a tidy profit. Pretty good business strategy really.
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
Does the $5/month include training? Deployment? Hardware upgrades? TCO is a lot more complex than that, which is why everyone claims the best TCO - it's so hard to measure.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
It seems to me that a large, untapped market for Linux is kioks.
Lately, I've been seeing Windows error messages in the most unexpected places: at gift registry kiosks in department stores, news screens in train stations, and Metrocard vending machines here in New York. Chances are, if it's a kiosk that acts like a web browser or a flash application, it's running Windows.
Why do these need to be running MS Windows when they are essentially web browswers? What else do they need to do? Let employees play Minesweeper? It seems to me that Linux could do the job just as well - for less cost and no unsightly Blue Screens.
It would be interesting if someone could offer some insight into what Windows provides that Linux doesn't in the realm of public kiosks.
I just have to ask - who is going to be manning the phones?
... screw that. Has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with getting intelligent answers as opposed to someone following a diagnostic script.
If I thought I could get quality (geek level) support whenever I was having a Linux problem I would drop a five spot / month in a serious hurry,
but if the clown on the other end of the phone is neighbor to the guys giving phone support for Belkin and Dell
Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
""These organizations now, for the very first time, have an alternative to the historical Microsoft-desktop paradigm," he said."
They've had that for a while--Macintosh. And you don't have to rent the software per month, nor pay the MS tax that you'll still be paying if you convert your PCs.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
I saw these guys at the Linux Desktop Summit...
GarageGames
They have some fun games, and a great startup kit to make your own.
You can't re-use code, if you can't find it.
Any software engineer worth his salt knows that security and stability are inversely related to the number of features in a piece of software. I think it's great to see a software company that realizes that I just want to get my friggin work done...I don't want or need half of the new crap that companies have been churning out.
But there is another kind of evil that we must fear most... and that is the indifference of good men.
Wow, for a brief second there, I almost considered using a Linux distribution that actually had popular, easy to use tools included with it. Thank you for pointing out that this distro has been infected with unFree-as-in-speech software, and therefore should be shunned to 7th Level of Hell along with the Sasser virus and Gator spyware.
[Ranting power...ACTIVATE!]
For all of you who don't understand this yet, let me spell it out one more time. 99% of the population doesn't give two shits what the license terms of thier software is. To these people, free-as-in-beer will always be way more important than free-as-in-speech. They don't care if it's open-source. They don't even care if RedHat says it's open-source and it's really not. They want to know two things..."Will it work?" and "How much does it cost?"
The vast majority of people (and the last time I checked, the users of RedHat's distro were people) want Java pre-installed. They want Acrobat pre-installed. They even want RealPlayer pre-installed because they just want thier computer to work and they don't want to have to spend a lot of time and money getting it to work.
RedHat knows exactly what they're doing. And they don't (and shouldn't) care if they ruffle the feathers of a few open-source zealots. One of the great things about the GPL is that you don't have to get anyone's permission to use the software...even if it means somebody does something you don't like and actually manages to make money with it.
Wow,
Didn't the CEO recommend windows for the desktop. F*ck redhat. I've already moved to SuSE and Im quite happy. What will they do in another year say "Oh where no longer supporting it time to switch to enterprise again.
Nothing new here.
Red Hat has always been on the desktop, and Red Hat always been given a good hiding by Microsoft.
This is merely an attempt by the Linux crazies to make it sound like Red Hat is just starting to take on Microsoft, in spite of the fact that we have had 10 years of regular pummeling of Linux by Microsoft.
Hey,didn't we have the Linux psychos beat their chests right here on Slashdot (after too much Russian vodka no doubt), back on 1997, predicting the demise of Windows on the desktop by 2000, while Linux smashed Microsoft?
What happened fellas?
Its getting boring smashing these Linux arnachists into smitherins.You guys outta to better than that.
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
And that would differ from Microsoft how?
Red Hat did FAR worse than Microsoft ever did in regards to EOLs.
Microsoft did the EOL on Windows 98 SE a few months ago. I think MS gave it about a five year run. Windows ME is still supported NOW. Windows 2000 will still be supported for at least another year.
Red Hat's one year run they gave to RH9 is unacceptable from a business perspective. You don't do surprise EOLs. Even Microsoft knows that.
(31000 users / 50 users per extension pack license) = 620 licenses required.
(620 * $3500 price per extension pack) / 31000 users = $70 per user
MS enterprise licensing costs less than half that.
Support: RedHat is still only providing Tier 2 and 3 support - my organization would still have to field all Tier 1 questions. From RedHat:
"Red Hat Desktop users will receive their day-to-day support from your company's Help Desk. To assist your Help Desk staff your Red Hat Desktop annual subscription entitles them to unlimited Help Desk Escalation Support, so that they have continuous access to Red Hat support resources." [boldface mine]
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Do they USE the copies bought?
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
Red Hat has always been interested in the desktop. Several months ago they removed themselves from the consumer desktop market, which was marginally profitable at best. They do want to target the corporate market which will pay more, and require less support (although support quality and reliability must be better).
In terms of pricing, fifty desktops cost $13500, or about $200 each. That includes software for fifty desktops, installation support, and software for one server to support the desktops. The server software is valued at $3000 normally, and includes 24 hour phone tech support with one hour response times for critical problems. This is the highest quality support that Red Hat offers, indeed the only standard support option that Red Hat offers with availability outside of business hours in the US. It only covers the server installation, though, not the desktop.
This price is very high, especially since it is a subscription fee, not a fixed cost. It is intended for customers with hundreds of desktops, though, in which case additional desktop units can be purchased in units of 50, at only $50 per desktop per year.
Red Hat includes installation support, and regular updates, but not extended support. This is similar to what a company gets from Microsoft. Installation support for each desktop is more than MS offers, but most companies choosing Red Hat or Microsoft desktops get assistance on planning initial installations and are able to complete subsequent installations internally, without assistance. Adopting automated installations to new hardware might be a situation where Red Hat installation support would be useful.
Red Hat undoubtedly expects to get significant revenue from additional support contracts, however these will be negotiated individually, and so figures are not available. Companies wanting significant support can expect to pay much more than $60 per desktop per year, but that is also the case for Microsoft desktops.
Compared to the Sun Java Desktop System, Red Hat Desktop is attractive because it offers the complete operating system and security updates for that at only a slight premium. Other software is similar, although Sun has a slight advantage for the commercial StarOffice suite. Long term, the software advantage will lie with whichever company has a better update distribution system and is better able to balance new and improved software versions with manageability and consistency.
Overall, the software is not compelling against a Windows desktop which costs less, but has significant savings compared to Windows plus Office. It may be easier to deploy than Windows with Mozilla and OpenOffice.org, although retraining expenses for users and availability of applications will add complications. The Red Hat Desktop is targetted to large corporations, many of which have mission-critical in-house applications that may have to be rewritten for Linux.
Overall, this is an important step for Red Hat in order to compete with Sun and Microsoft. The move up to industry normal pricing and recurring subscription based income would add stability to the company and improve profitability dramatically. It does face barriers to adoption. Advice for IT professionals is that Red Hat Desktop is best suited for large installations (200+ seats) for general computing (email, web, word processing) or specialized applications which are available for Linux or are easily ported.
Sure, we would like secur.... ooooh shiny feature. Will make us more productive? And allow us to do things we never could before? Will raise profits, you say? Gimme. This other product here looks so last year. Are they running out of R&D money?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
That would be me.
Sorry.
My computers do not use any closed software or drivers.
If you install closed software on a 'Free' OS, then it isn't a Free os. Just another collection of closed bits. So what's the difference? The names on the box?
If these things are so needed, then we need open, Free versions of them. GNU Class Path is coming along great for Java, there is a GPL version of Flash that is compatable with Flash 4 and with some love it could be brought up to speed, reading PDFs (which is what you use Adobe's product for, I assume) with Adobe's product is silly as there are hundreds of Free PDF viewers, many tailored directly to GNOME and KDE.
When we allow ourselves to use closed software, we are slowly killing the things that made using GNU/Linux and the BSDs worth-while in the first place any good: access to the code of the OS and tools one uses daily so that fixing any problems can be done in a expedient manner by any who wish. If you really wish to give up that Freedom, then there's no real point in using a Free OS.
Assuming this is part of RH's enterprise line, the EOL is a solid five years from release. I think that's acceptable, given that five year-old software in the Linux realm is generally considered hideously obsolete anyways.
-DMZ
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
I think the previous poster had in mind the abandoning of RedHat 9 line.
In terms of software itself, how is the new RH Desktop going to differ from old RedHat distros, RedHat Worksation, or Fedora? Is it simply Fedora + support or a come back to where they left off with RH 9?
First announce that Linux on desktop is a deadend then wait a couple of years to announce that you will have a cutting-edge desktop with linux.
Five years is acceptable, assuming they stick to it. I personally consider three to be a minimum because a lot of businesses seem to have three year purchasing cycles.
It is easier to install a batch of computers and deploy it than have to bring them all back back to install another OS because the software company suddenly decided it didn't want to support it anymore.
other than RedHat Good --- Sun Evil ---- or is this a Sun Good week?
Yes! I think SUN calls it the 'Java Desktop'!
Anyone see a trend here, or is it just me?
Contrary to what the article says, Red Hat Desktop includes non-open-source software (Adobe, Flash, Realplayer, etc). The actual Red Hat press release is here, though it's basically marketspeak...
-- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
Don't what business school you went to, but unless there's a demonstrable need for Mac in you line of work (ie you're an architect), no cfo worth his salt would pay double the price for what amounts to a fancy looking PC.
The point you're missing (and it seems everyone misses with this situation) is that RH
a) Can be (and is) supported by third parties, because they have the source.
b) Can be upgraded *for free* to the current Fedora.
c) Can be easily migrated to many different distributions.
When MS pulls up stakes and EOLs a product, you don't really have any choice but to pay for an upgrade. When RH EOL's something, you have lots of good options.
1. A downloadable ISO version of your enterprise server software,
Check
that I can work with but get no support on. I should be able to load this on as many machines as I want to.
Check, and check.
If I EVER need support on these systems OR want to use up2date on them, then I should have to pay.
The upgrade from Fedora to Redhat Enterprise should be quite smooth if you choose to pay for support. But why do you insist that you should have to pay to use up2date, when you can use it for free with Fedora?
2. A desktop version of your software, that is also a free download or a boxed set. Not Fedora!!! This should also have the ability to load on as many computers as I would want to. Again this version would have no support or up2date functionality unless I pay you.
Again, why do you insist that you should have no up2date funtionality unless you pay for it? Do you really not like getting things for free? Does it feel more valuable to you if you paid for it?
This version, unlike Fedora would actually have vendor support from companies like Oracle, Borland, IBM, etc.
Sounds great, but unfortunately, Redhat doesn't get to decide what other software vendors choose to support, that is up to them. There is nothing preventing these companies from supporting their software on Fedora.
I would have NEVER done that before you "tweaked" your licencing.
Tweaked? The GPL is still the GPL as far as I know...
So why not Fedora?
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
It is actually paying for the serial number, the BitTorrent download is free. Without the serial number you cannot get support online.
Yes Lindows/Linspire 4.5 can be downloaded for free, but it is not supported without a valid serial number.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I do remember using products from MS that were cut off early just as well. True, on the OS side, most have had some form of support for at least a few years. From a business perspective, I have never used a brand new product. I have always waited at least 6 months to see how things fall out. The fact that RH cut RH9 so fast is a bit unnerving, but I am also glad that it was cut fast, as no product is far better than a product with poor support (IMHO).
InnerWeb
Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
www.lfriendly.com
Which is why Lindows/Linspire is more of a consumer OS, it does not have the extensive hardware support. Although I do think that it can use Debian ready SATA drivers on a floppy disk if you knew how to use them that way.
Linux SATA support apparently not all Linux kernels will have SATA support.
Possible Lindows/Linspire needs to be upgraded to the 2.4.X kernel or above before installing these drivers.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Do you really think that matters? The most significant cost of an upgrade is not the software license, but the man-hours and new hardware that are needed. If a company bought 10,000 Windows 98 boxes in 1998, those machines could run without any real upgrades for 5 years, and still get support and the occasionaly free security patch. If those were Red Hat 5.0 (or whatever) boxes, they would have been SOL in a couple years. Upgrading to a more recent version of Red Hat would have been expensive, time-consuming, and risky.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Microsoft rules as an employer. They treat their employees soooo well. I have some friends who work for them.
Me: "You work for the Evil Empire!"
Them: "Making half again as much as you, with software discounts, and more vacation, and shiny work environment, and better equipment, and better bosses, and..."
Me: "I hate you."
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Ugrading to a new version of redhat is neither time-consuming, risky nor expensive.
(apt-get dist-upgrade is how I've ugraded every RH box I manage to fedora)
Staying with RH9 for as long as you want, with a secondary support organization is neither risky, time consuming nor expensive.
On the other hand, staying on Win98 for 6 years, with or without support is certainly risky, time consuming and expensive.
Which is why, out of the box, I can do more on my Mac OS X system than I can on my XP box while it's simultaneously more stable and secure!
Mac OSX: Pick all three.
quoting parent:
Excuse me, but 99% of the population where? Here (Paraguay, South America), it is extremely easy to have judges and state prosecutors on corporate payroll, and the BSA mobsters use them to exploit loopholes in our legislation so that they can extort full time a lot of small companies.
For example, here you are mandated by tax law to keep all receipts for five years. Now, a newer "anti-piracy" law requires everyone to produce on request of law enforcement authorities not only the license for every software package you're running, but the receipt also. And many companies here are running Win95, Win 3.1x, or other aging software. Some months ago, the BSA got into a company, and the company was forced to pay for some old but licensed software, simply because the receipts were destroyed, being older than five years. Of course you could theoretically fight this in court, but many prefer just to pay knowing in advance that legal fees would be a lot higher.
Because of these strong-arm tactics of the BSA mobsters, in many companies down here you are expressly forbidden to install anything.
The company I mentioned later initiated a company-wide switch to GNU/Linux, just to be safe, and several shops already switched in both servers and desktops.
So yes, a LOT of people (especially those in businesses) do care about software freedom here.
-- Look to the Rose that blows about us--"Lo, Laughing," she says, "into the World I blow..."
Red Hat announced they were dropping commercial support for the *home* desktop market, turning that over to the open source Fedora Core communtiy. They always intended to maintain a presence in the corporate desktop market.
Three letters for you: I B M
What would it take to replace the proprietary parts of Red Hat's distro with open source software?
Selling support is fine, but Red Hat is now basically a Microsoft competitor. Red Hat's pricing is roughly comparable to Microsoft's now.
nt
1. Get DB2, Websphere or Oracle 9i or specifically Oracle Internet Devleoper Suit to install on Fedora... If you can and get Oracle to support it, let me know and I will stop my bitching.
"The upgrade from Fedora to Redhat Enterprise should be quite smooth if you choose to pay for support. But why do you insist that you should have to pay to use up2date, when you can use it for free with Fedora?"
Ok, I want to test switching from Windows to Linux. I need Internet Developer Suite, and some other "linux programs" to work. Ahhh guess what they won't install. I call their support and they say they only support the Enterprise versions. All I want to do is "test" and see "if" I can get off Windows. If I could then I would look at doing it. But guess what? At the current pricing it would cost me significantly more to switch off Windows to Linux.
Ok, a customer comes to us and wants to put up a "help desk" package. It will work on Linux, and they don't have any money. I put up a Fedora box and it works well. They then get some money once it proves itself and the customer now wants to build a "production" box. I then order RedHat E.S. 3.0 and suddenly realize that the kernel is older, and the system is different in many ways AND it cost more than what a Microsoft server would cost.
It use to be that we would go with RedHat because it was far cheaper than Microsoft, we could prototype with it easy and when it went to production we didn't mind paying $350 or so for the "Enterprise" version, but it went from that to $1,500 a YEAR per server. You cannot load that enterprise version on ANY other box. You see my gripe.
"Sounds great, but unfortunately, Redhat doesn't get to decide what other software vendors choose to support, that is up to them. There is nothing preventing these companies from supporting their software on Fedora."
The somewhat do. They could release a version of ES or EWS with no support, that you could load on as many workstations as you want for a small fee. ES could be say $350 and WS could be around $75-100. Notice I said that you could load it as much as you wanted..... At very least allow you to load it on 5-10 machines.
"Tweaked? The GPL is still the GPL as far as I know..."
GPL yes, However RedHat licencing is in addition to GPL.
Lastly, I want to make clear. I am a RedHat fan. I take a LOT of heat from the Microsoft/proprietary fans now that RedHat has increased their pricing by ~10X over the last few years.
RedHat 7.1 (Supported by numerous vendors) - ~$80 - supported for ~3 years. Cost for up2date = $60/year. Total cost for 3 years ~$260
RedHat E.S. ~$800/year. Total cost for 3 year $2,400.
So what has RedHat done to increase the cost by ~10X in 3 years?
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Red Hat announced yesterday that they are desperately hurling together a version of their OS -- dubbed 'Red Hat Desktop' -- targeted at disaffected former Red Hat users disenfranchised by their having commercialized and therefore effectively shut down the Red Hat Linux distribution. Based on Mandrake's recent success in the previously abandoned desktop Linux market, it will cost on average about $5 a month per machine, with additional support services available.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
"You can pay us for Fedora, if you want to."
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
Could it just be that rather than being led by demand to move away from Windows*, we've just reached that critical mass where Kernel, Desktop Environment, Office Software (particularly Evolution) and Driver support are good enough to make a product like this?
*That said, a sales rep walked into my office with an infected laptop and knocked out 140 PCs today through the Sasser worm, so from me at least there's an increased interest in desktop linux.
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Java functionality does exist out of the box for FOSS systems. I present you Kaffe; their links page has links to several other open-source Java implementations, if it doesn't strike your fancy. In fact, the kernel has a module that allows Java execution directly like it executes ELF binaries; I don't know whether it's open or closed source, though, but it runs perfectly with *any* JVM you specify, not necessarily Sun's.
Acrobat is stupid. There've been FOSS PDF readers and/or writers for years, now. Why exactly do I want to use Adobe's? Their version 6 was much worse than 5; I still use that old version on my Windows machines, and they display every document perfectly. In my Linux machines, I use Gnome PDF Viewer, and so far I haven't had a problem.
As for Real Player, I've seen some Japanese sites which allow downloads in Real format; most streaming video out there on the Net, though, is generally some form of AVI. Frankly, I don't see much of a difference.
Finally, Flash. Now, I don't really know if there are any FOSS Flash Players, but it may become necessary to have that functionality especially if you have a graphic designer in your house. However, SVG use is on the rise, thanks to several folks including the GNOME project. Who knows? It might even displace Flash as a medium of choice for animation, one which does not leave you prone to sudden patent fees (.gif, anyone?)
Thank you for being concerned with the usability of desktop computers, but it pays to look what exactly is being discussed. No one said that having a Java VM out of the box is bad, only that having Sun's and claiming there's only FOSS in your distribution is.
Last time I checked... everything to do with a mac was more expensive than windows (and yes that's TCO)
Argue linux is a better value than Windows and I'll agree with you, but mac most certainly is not, unless, like I said originally, your line of work gets a certain extra beneift from them.
Linux crazy : "Linux is going to eat your lunch "
Will you excuse me while I laugh?
You begining to sound like an old record.
We've been hearing that drumbeat about "Linux is going to eat your lunch" for at least 7 years now. That of course is in the Linux fantasyland where they keep eating funny mushrooms everyday first thing in the morning.
Meanwhile, in the real world, Microsoft continues to clobber Linux on the desktop with great ease.
Microsoft sells more copies of XP in just one month than Red Hat has sold Linux in their entire 10 years of existence.
Dude. It's "losely." Get it right.
"I have a good idea why it's hard to verify programs. They're usually wrong." --Manuel Blum, FOCS 94
I think that coupon code expired. The code word was "Linux" but it does not work anymore. It was only for a few days as a promotion. A free Bit Torrent download and free serial number. Nice deal while it lasted.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
OMG it's the person behind pjrc, and he reads slashdot! I never finished my mp3 player, need to get cracking on that once school is over. :/ Just was surprised, is all. Move on.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
When Red Hat first came out with they're "We're getting out of the desktop market to focus on the Data Center" (or words to that effect) policy my first reaction was to criticise their lack of consistency in veering off the course they'd followed since the original release of RHL. Over time I came to accept this as what was probably an astute business decision. RH needed to focus their efforts where they were and could be most competitive -- on servers in the data center. RHE 3.0 pretty much delivers on the promise of a stable, no-nonsense distribution tailored for the enterprise. What I expected was that as versions incremented upwards, RHE would draw farther and farther away from its RHL 9.0 base and continue improving in enterprise-ready features. With the entire company focused on serving that narrow but profitable market they could be a significant force in corporate computing. Other people must have agreed, because RH stock kept climbing steadily. What I see now is ... well, disarray. Or maybe just hubris. I'm wondering what the impact of a vacillating corporate strategy will have on customers, end-users and even saavy investors (once the latter wake up tommorrow morning to really think about what just happened). Here's the question: How can anyone trust that Red Hat Enterprise Linux will stick to a corporate-friendly 18 month development cycle when they can't keep their marketing strategy on the same track for more than 6?
Insightful compared to what? Certainly not Rock Hudson!
Do the math on that one: $60 a year. Windows XP OEM version cost me $140 and I have already owned that for over 2 years so it is now cheaper then RH Desktop. Where is the value in the Red Hat Desktop? M$ Windows was a cheaper deal apparently.
Linspire only charges for "Commercial" add-on packages. You can use apt-get for F/OSS software without paying a dime for them. You can also download F/OSS software and install them the normal way.
l ution
Heck I even downloaded the latest OpenOffice.Org etc on the CNR application for free!
I was able to add on:
GNUCash
PostgreSQL
MySQL
OpenOffice.org
Evo
Mozilla 1.6
Basic Real Player
Webmin
and many more for no additional charge.
Now buying those "commercial" add ons like StarOffice, etc cost extra money.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
but considering most of the folk who work in standard (read non-graphic orientated) offices would need to be retrained (here's a single button mouse Mr. Technophobe president), as well as your hardware costs increases, administrative support difficulties (a lot more MS folk out there) I still fail to see how you have much of a point here.
Viruses are a bitch, but it would still cost a lot more to employ Macs in a regular office environment.
If they're talking $5 per month for the distro and Red Hat support, then I think it could be worth the price. If it's just a monthly license, well then I say to hell with that.
I'm a Mandrake user, but I'm NOT going to pay more for it than I do for Windows. Joining the Mandrake Club would mean doing just that. I would never pay a monthly license fee to use software. That's idiotic.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
This from a guy that wouldn't know an insightul comment if it came up and fucked him in the ass.
And he sure has had a lot of experience receiving ass-fuckings!
Maybe some people dont want a pre-installed windows when buying a PC, because they already have a license?
But "Nooooooooooo!", lets use the one already installed, just in case there is no spyware and other bloat stuff.
"...a generation of kids has grown up thinking Trance is the shittiest music since country and western." - Paul van Dyk
"The somewhat do. They could release a version of ES or EWS with no support, that you could load on as many workstations as you want for a small fee."
Why can't ES/EWS be obtained unofficially? Is it GPL or not? The source is there.
http://whiteboxlinux.org
Yes they can release the source, but no ISO's or binaries. So "technically" you could build it. Good luck.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
Thank you. I am looking at it now. I hope it works for what I need. Specifically a way to install some Oracle crap.
Thank you again.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
From random readings it looks like CentOS might be a better alternative. I haven't used either but centos appears to have more of a community behind it.
http://www.centos.org
From a regular user's perspective, the interesting thing about these things is the guaranteed lifespan (security updates etc.) until 2008, which is pretty nice for anybody doing "real work" and wanting a stable platform.