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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Funny you mention genology programs. It's amazing what's available for Free (beer and freedom).
Obviously you have a point about the reams of third party software that exist only for Windows. But there's a large segment of users who would never wander into a software store and pick up a random program. It would just never occur to them. Their software universe consists of whatever they bought with the machine. In that market Linux can compete exceptionally well.
I think that most OSS programmers are happy that their software is getting wider distribution. Whatever motivated them to start the project in the first place can only be enhanced by having more users.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
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
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?
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 --
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.
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.
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..."