Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat to Enter the Desktop Market
head_dunce writes "It looks like Red Hat is going to release their Global Desktop Linux in September and give Ubuntu a challenge for the Linux desktop market. Red Hat Global Desktop 'would be sold with a one-year subscription to security updates.'" It looks like another choice for the proverbial Aunt Tillie. The release is being delayed in order to provide greater media compatibility, "to permit users to view a wide range of video formats on their computers."
Maybe the execs at Red Hat need to update their hat size as whatever they're wearing appears to be cutting off circulation to their brains.
Another quality distro for the desktop is good news.
In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
Wasn't Red Hat the desktop king, making deals with Dell, in the pre-Fedora days?
It seems Ubuntu is capturing all attention right now:
% 2Cgentoo%2Credhat&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
http://google.com/trends?q=suse%2Cfedora%2Cubuntu
This has "OMG Ubunutu is getting so much press, we need some of that action quick or they'll own the market!" panic written all over it.
Redhat, when you actually sit down and do the real work to bring Linux up to the level of commercial desktops and not just another halfassed repackaging of your existing Linux distro people will actually give a damn.
c reen.jpg
/Applications or something similar
Here you go Redhat:
http://www.fayerwayer.com/archivo/2005/03/tiger_s
* Perfect desktop acceleration right out of the box with the user having to touch NOTHING to get it to work
* Application packages in
* Full drag and drop application installation and removal
* OS X level or font rendering support right out of the box
* IB equivalent complete with auto spacing and hints so developers can finally make Linux apps that aren't jarring to the eye
* Complete set of iApp replacements - same visual polish and features sets as Apple has - plug in a digital camera, it just works
* And the thousands of other things that make buying a commercial desktop worth the money
What's that Redhat? That would actually require work and lots of hard choices?
That's what we thought...
And how long before CentOS creates a perfect replica thanks to the GPL?
I am officially gone from
A linux distro where I can download an ISO and install from that ISO and get a version of ffmpeg and friend that doesn't have 90% of the media formats disabled.
I wonder what the last 8 years have been?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
This isn't necessarily true.
As an extreme example, look at all the choices in Microsoft's lineup. I've said it before on here, but as "the computer guy" that my friends and family turn to for advice, I wanted to kill them when they had out two versions named Windows 2000 and Windows Millennium Edition. Sure, I know the difference, but I'm paid good money to know these things. I had friends who were actually considering "upgrading" from Windows 2000 to Windows ME until I told them what a hideous idea that was.
I'm all for choices for the educated public and competition to keep the desktop Linux market on their toes, but for typical non-gurus, I'm really hoping that one distribution makes it as the clear desktop distribution leader.
(And personally, I hope and think that it will be Ubuntu. It's a lot more intuitive to use than RedHat, IMHO, and I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth.)
Alan Cox and the other big shots at Redhat have in the past repeatedly said that they will not add support for mp3, or any other patended technology into Redhat. It all started with 8.0, and RH's policy has been AFAIK to tell the user that so-and-so will never be supported until the patent expires. Its sad to see such a good ideaology been tossed aside because of market pressure.
Whatever, I am not one to complain, but given the way Bluecurve was thrust upon users, and the way that they crippled kde so that gnome looks better (I dont want to start a holy flame war, but this *was* the state of things 5-6 years ago), I doubt whether they will make any serious dent in the market. But this is free software, the more people focussing on an area usually only brings the better - atleast its going to be code that others can use too.
Microsoft: "You've got questions. We've got dancing paperclips."
The release is being delayed in order to provide greater media compatibility
As much as I like Ubuntu, getting some of the media types working was a royal pain. The average user would have difficulty and they certainly don't understand the legal reasons for the exclusion.
Proprietary file formats are from the devil.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Red Hat wants money for everything. This is fundamentally different than Ubuntu, which truly gives you the software to use.
I wonder how long it takes until Red Hat earns a support tier to match stuff like Automatix, which does a nice job of installing commercial software easily, such as Hamachi, Eclipse, DVD & MP3 codecs, etc.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
This isn't a good sign. They just got finished dumping their desktop version, and now they're making another one? Sounds like their management is starting to flounder. Either they're a desktop software company, or they're not. They've already left the market, and only a few years later, they're re-inventing the wheel to get back in? That's crazy. It reminds me of Sun "The network is the computer. No it's not." Microsystems.
I don't respond to AC's.
This will be accepted as a "tier 1" supported platform by ATI, nVidia, and other "binary only" vendors immediately.
Basing on Redhat/Fedora/RHEL means a lot of stabilty. Having "legal" video support in a different branch means that Fedora can pursue the free software goal without being distracted by critics calling for non-free features. "Fedora sucks - it doesn't do MP3 and DVD out of the box" goes away (hopefully). The answer becomes "If you want non-free, go Global".
I hate the name, though. Indeed, Global will be a competitor to Ubuntu, but I would much rather have a "hat" name. From the summary, I would recommend Tilley.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
It contains 1 sentence from the story and a big page of other stuff.
FTFA:
"Red Hat Global Desktop Linux is targeted for sale in developing countries where government agencies and small businesses cannot afford to pay for Microsoft's Windows operating system."
I seem to recall Red Hat already being in the desktop market at one point.
Didn't they basically throw it away already?
Isn't the reason why Ubuntu was able to take the lead was because Red Hat left a huge gaping hole in the category of "Most Popular Desktop Linux Distro?"
we dont need Yet Another Linux Distro, there are plenty already! we need them developers join a bigger project like Ubuntu and Suse and not reinvent the wheel over and over
What is the news here? Red Hat is in the desktop market already, thought their offering is more geared or at least branded for the enterprise use: Red Hat Enteprise Linux 5 Desktop. It seems that they are just going to brand their Enterprise Desktop, add some multimedia and maybe a new colorful GNOME theme and call it Global Desktop Linux. Whoah!
The real news in here I would say is that Red Hat is gearing towards other than corporate customers. The question is, is this a defensive maneuver against Canonical or does Red Hat see that the consumer desktop linux market could be opening up? Or is it both? Could be both.
The second question, if they are not doing this purely for playing defense, is how serious they are? Are they so serious that they will maybe make a new multimedia player for Linux, or will they bundle in example iTunes or Real with it, or are they just going to hack up the usual suspects. I really would hope that they have something new to offer, as basically the situation is that multimedia support works but is not plea sent. Peasent here means the same as user experience with iTunes and in less extend Windows Media is.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
It's from Ubuntu.
... or better. And it's already established. And it's a very popular desktop distribution.
You can pay for per-incident support from Canonical. Or you can purchase a support contract from them.
Either way, it's as good as what Red Hat is offering
Companies don't pay for the distro, they pay for guaranteed technical support. Management does not have the time and capacity to resort to newsgroups and forums or tinker around when something is borked. So they shell out some money and use Red Hat's support infrastructure.
Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat
HTH.
Hope This Helps.
Deleted
What, from Redhat? The company that has the "no mp3, no mpeg, no WMV, no DVD" policy?. I figure they must be waiting for yet another obscure Ogg Borifica free-flash-video codec that nobody will use or something similar to reach spec 0.01 before releasing this distro.
But Microsoft gives you 5!!!! 10 or more for business versions.
Seriously, if you are going to compete in the desktop market, you need to provide security updates at no cost for the "normal" useful life of the product, and then some. Without security updates, your product can easily become a hazard to the entire Internet. If it weren't for lack of security updates, many people would still be running Windows 2000 or Windows NT. In fact, many people are running them in isolation.
Non-security updates are another matter. There's nothing wrong with charging for those.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
it gets hard. Why? Because of codec licensing. If you want to
provide support, you need to get paid for it. If you sell a
codec, you need to pay the MPegLA patent pool.
Red Hat doesn't have the balls or brains to make much of a difference on the desktop. They don't have the balls to do it in developed countries, and they don't have the brains to get it right (they haven't come close to getting the desktop right yet, and the same people are in charge).
http://google.com/trends?q=God%2C+Ubuntu&ctab=0&ge o=all&date=all&sort=0
google confirms it!
welp you've already lost one customer ;-D
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Dell's Ubuntu laptop deal showed that Microsoft Vista at $50 (according to engadget), but Red Hat's Enterprise desktop varies from $80 to $339 which isn't exactly cheaper for Aunt Tillie. Note that Canonical support is cheaper for 9x5 ($250) but they also offer 24x7 support ($900).
But is Red Hat trying to follow in Microsoft's steps confusing users with 4 desktop package options? Although Canonical is catching up with Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Gobuntu, Ubuntu Studio, and Ubuntu Media Center.
Have we learned nothing from Microsoft? Denying security updates is the worst possible policy for an operating system. Most users don't know or don't care about security. That isn't going to be an incentive for them to pay up. The only reason people pay for such products and services on Windows is because spyware and viruses have become a very real and everyday hindrance.
Unless you have been owned a few times on a Red Hat system you're probably not going to be motivated to pay for some security updates. Yet that only will create a pool of unpatched servers ready to be turned into zombies by the truly dangerous criminal hackers.
A more responsible business model would be to sell phone and instant message support. $100 or $200 for a year of phone support or a $35 per incident (which can be credited toward a full subscription within a year of the incident) support line is much more reasonable. You would also have live online experts that can deal with issues one-on-one from the website. Perhaps even a more advanced support model over remote desktop. You know, it might be worth it to a lot of people to have someone remote into their computers and get that pesky video editing software working or an obscure dependency resolved. Or have an IM or phone line where they just pickup the phone and ask "what's a good video editing application" to a real flesh-and-blood person that actually knows about that stuff. Sure, you'd have the the regular mailing lists, message boards, IRC channels that support the savvy users. But you have that support channel when you need an answer now or when you need a real expert, not a message board jockey, to help you understand what you're doing.
And wow, that would actually provide a tangible benefit to most users, from novice to advanced.
Shit, if Red Hat doesn't do this maybe I should.
Fedora is dead, long live RedHat. I'm a Kubuntu fan, RedHat dicks around with KDE too much. Anyway, welcome back RedHat, use your power for good and help Adobe get Flash working on x86_64 platforms.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fedorafrog/
Curious that Red Hat here is seen as apparently "challenging Ubuntu". Red Hat's market would be the enterprise: small or large (as the article even says) -- something that Ubuntu has not exactly come close to penetrating. With regard to Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop is the main Linux desktop solution that is taken more seriously. They have many thousands of deployments in pretty big enterprises (HSBC, Wal-Mart, etc).
Ubuntu has more than enough people in its online vocal community, but let us not forget that things in the enterprise (and, even, things globally) are very different; online vocal community != entire Linux community/people using linux. Let's not kid ourselves about Ubuntu's role in the enterprise.
That aside, it's great to see Red Hat paying a little more attention to the desktop side of things. Unlike Red Hat in the past, Novell have been actively pushing for desktop Linux first with their acquisition of SUSE (KDE) and then of Ximian (GNOME). They still employ more developers to work directly on KDE and GNOME than any other Linux distributor. Red Hat also pursuing the desktop Linux market can only make things better for everyone, so great!
I thought "enter the desktop market" meant sell hardware like Apple. That would've been a good idea.
otherwise, having only a year of updates is ridiculously stupid. Microsofts well established method works. You sell the OS product and then support it for its lifespan. If you don't, the client will stop using it and you will lose their desktop to someone who does.
Isn't this Redhat's third attempt at the desktop market? Seems if they had just been consistently playing along.....
for one linux to rule them all and in the darkness bind them
Great for them! Regardless of presupposed opinions anyone might have, having more choices for the desktop is always a good thing.
Have a squat over at the hobo house.
And this new version: you buy it and then get support for just one year? Gee, thanks, Red Hat! I'm really happy that you're there to give us a linux distro that works very well on the desktop and has support! We can't get that anywhere else...
Thanks, but Ubuntu has everything I need now, and I'm pretty sure that they won't pull a money-grabbing stunt like Red Hat did and leave its users high and dried, held for ransom. (And, as a bonus, I get out from under that hell which is RPM.)
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
it's basically gonna boil down to rpm based vs debian based if red hat r successfull with this. and the fact is that deb is far superior and user friendly than rpm.
So what exactly was the point of Fedora?
Shouldn't the title be Red Hat to re-enter the linux desktop market?
Or do people have that short of a memory?
I actually used to use their desktop release at one time. That was a few distros ago for me (before Mandrake, which was before I started messing around with Gentoo, which I used until sometime after Ubuntu came out...), but RedHat 6 was pretty decent at the time. However, I thought they discontinued that product line a couple of years back to focus on the Enterprise product line (RHEL).
Are they just changing their minds about that, or is there some totally new angle here?
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Then why not have the drag-and-drop action include a background dependency check and/or installation? This might require something like Gentoo's portage or FreeBSD's ports running in the background, which I would be all for.
A company with such a corporate focus as RedHat Inc. should leverage thin-clients and the Linux Terminal Server Project (LTSP) as a cost-savings benefit to their customers. For the typical, is there such a thing, user at home RedHat Desktop Linux will be just another distribution that offers nothing unique. The continued fat-client in enterprise environments is a perpetuation of the existing model. At work it would be great to be able to log into any desktop and have complete access to all my files and applications including those that are unique to my job requirements. As it is, if my desktop computer becomes inoperable for whatever reason my productivity is severely impacted; my "environment" has to be recreated from scratch over and above having the idiots from the HelpDesk reinstall the operating system or repplace the hardware in its entirety.
Warner spun off Warner Music Group to Edgar Bronfman and friends in 2003. Vivendi sold Universal City Studios (but not Universal Music Group) to General Electric in 2004.
Good thing you didn't say Sony Pictures and Sony BMG alsoExcept Sony BMG has two parent companies; it is a joint venture of Sony and Bertelsmann.
Back to topic: So how would the publisher of any Linux-based operating system have the clout to negotiate a deal with any of these major publishers of proprietary, mass-marketed media?
So Redhat contributes a lot of open source code... whoopee. Great for them. So does Novell, right? And IBM?
But I have no need for Suse either - not because it sucks, but because it throws a buncha stuff in the pot I don't want and it still uses that ass of a package system, RPM. And I have no need for an IBM - because I don't need a freaking mainframe in my house, I just need a single user desktop that works. And pointing out how Ubuntu does this well in ways those others mentioned sucks makes my post flamebait?
Jeesus, I didn't realize I was posting at mac.slashdot.org - or that a stupid package manager was such holy ground. I guess that explains why such a piece of shit packager is still in such widespread use, though... god forbid Redhat use a package system they didn't "invent"... or that actually works.
I guess this will just get me modded right through the floor then when I point out that half the fucking time I spent running Mandrake was spent hunting down RPMs that would actually work, trying to find information on why they didnt when they were supposed to, and how to fix my system when one of those RPMs that was supposed to work - didn't - but tried to anyway. The saddest irony of all is even when I went with Suse and had a problem getting tvtime to work (er, make that ANY tv app) and was fully prepared to shell out 25 bucks for a support call, I still couldn't find anyone who could make the damn thing work.
I guess that doesn't count though since I wasn't trying to configure FTP or mysql or some other gee-whiz piece of "infrastructure" software. And there are so many people running that stuff from their desktops and all... and who the hell wants to watch tv or a movie or play mp3s, right?
I am still bitter about Red Hat for abandoning the desktop market a few years ago - why would anyone trust them this time around?
Ubuntu simply rocks (especially Linux Mint) - Red Hat doesn't stand a chance.
As much as I like open system. I don't like the idea that 1) I have to pay $$ for Linux and 2)the fee only covers 1 year of "security updates"? Where is the concept that if the software broke, the company is suppose to fix that? We're not talking about feature updates here.
Spelling is hard.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Anyone who knows anything about market competition should know that this can only help drive Linux desktop development. Now, Ubuntu may actually have some real competition in the desktop market. In the end it is the Linux desktop users that will win based on Red Hat and Canonical each trying to be better than each other, but releasing their changes to everyone as open source. The worst thing that could happen is one kills the other early in the fight... Then we are back to where we are now, with a single dominant Linux desktop but with limited market share compared to MS.
That product never went away. The development past 9 just became Fedora because it was clear that people weren't really interested in buying it off the shelf... they were losing money supporting users who didn't pay for it. This is why it became RHEL 3,4,5 (yearly contracts) and Fedora.
Do keep in mind that essentially nothing is different between Fedora and RHEL (other than artwork, specific choices of patchlevels and hiding certain server packages in the Workstation version).
Now the public says: We want Fedora but we want paid support and a phone number to call, just like in the old days.
So they're giving it to them.
And this _is_ different than the Red Hat Desktop product that they sell in 50-seat bundles; that's more of a environment for centrally managed office workstations.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
How could anyone think Fedora was anything but "old Redhat" continued? Yarrow was what became of the "rawhide" tree post-RH9.
If you didn't like the direction of FC1, you wouldn't have liked RH10 either. Most people I know started hating RH back around version 8, after they dropped Ximian, so I don't think that would have changed anyone's minds.
In fact, I think people just wanted a reason to hate Redhat, and dropping support for 9 (more like: no more point releases like 6-8 got to make them usable) was what did it.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Who cares? If the packages dont install properly or don't work, I don't care as a luser where the problem lies - whether it's a badly created package or a badly created packager is irrelevant as the end result is the same. All I know is I've tried many RPM based distributions and every one of them was a pain in the ass every time I wanted to add a piece of software. Maybe it was the terrible (nonexistent and/or incredibly poorly structured) support forums or a simple lack of focus on the types of apps I care about - all I know is things were often broke, hard to un-break and even when I had the cash in hand to solve the problem, getting a resolution was like trying to get answers from the fucking telephone company.
Is ubuntu popular because of the deb packager? Because RPM sucks? Because RPM based distros generally seem to lack any focus on supporting home desktop users? Is ubuntu well supported just because it's popular, or popular because it's well supported?
Yes.