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."
$5/month -- with windows XP machines costing a large organization what, $75? Doesn't seem so hot.
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...
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.
difference is that XP does not have ANY support at that price.
your support agreement is seperate and much higher than $5.00 per desktop.
this is where MS fud blows up in their face. XP when you buy it has ZERO support.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
Oh they're interested in the desktop, just not in giving it away freely...
Which is fine, they've got to have that critical second step...
1. Create linux distriubtion
2. Charge money for distribution and services
3. Profit!
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
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.
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? --
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.
Let's be realistic here. What Linux user doesn't have Acrobat Reader, Flash, a Java runtime, and RealPlayer loaded on their machine? It's nice to have 100 percent open source, and that should continue to be a goal ... but in practical terms, there are ISV's delivering applications to the Linux platform, they are adding value, and we should be taking advantage of that!
If users are not provided with the functionality they want, they will find another vendor. Red Hat is doing what they need to do to get Linux onto mainstream desktops. I, for one, applaud this move, and I hope they make inroads. Every computer that has Red Hat Desktop installed is a computer whose presence will help stop the spread of XAML/Avalon apps in a couple of years. And that's important, because unless we start to get some real market share soon, your precious little Debian uber-free utopiOS won't be viable for any mainstream tasks anymore.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
""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.
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.
While SUSE was trying to make things perty, Red Hat was beating the crap out of the kernel making it do all kinds of neat things. Just cause you boot up your distro and don't 'see' anything doesn't mean they are sitting on thier hands. Red Hat puts 1/5th of thier total income into development. That's alot of hacking.
In my opinion Red Hat didn't want to attack the desktop yet, They think that it will still leave a sour taste on some peoples mouth and thats not something they want associated with thier name. But SuSe jumped the gun for PR reasons and now RH has to offer it too or lose mindshare.
Yes! I think SUN calls it the 'Java Desktop'!
Anyone see a trend here, or is it just me?
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.
A few comments/questions/arguements: ...but my two issues are.
1. Redhat takes free software and makes it easy to install, and work with and then charges close to what Microsoft does. I am sorry but how many developers does Redhat have on staff?
I believe Redhat is also a big contributor to several Free Software projects. They release their improvements under the GPL whenever they can.
2. They want you to basically lease the software from them. That sucks. One good thing with Microsoft windows versions less than XP was that if your company hit hard times you could wait a year or two before an upgrade. Now you will have a fixed cost to Redhat every month.
I believe that Microsoft also wanted to lease software. That was the idea with Office at one point or another. They wanted everything to be Web Applications you can rent. No more boxed software. I don't understand your other point. If you are lacking funds, then don't upgrade your RH desktops. Simple. You lose out on updates, fine. But it's not like you're getting too many updates from Microsoft for Win98. Most updates for Win98 are actually for IE6. And if you really hate RH, then switch to SuSE or Slackware or something.
It appears to me that the bean counters are in charge at RedHat, and they are totally focused on what will make them the most amount of money. Not that this is all bad, but they appear to be doing this at the "cost" of their customers. They kinda seem like another software company I know of.
That's the nature of business.
Redhat, this is what I want.
1. A downloadable ISO version of your enterprise server software, 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. If I EVER need support on these systems OR want to use up2date on them, then I should have to pay.
I'd demand this from Microsoft as well. I want downloadable ISO version of Windows 2000 Advanced Server. I don't need support. If I ever decide to use Windows Update, then I'll pay.
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. This version, unlike Fedora would actually have vendor support from companies like Oracle, Borland, IBM, etc.
What's up with the free stuff? You want free, download Debian and use that. It's pretty stable for enterprise use.
The weird part is that I would have little to no problem paying you $100 for your "desktop" system, and I wouldn't mind paying for support afterward. Say $50 a year for up2date services, and support calls at $75 for workstation calls and $300 for server calls.
And yet you complain about the $5/month fee. I'm confused.
Either way, Redhat's actions has caused me to start using SuSe, and I suppose in a weird way, I owe you some thanks. I would have NEVER done that before you "tweaked" your licencing.
At least you have an alternative. What if you were fed up with Microsoft... you could probably turn to... Microsoft! Oh wow.
IF I WERE TO BUY A DESKTOP OS PURELY ON THE IDEA OF SUPPORT, LINUX PRODUCTS WOULD BE TOP OF MY LIST DUE TO THE FACT I HAVE MANY PLACES TO FIND ANSWERS, AND THE VENDORS RESPECT MY TIME.
In my experience, no. Actually yes, but the number are pretty insignificant. SMB that need dual-CPU machine usually do so because of a specific application (graphism, CAD, etc), so their choice of platform is dictated by the core application they need. Your typical administrative assistant and marketing drone certainly do not need dual CPU.
:wq
For the base price of a MS OS (98+) you get an online KB for free, windows update for free, support from hundreds of vendors and there KB's for free.
So "support" is an update service and the availability of on-line documentation. The "free" update service, by the way, no longer provides updates for Win98 or IE 5, so (2000+) would be more accurate. Nowhere is "support" claimed to be actually getting a question answered, for some strange reason.
But in the next sentence "support" is the availability of 3rd party applications, and their on-line documentation. There's a notion of the documenation being free. Certainly that term doesn't apply in any way to the common windows applications, which are expensive.
What do you get from Red Hat, a single point of contact for support or RTFM from people in the community?
You get an update service and a bunch of on-line documentation. Somehow it was "support" or "KB" when provided by Microsoft, but from Redhat it becomes "single point of contact" and "RTFM"... a distinction I don't quite understand.
It is true, of course, that most vendors like Adobe don't publish linux versions of their software (yet). However, the number of vendors who "support" linux, meaning they provide a linux native version of their software or instructions, is steadily increasing.
What you DO get from redhat and other linux distros is a LOT of software. You get Open Office, GIMP, Evolution (and many others). While these may not be quite as good as Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop and Outlook... they are included with the linux distribution. They also come with plenty of documentation. Somehow it's "support" when you can go buy they at (considerable) extra cost from 3rd party vendors, but it's not support if they're included?
If I were to purchase a desktop OS purely on the idea of support MS products would be top of my list due to the fact they actually might be around for awhile.
Again, the term "support" is illusive. First it an update service and on-line documentation.... but similar documentation on the linux side was RTFM instead of "support" or "KB". Then "support" became the availability of 3rd party applications. Now "support" is the long-term financial stability of the vendor.
The term "FUD" is also often used loosely. But this arguement, choose Windows because only Microsoft will "be around for a while", is a clear attempt to provoke Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that anything but Microsoft "might be around for a while". Therefore MS products should be on the top of my list, because anything else might not be around for a while. Therefore it wouldn't have any "support"... whatever "support" really means?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Didn't Red Hat say a few months ago that they were not going to compete with MS at the desktop level? Why would you waste $5 per month on a company that in a year might say "oh we made a mistake we cant make money off of this lets toss the whole thing in the toilet."
Excellent point. That's the very reason we droped Red Hat all together.
After the RHL end-of-life fiasco, I'd never give these jerks money, much less time of day. No one else should either... they had their chance and they blew it... you can't stab a guy in the back and then turn around and offer to help him up. And, don't act surprised if he tells you to go fuck yourself RH.