Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Avoids Desktop Linux, Says Too Tough
eldavojohn writes "We recently discussed the Linux Foundation's decision to leave desktop Linux alone but Red Hat is also steering clear of that goal. The reason? It's too tough. From the company blog: 'It's worth pointing out what's missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future. An explanation: as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers.'"
Free means that you're free to look out for yourself.
As long as they don't inhibit other people from making desktop distros, I see nothing wrong with this.
I wonder where this leaves Fedora in the long term? I can't say I fault them, but honestly I would hope Red Hat would rise to the challenge rather than shrink away from it.
Perhaps they understand that most folks, like myself, don't care about the OS, they care about the applications.
Well, their main competitor Ubuntu is basically giving away the OS for free. How can RedHat expect to compete with that?
Personally, I find Linux to be great as a server OS doing very specific things for my home network. Webserver, you bet. Fileserver, yep. Firewall, no doubt. Mail server, of course. But on the desktop, I find that Windows (XP) just works without any fuss. I've tried "desktop Linuces" and found them all pretty clunky for the stuff I wanted to do.
Redhat built up a reputation on the server. They really do not compete against that many. The desktop is a whole other creature. In particular, it is not just MS (which is hard), but also apple, nearly ALL the other linux distros, and even BSD. This is a tough market and will require staying power.
Will Canonical's Ubuntu distribution be short lived if they fail to target the enterprise? I don't mean to spread FUD, just wondering. I think Canonical is Europe or South Africa based, perhaps America's economic woes are driving Red Hat away from funding things that, frankly, have no return on investment? Is desktop Linux for the end user merely an economic drain on a company? I certainly hope not but that's kind of how I interpreted Red Hat's blog
My work here is dung.
OK, so I'm thick, I'll confess.
... what the hell do people mean when they say that someone needs to design a "desktop". I've used Linux/FreeBSD as a desktop OS for over a decade. Gnome and KDE both seem fairly robust, with lots of apps and functionality.
But, seriously
WTF is fundamentally missing that it can't be a "desktop"?? Are we talking administration? Apps? Screen savers? Spinning cursor add-ons? iTunes? Virus scanners? Boxed software?
I'm afraid I just don't get what is fundamentally missing here. What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
"as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers" Hmmmm... We all knew that, but they they have to tell the world? ;)
But in the long run, they might get bitten. Canonical's Ubuntu offer is fantastic. The server/desktop solution is essentially the same. The free version is THE enterprise version. In the Red Hat world, you install Fedora to try it. You find a problem and want support, tough. Scrap the OS and reinstall RHEL to get support from the Vendor. With Ubuntu, you just go and pay for support.
And corporations like to keep things simple. Why have two distributions (one for the desktops, one for the servers) when one could do the job? This is where Ubuntu outshines.
I am not too familiar with using Ubuntu on the server side. It lacks support from big ISV such as Rational (IBM) and maybe Oracle. However, since it is Debian derived, I would trust the OS for most server tasks. So while in the past we were more inclined to use RHEL, in my organization we are considering Ubuntu for the server side.
Red Hat is concentrating too much on the short term. Yes, they should not spend too much money marketing a desktop version or polishing it. Canonical barely does any marketing (ever saw an add from Ubuntu?). But Red Hat should have a presence on the desktop to remain in the race in the long term.
I have a lot of respect for Mark Shuttleworth (Canonical owner). He has a long term vision and while part of his goal is too be profitable, he also has a social goal.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
With a plethora of excellent choices for the Linux desktop available like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc who really cares?
Red Hat targeting the server market makes more sense, they still support Fedora Project so nothing new to see here.
Have a squat over at the hobo house.
The article did not mention it, so I'll state it. Truth is that they are being spanked by Ubuntu and are forced to move to server in order to survive. As always, its hard to make a business in selling something people can get for free. Not to mention that as Linux get easier and more reliable paying for support seems less attractive.
Shame though, I used to use RH. before dallying with 'drake, 'diva, and 'dora on the way to (K)Ubuntu. Each to their own though.
What is needed on Linux is the same panoply of software that is at the same level of quality as found on MacOS or Windows. What is missing on Linux:
1. The Adobe/Macromedia collection of software â" from Photoshop to Dreamweaver to Flash.
2. A really good video editor (think AVID)
3. A really good audio/music program (think ProTools and Ableton Live)
4. A low level video layer (think quickTime/Quartz / WindowsMedia)
I'm sure there's more. Frankly, NOTHING on Linux rivals the Adobe CS collection. NOTHING on Linux rivals AVID (or even Final Cut Pro). NOTHING on Linux rivals ProTools. Why don't I have a Linux box? Because the above mentioned software packages (and a host of others) are not available on Linux, and the stuff that is similar to it is inferior. If Adobe / AVID / Digidesign / Ableton / etc. ported their stuff over to Linux, I'd get a Linux box in a heartbeat. But until then, I'm going to hang with my MacBookPro, thank you very much.
And since this is The Truth On The Ground, that's why places like RedHat are hesitant to bother with desktop Linux. They could build it, but there's nothing to do there, and thus no money to be made.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The title the post is in accurate. They are avoiding the "consumer" desktop not desktops altogether. Per the article they are still committed to developing desktops for the corporate market. This is a logical move as corporate environments tends to be a much more controlled (more current hardware and managed upgrade schedules anyone) and profitable to support than the wild west of consumer desktops and clueless users . . .
Hopefully the moderators will correct this very missleading title.
While Red Hat correctly acknowledges the significant difficulties which exist with regard to creating a sustainable business ecosystem around GNU/Linux as a desktop OS, the actual article makes clear that Red Hat is working hard on developing solutions for these problems: The list of their investments in free software development in this area is impressive, and they're pre-announcing commercial products in this area. What more would you want?
How ironic. RedHat was the reason that linux became my *only* desktop, 10 years ago. It's still my only desktop. I disagree with them, that it's too hard. I think it can be done. I fully understand and agree about their bottom line however. Idle dreams, would RedHat partner with e.g. Apple for UI and app/desktop integration?
C|N>K
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've posted before that the desktop GUI is becoming a lot like a utility. This is another example of why: everyone needs it, but it's too difficult to make a profit providing it, so this is why Ubuntu is stepping up strong.
A-Bomb
I find Windows (XP) terrible as a desktop. I find it impossible to figure out what the fuck is happening when something goes wrong, I find the way installers scatter shit all over the filesystem to be deeply irritating, and the fact that the config information is often stored in a hidden binary database (the registry) is idiotic.
Of course, I'm a programmer and I mostly work with manipulating large quantities of data (usually text), and Unix is just a lot better at doing that than Window).
the last company i worked for had redhat on about half the engineering desktops.
I was about to ask that same question. I'm using Linux "on the desktop" right now as I write this, as I have for years. What is it about my desktop that isn't "ready for the desktop"? If anything, my friends using Windows have had to deal with more overall crap, and most of them would acknowledge as much (but not switch, of course).
I suspect that that this "not ready for the desktop" meme that I see constantly being reinforced is just part of the FUD campaign that Microsoft and its stakeholders have waged for years. It doesn't matter that experienced Linux users know it's a load of crap if they can keep their own customers too afraid to try it.
I've also noticed lately that posts like this one get modded down pretty quickly, now that there are companies that perform this service for a fee. Let's see if it happens this time...
Tell that to Apple!
I keep hearing the "news", but have yet to see anything 1. Build a cross-compiler along with a decent GNU toolchain.
2. ??
3. Boot linux
4. Profit? No, enjoy it!
Leave desktop Linux alone!
LEAVE IT ALONE!1!
Red Hat means they don't think they can make money selling a retail Linux for use on desktops. That's been their position for several years.
Whether or not it is possible to put together a collection of Linux software that qualifies a a "desktop" is not at issue.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I know that there are folks out there that are accomplishing [all] desktop functions with free software. Again, what's hard for Redhat to bundle software that such folks are using, into a fully functional desktop that will work as advertised?
From Java, to Adobe's flash it's all free software and that's what most people need. If there are licensing issues, talk to the folks that license the software. It is not impossible. I am sure companies like Adobe will be happy to have an additional distribution channel now that Microsoft is on the attack with Silverlight and Moonlight.
What Redhat are doing is to wait until some traction has been got by the desktop...then jump in! Microsoft must be happy with this news. Sad indeed.
When people say is it ready for the desktop they are talking about a desktop interface for linux where usability, interplatform compatibility and conistency are primal. Linux itself is a tweakfest. Until the UI gets as standardized and bulletproff and seamless as windows or mac it won't happen.
Thus mass market desktop worthiness is almost antithetical to Linux's nature.
But the reverse, Linux on the desktop, where you think of Linux as application running inside a proven desktop is not only possible it exists.
Virtual machines running at nearly full speed are available for mac and windows. The ones i've seen on mac can run the linux unrooted, rooted or even capture Linux windows and treat them as any other application window in the host OS's desktop.
The latter is where you finally arrive at linux on the desktop.
Sure the UI is not highly tweakable. But that's a "good thing". All the other parts of linux you like, all the plugable modules, configuration files, etc... all those are there in their full tweakable glory. So nothing is lost and a lot is gained.
This is how Linux can come to the desktop. It won't be the desktop that hardcore linux users will want neccessarily since for power users it layers on a potentially fragile layer of indirection. But for the mass market desktop it would work.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm afraid I just don't get what is fundamentally missing here. What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?
Cheers I see GNU/Linux Desktop as a kitchen and the desktop user as the woman (*shrugs*) responsible for the kitchen.
GNU/Linux gives you the tools and means to do great things like the kitchen gives womans (*shrugs*) power to do amazing cooks.
GNU/Linux desktop needs healthier hacking to run just like you want. The same way, kitchens should be cleaned up and decorated to look like every woman dream.
Don't have time/knowledge to maintain your kitchen? Get a maid!
If you want to survive, you must PROFIT. One cannot profit in a communistic society where others are free to take what you have toiled over and use it for FREE - as in beer !! Ergo, capitalism RULEZ !! Eat my shorts, commies !!
And how dare anyone out there make fun of Linux on the desktop, after all it's been through!
Leave desktop linux alone!
* Red Hat Enterprise Linux Desktop. This is our fully supported, commercial product. It is 100 percent compatible with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux server products. Its focus is to provide a desktop environment that is secure and easily managed. And it is upgradeable with the Multi-OS option (which provides virtualization support) or the Workstation option (which provides high-end workstation capabilities).
* Fedora. This is a Red Hat sponsored, fast-growing, free product. While Red Hat doesn't formally support Fedora, users can turn to a healthy online community to obtain help when they need it.
* Red Hat Global Desktop (RHGD). Plans for this product were originally announced at the 2007 Summit Conference. It is designed exclusively for small, reseller supplied, deployments in emerging markets (e.g. primarily the BRIC countries), and will be supplied by a number of Intel channel partners.
We originally hoped to deliver RHGD within a few months, and indeed the technology side of the product is complete. There have, however, been a number of business issues that have conspired to delay the product for almost a year. These include hardware and market changes, startup delays with resellers, getting the design and delivery of appropriate services nailed down and, unsurprisingly, some multimedia codec licensing knotholes. Right now we are still working our way through these issues. As mentioned earlier, the desktop business model is tough, so we want to be prepared before delivering a product to the emerging markets. This means that, as you probably expected, Red Hat is focusing their for-sale desktop on the enterprise market, and letting the consumer market use the free, unsupported Fedora for now. The "tough" comment was about a new low-cost consumer offering outside the U.S.
The headline should be: "Red Hat Delays Low-Cost Consumer Desktop, Says Business Model Is Tough".
when its OS can detect my Nvidia wireless card right out of the box.
If RedHat is accepting they're not going to aim to be kings of desktop Linux, they should work on integrating their server product with Ubuntu desktop workstations. That could be a killer feature for them, cause then they don't *have* to worry about the desktop. I think collaboration between the two companies in this respect could actually be really beneficial for both.
Consider how windows got into the server back room... from the desktop... that point aside it has no impact on fedora.
Of course, you can take that either way. Without support fedora remains a "developement" OS no matter how good it gets. Now consider if Suse and ubuntu gain traction on the desktop, then they'll be talking the same way MS did "hey, you should run us on the back-end and heres your discount"... Without a real support channel for fedora, it'll always remain in a place of interested for people, and companies will go with supportable OS's on the desktop.
Of course you could always take the view that if people ever did start using a supported linux distro on the desktop, they might decide to make their own fedora based distro's because of its customisability, and if a company went to redhat (who uses them at the back end) and said "hey, we want to be able to talk to someone about fedora as well", redhat aren't going to go and say "no thanks, we dont want your money", they'll probably say "well, ok, but your only going to get limited support from us ok?".
Of course redhat are concentrating on the big iron, its like the numero uno thing they do and how many products out there have rhel embedded somewhere? its not a small number!
Sorry for a simplistic response on a web forum that's anything but... but here goes.
Right now, Ubuntu provides everything I need in a desktop. The interface is excellent, tons of apps in the repositories that can do pretty much everything I need out of a computer. I'm not sure of all the business and technical nuts and bolts of what that company is doing, but I sincerely hope they keep doing it. I love their product. The distro installs after about 7-8 clicks and 30 minutes. From my experience, everything has been plug and play.
Now, I know this is a simplistic approach and my experiences will not be the same as many others' out there. But the cool thing about Linux is it's free, so if something doesn't work, you can just try something else.
Example, I was happily running PCLinuxOS for a few months. Eventually, it gave me a boot error and wouldn't start up. I tried at it for a few days, but eventually gave up and moved on. I had tried Ubuntu before and came back again to where I am now. I'm sure I'll try PCLinuxOS again because there were some things about that distro that I loved, also.
Catch my general drift, here? What happens if your Windows PC has a bust? You either beat your head against the wall until it's fixed (yes, you have to do that with Linux also) or you pay someone who can fix it for you.
With Linux, all you need is hardware, a high speed internet connection (I do NOT recommend trying Linux out without hi-speed internet), and an open mind to explore and try out.
You could probably count me as a mini-mini power user. I am not afraid to wipe a hard drive and install an OS. But on a regular basis, I try to stay away from the command line as much as possible and I can't code anything.
(gosh, this guy isn't a coder and he's posting on Slashdot?!? who let him in?)
My point is that I love what the Linux/FOSS movement provides for me RIGHT NOW. I know there are some greater and global economic/social pressures that might force what we have now off the internet. But as a little person who can't control those things, I hope to the heavens above that what's provided for us currently, continues to be so because I'm very happy with it. Worst case scenario - years from now, I'll still be running my old Ubuntu 7.10 version. I'd bet it will still be just as stable, too.
To answer the parent, I think companies like Ubuntu and Firefox have a strong enough hold on the market that they aren't going to die any time soon. (Hopefully)
Red Hat does servers well, and they should continue to do so. In my data center we use exclusively Red Hat (and CentOS, which is essentially the same thing). It's solid, it's built for the glass house, and every piece of Linux server software in the known universe supports it.
On our desktops and laptops? Ubuntu all the way. They do the desktop really well and they will continue to do so.
It's this clever strategy we like to call "using the right tool for the job."
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Actually Linspire/Freespire are based on Ubuntu..none the less Ubuntu (and its derivatives) do a very credible job of that. There's no reason for RH to do what they're not interested in or very good at.
Speaking of which, isn't OSX a desktop OS based on the even more user-hostile BSD?
I've said for a long time that Linux is not desktop ready. And I have been pilloried for say so on Slashdot. It is by far one of the best or possibly the best server OS. The way I see it is every OS has a place and a purpose. Windows makes a decent desktop for my mother (and belongs in the trash). To ask her to install even Ubuntu would be too much to ask. Over the years a few companies have made great progress in building a desktop Linux. Linspire (formly Lindows), Ubuntu, PC Linux and more. They've done great work. I truly want them to continue doing great work. Now more than ever they need to survive and be successful.
I can envision a future where we have RedHat and a few others doing server only Linux OS'es and other companies focusing on desktop Linux. This may be the successful business model. Time will tell. Until then the Ubuntu's of the world need to continue polishing the desktop so well that even my mother can install it on her desktop, laptop and make them talk to the shared printer on her own.
Then we need application. Today there are far more desktop apps for Linux than ever before. This is good. We need more. We need more. We need more.
I have also stated that I want an OS that just works. No fussing or mussing. For me Windows is NOT that OS. It just doesn't work well for me. So I bought the next best thing. A Mac Book Pro. I get a solid stable OS, unix under the hood and applications to do my job. That makes me happy.
Thats all I have to say.
...because it didn't sell well in the past and the margins weren't there. I don't know that I'd go so far to say as they've completely abandoned the desktop though (at least not the corporate one). They've helped develop things like NetworkManager and other things like pulseaudio. I can't see how those are server/multi-user orientated pieces of software.
They would rather sit around and talk about pedicures and Brad Pitt than compete with Ubuntu. Hell, I agree: it's hard making software that doesn't suck and that can actually interface with a sound card. The boys at Ubuntu figured it out, the sissies at Red Hat started flailing their arms and running around in circles afraid of getting a run in their pantyhose.
Now I have justification for my long-standing choices:
- Fedora or CentOS on my servers
- Ubuntu or Debian on my token open-source desktop
- Suse when I'm bored with the routine
Feh. Desktop Linux is hard. Even those who seem committed to it have a really hard time.
ps - Dare I slap Hardy on my old Mitac 6120N, ACPI bug and all? It's gotten a little flaky with XP. Maybe time to rick it all... If only it would run my 3CRWE154G72... Naww, that is way too old. Can I get it running with my Zyxel G120? Newer... Ack, I hate this. Desktop Linux is too hard.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Again, this is largely semantic, but "illegal monopoly" isn't really a great term. To be precise, M$ is a monopoly who has been convicted for abuse of their monopoly power. It doesn't make the monopoly itself illegal, but it does make their actions as a monopoly illegal according to law.
Convicted, abusive monopoly, yeah. We have court rulings proving that.
Their actions are illegal, not their monopoly. Should they, by their actions, abuse their power too egregiously, the government has a duty to bust up the monopoly... but apparently, the Bush Administration doesn't feel terribly duty bound to obey the courts... or laws in general, so we still have this behemoth to deal with as a monopoly.
Pooty tweet
Depends on what you mean by "Just Working".
Take this USB TV tuner I just bought. Plug it into my Linux desktop, and it "just works". No installing special drivers from a CD, because Linux ships with the drivers for almost very device it supports out of the box. No searching the web for apps to caputre video, I just fire up my application manager, click one, it downloads and installs, nearly instantly. No fuss no muss.
Try this with Windows or even Mac. You have to install drivers, reboot your PC once or twice, then either install the crippleware that comes with it, or hunt around the internet for "Trial Ware" to try out your new device, and then either fork out more money for the software, or illegally pirate it.
The only things IMO that don't "just work" in Linux are twofold: MP3s and printers. MP3s don't work out of the box with most distros due to patent reasons, you have to install MP3 support yourself - but even this is pretty simple.
Printers are a whole other problem, because the only inkjet printer manufacturer I know of that is really committed to supporting their stuff on Linux (and spend money to develop Linux cups drivers) is HP. This isn't a problem with Linux, it is a problem with printer companies.
I just got an email from Red Hat yesterday telling me about all the benefits of switching all of our desktops to Red Hat, using Lotus Notes / Domino as the collab suite. http://www.lotusonredhat.com/ See the Linux client migration guide on the left.
Well, their main competitor Ubuntu is basically giving away the OS for free. How can RedHat expect to compete with that?
OpenSuSE is free too, and a damn fine desktop Linux distro. OpenSuSE 10.3 installed effortlessly and everything including dual boot with XP and my built-in wireless network adapter worked perfectly on my 2006-vintage Toshiba laptop whereas Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon would not even complete the install correctly though the live CD test of it mostly worked, except it was completely unable to detect the wireless.
I just installed the pre-release / last beta version of Ubuntu Hardy Heron on my Dell desktop PC and it went perfectly well. Maybe when the official release of Hardy gets out, I may try it again on my laptop but for now OpenSUSE is working great.
The distro installs after about 7-8 clicks and 30 minutes. From my experience, everything has been plug and play.
...and...
... and ... Mandriva didn't recognize my NICs automatically. Imagine! The nerve!
But the cool thing about Linux is it's free, so if something doesn't work, you can just try something else.
Like when I put gigabit NICs in my old PCs to cluster them and downloaded Mandriva Linux to run on them and
So did I spend my time searching for NIC drivers that Mandriva would work with? Nope. I spent the couple-o-minutes it took to download a Fedora 7 install CD & burn it. I figured I would just download Linuxii until I found one that would recognize the NICs automatically. Sure enough, it was plug-and-play with Fedora. No fuss, no muss, no frustating web searching, no increase in blood pressure, no kicking the dog or cursing at the wife. If Fedora hadn't worked right off the bat I would have tried Ubuntu next.
The whole Linux vs. Windows installation and maintenance experience has completely changed in just the last 3-5 years. It's now Linux that is the easy to install and configure OS. It's really been a rather amazing turnabout when you think about it.
And what matters to me is not the underlying OS, it's how frustrated and angry the underlying OS makes me and how often. In 2003 Windows2000 was the clear winner. In 2008 Linux wins hands down.
that when i actually select that I dont want X on my server during package selection that its is actually not going to install the packages now, instead of ignoring the package selection screen, and installing them anyways ?
Finally.
If Apple can do it, why not RedHat? Ubuntu is making nice strides in this direction, but a little competition would move things along nicely.
People don't care about the applications, gamers excepted of course. People care about continuity and getting the task done as painlessly as possible.
... err BDSC). Whatever choice they made they would immediately be Flamed To Death by all of the factions for various nonsensical reasons.
If you make an easy to use application that is comparable to what they are used to using, and outperforms what they currently used, you'll have a market winner... Provided you can get it in front of the people in the first place.
People don't like change. My wife complained about me obliterating Windows from the household. But she's adapted. I haven't made things easy though because of my constant tinkering.
She uses MS Office at work and OpenOffice at home, but there is enough difference that she's still uncomfortable with OOo, even though it is far superior. This is not to knock OOo, which has done a great job, but when applications get to a size such as this, there is no good way to make it quick and easy to learn, they're just too complex. Thus it's not the applications that people will care about, it's fear of the unknown and change. The Linux Desktop will eventually win, because the adventurous will experiment and find it good. Slowly, OSS will get better with lots of hands and eyes. The chafe will be left by the wayside in the heap of the abandoned OSS mountain. It;s not going to happen this year or next or probably even in 5. In 5 Linux may have doubled or tripled in deployments. I don't wish to sound pessimistic, but I suspect the year of the Linux Desktop is more like 15 to 20 years away. It will be our children who will benefit from our Revolution. This is often the way it is with War, those who fight the good cause and win, often don't get a great benefit from it in their lifetimes. Some do of course, but it is those who come after that benefit the most.
And of course, Windows and it's applications will improve over these years by adapting in all the useful things they learn from us, you know like tabbed web browsing and built-in pop-up blocking.
Lastly, I've had to go the route of getting Multimedia friendly distros (Ubuntu and similar) so she can have a (mostly) smooth internet experience (flash and all that interactive email stuff and such), while still catering to my need to control and ease of maintenance. Which may be why RH has seen the light here. There's no way to make ONE Linux Desktop that will be popular enough to make money with. There are too many Linux Zealot Factions (LZF) each fanatically defending they're Religious Belief (RB) of the Best Desktop Software Combination (BDSM
Oh yeah and VI and EMACS SUCK!
"From an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective"
To succeed on the desktop Linux has to get easier at a faster rate than people are getting stupider. This is not yet happening
Admittedly too busy to read the articles behind the links so I will spew my opinion without proper research. First I get the impression that the MS windows clique resembles republicans jumping on democrats when they make a comment and twist it to their end. Ultimately its shows they are grabbing at straws and unix in the end dominates the computing world. Maybe this post doesnt qualify as this, not sure, but be on guard.
Second its important for techies to explain to non-techies the difference between the OS and the desktop. Its not the same thing. Often Mac users rave about the virutes of their OS confusing it with the desktop. In fact the OS is a unix variant with a cool proprietary desktop, proprietary in the sense of the hardware and that desktop and app drivers will work without issue.
Third after making that distinction, understand that unix/bsd/linux is blessed with choice of desktop, and more importantly the flexibility of not running x windows at all. I can can see where the discussion may get confusing. Linux distros are more concerned with the OS, and the desktop is left to the developers who build desktops and to developers who build desktop apps. Its all good. The desktop becomes an abstract layer unto itself and major linux distros may find it unnecessary to focus on it and focus more on the OS and provide a solid foundation for server and/or desktop. They are not giving up on the desktop, just a desktop oriented distro. Someone else is focusing on the desktop.
Fourth the linux desktop has made huge strides in the last 10 years and gnome and kde developers deserve high praise and all the app developers that run with these. I'm amazed. Whats needed is support for end users to understand the issues and overcome the need for windows. End users get a computer with windows which is more often than not screwed up by additional software and bloatware which actually makes windows appear more unstable than it is. End users may try a linux desktop but dont equate free software with the absence of some software drivers and get frustrated there. I like the new feature in fedora 8, dont recall the name, where you open a file and the app discovers there is no driver for it and a pop up appears showing where to dl it or buy it.
Fifth its about the software you need to use to get your task done. Generic apps like word processors and spreadsheets are available for the linux desktop, for free. You dont have to use word anymore.
Finally is the desktop an issue? Computing has changed and in a way and come full circle. First you had client/server where your client was very thin and you connected to a central computer to accomplish your tasks. Then personal computers came along and it became decentralized. Now with the internet we are going back to client/server. How much time and effort do you want to invest in your desktop and apps when you can merely open a web browser and use a word processor at google.
people on ludes should not drive
So I'm just about 180 from you. I'm make a living as a software developer and use the command line almost exclusively (except for browsing the web). I made the "switch" about two years ago (at home) from Linux to Mac OS and was really happy. I had the best of both worlds. I recently decided to buy a new PC (big mistake) and installed windows vista on it. I did this because I wanted to learn more about win32 development. About a month ago, I decided to try Unbuntu. Everyone is always talking about this new linux distro that is so wonderful. At first I was very impressed. It actually resized my NTFS partition and setup dual boot without a flaw. Then I started fielding questions from my wife about manging pictures and transferring music with our ipod and realized that it's nowhere near ready for mainstream use. I had to rebuild my favorite game (bzflag) from source to get sound working properly, which is my biggest complaint. The core sound system on linux seems to be re-architected once a year.
The reason Linux will fail on the desktop and succeed as a server platform is (in my mind) due to fragmentation and duplicate effort. If you look at the development of the kernel itself, it's IBM, novell, redhat, and a relatively small set of individuals. The changes they are submitting are being filtered through an even smaller set of gatekeepers. This prevents random features from just popping up inside the kernel and it ensures that things that people don't want to work on that should be actually get fixed. Remember if a customer complains about a kernel bug, then IBM or someone who's getting paid will probably have to work on it. You can also look at device drivers. How man drivers do you have for a device? Probably one.
Now look at the UI/Desktop. We have a half-dozen or more media players, window managers, widget sets, etc. And now with Mono everything is being done again but in C#. It's more of a playground than a stable platform. We (as the Linux community) never finished the first 5 media players and now we're building another one. This leads to fragmentation of development effort and to people abandoning projects before they're complete. Sure it's choice, but I'd rather have a choice between 2 good media players rather than 10 unfinished ones. I'm using the media player here as an example, but this pretty much applies to all things on the desktop. Too many people doing the same thing over and over.
I'm not saying it's bad, Linux is a nice environment to simply learn a new language or API, but as far as bringing it up to commercial grade level... probably never.
Trying distribution after distribution until you find one that works ranks as 'Easy to Install'? Odd.
Microsoft tweaks their Windows desktops and servers to eliminate compatibility with SAMBA and Linux, thus driving Linux OUT OF THE SERVER ROOM.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Perhaps if RH hadn't shit-canned their original desktop offering "back in the day" Linux might be farther along on the desktop. When interest in other desktops started to warm up, they loosely jumped back in. Now they're out again. "Hey! This is popular! Let's see how far this train goes!" This isn't "support" this is fair-weather-friending the idea of Desktop Linux. Go build your servers, assholes.
I'm not surprised to hear this. What's interesting is redhat's statement, "too tough". What? Okay, so you do a RHEL default install, the POC installs with GUI enabled. Getting X up can be a sobering experience. But Redhat seems to do that fine! So what else can there be? Ahh, maybe it's that old rhetoric redhat used when SuSE beat them to the market with Xen. Wasn't it something like "Xen isn't ready"? Redhat wants to stay with server software, no desktops? Personally, I think their "Server/Enterprise" software is crap. The damned thing defaults to GUI mode. I've done enough remote Linux admin to know you DO NOT want to try and tunnel X over an ssh session, runs like shit. Okay, so just turn off X, set runlevel to 3. Now try and run some of their disparate system-config-splat tools, some will work, some will not, without X running. What gives?
So now, Lenovo is making laptops available with SuSE Enterprise 10 (http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/controller/e/web/LenovoPortal/en_US/systemconfig.runtime.workflow:LoadRuntimeTree?sb=:00000025:00001398:&smid=F2F5363C71FA4D61B176AD5FB80FA5D8)
Gosh, I wonder what secret sauce Lenovo has that Redhat hasn't figured out yet?
I've been installing Linux on laptops and desktops since the early 1990's, (ya, around kernel version 0.7) even with PCMCIA support, and I can tell you, the process can be a bitch. But everyone's doing it. So why does redhat still insist "too tough". Looks to me like Redhat's falling into the Redmond hole. Don't waste your time with RedHat, use a release that's better suited for server systems, like Debian, or SuSE. At least SuSE will give you a consistent admin interface, capable of running GUI or TEXT modes! And if you want a desktop/laptop, SuSE is awesome (I've been running it on a variety of hardware for the past 8 years).
From that viewpoint there is MS with it's mass produced cars which people buy who just go to the dealer and want a car.
Then there is OSX for those people who want a special car. Kinda like pimp my ride.
And there is Linux, which falls into two categories I guess :
Those will probably never get much of a "market share", but they are not very likely to go away either.
So what? Nothing double is still nothing. If you have one user and gain a second, you've doubled, but quite frankly, given the number of users out there, that is neither hard nor impressive. So Linux goes from 1% to 2%. Big deal. It isn't that hard (or notable) to get 1% or 2% of the market (or even 3% or 4%). If you have 45% of computer users, which is probably a billion people, and double that, that's something worth talking about.
Also note that the people who tend to use Linux are power users, and power users probably make up 5-10% of the population. Linux hasn't even got half of them, further making this statistic fairly pointless.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
"transferring music with our ipod"
I dunno. Just about nothing can suck as bad as plugging in an old
ipod into a new install of iTunes and having it want to wipe your
legacy data. The Ubuntu ipod experience is positively sublime
compared to this.
This kind of thing has caused my wife to swear off ipods entirely.
She would rather get something that simply exposes itself as a
mass storage device and not be bothered with DRM or other BS.
DRM shenanigans may finally be what undo Microsoft. You can do some
pretty cool things with multimedia that tend to be undone by the
relevant companies (Apple, Microsoft, Tivo) being at the beck and
call of big content.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
- Webcam was not supported (logitech)
- Sound stopped working after plugging in a webcam
- Encrypted DVD won't play
- Black windows appear when many windows are open. (nvidia)
- Touchpad on laptop doesn't work properly (alps)
And the list goes on. In general whatever hardware I get I have to worry whether it is supported on Linux.I managed to solve all of the above issues, but for a regular user that's too much trouble if they can get it done at all. Yes, Linux needs better marketing; Yes, it needs better support, but the bottomline is: IT JUST ISN'T READY.
There's still a good paid market out there for a linux desktop OS, redhat just *chooses* to not pursue it. They sell windows and osx just fine, and the primary market is for OEM installs. Now for hundreds of dollars per copy, nope, that is gouging, but for less than the competition, running on OEM equipment where everything works out of the box, they could make some money. Ubuntu has taken the lead there just because they sought it after RH abandoned the market. That's fine, but for them to say there's no desktop market or money there is just stupid. A lot of people (me included) used to buy their boxed sets, but they kept pushing it as a server, then abandoned it entirely(and that money), annoying a lot of folks in the process, and it just isn't that hard using all the apps and tools out there to make a clean distinction in the distro between customizable server for that market and more locked down and tweaked consumer desktop-for that market. And no, joe consumer is not going to pay 300 dollars for a "workstation" OS, but say around 30 bucks would probably fly hidden in with the new hardware cost from the computer vendor. If it is on some other hardware, tough nooogies, they don't have to support it, that's easy enough. Of course, two or more releases a year like Fedora wouldn't work, but something that lasted around the same amount of time people wait before hardware upgrades, like 2-3 years, would be perfectly acceptable.
I don't have outrageous hardware, just a standard older P4 system with an ATI graphics adapter. I've tried 5 different Linux distributions, including Ubuntu, PCLinuxOS, and Mandriva. None of them will install a working usable desktop. The default install doesn't use any of the abilities of my graphics adapter (an older ATI x1300Pro AGP model) so it is soooooo slooooow to paint it is unusable. Trying to install the included ATI drivers always results in the "black screen of death" that results in the only way to get out of it is to do a complete reinstall of the OS. I've spent literally days trying to get a distribution working to no avail. But WinXP installs, detects my graphics adapter without a problem, installs the adapter specific drivers, and is fast fast fast without me having to spend hours or days killing chickens under a willow tree during a blue moon after midnight. Even Vista installs on this machine without a problem (though I hate Vista and went back to XP Pro). And yes, someone always blames ATI for the problem. But pointing fingers doesn't lessen the issue: no Linux distribution will install and work as easily as Windows does currently. Until that is addressed, Linux on the desktop is a minor niche at best.
I don't think its that Linux isn't ready for the desktop; though I will admit the two I tried were "meh"; its that software developers of popular packages aren't ready for Linux, worse they don't care.
... Text editor and spread sheet are easily found. Take the best of OS/X and XP/Vista but make the damn work on first boot - no text files - no download this - etc... sheesh hell I am a geek and I hated the damn hoops... I am one of those types of geeks that if the tech annoys me I just skip it because its not important enough to me to matter. I take things back to stores if they annoy me as anything should be easy and functional out of the box.
The problem I have with the Linux Desktop is that there is no reason for me to leave my Windows and Mac systems (yes I have both and use them both - even have a Windows Home server built on a refurb dell dual core slim line). The Mac is different enough from Windows that I actually feel I get something out of that. Too many of the distros that I used tried to "ape" Windows only to frustrate me with "well some of it works the same but not this.... or that..."
Really, want desktops, then out of the box turn key / push button / etc install... it connects to the net and gets their mail and browses all through a simple "wizard"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Finally someone that gets it.. thank you for giving me some hope of intelligence on slashdot.
In my opinion, and excuse "my french" is that "Money Talks". And the guys at RED HAT, are only interested on that. I Figured this out went they decided to seperate the Servers....from the desktop distros...when Fedora appeared. What they don't realize is that the growing Desktop Linux Community may be the fuel for more Sales on Linux Sales on the server market.
;-) Of all the organizations on the planet Red Hat may have the most experience with selling a consumer oriented Linux in traditional retail channels. Fedora was not really separating from servers, it was giving up on commercial desktop Linux after many years of trying to make it work. Also, a commercial perspective is an asset here not a liability. If commercial desktop Linux were to become viable then a profit oriented company like Red Hat would get behind it. Open Source greatly diminishes the chicken and the egg problem by creating that all important base of initial users that is necessary for large scale growth into the main population of users. The points I made in the GP support the notion that the potential for growth is not here yet.
I call BS.
They aren't saying its "too tough". They are saying it isn't lucrative enough. Margins in the server world are much better than in the desktop world.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha
Stupid Linux,OS's are for people.
Is it better to have a big ego or a usable OS.
It would be to hard to be mainstream and get blamed for all te vulnerabilities that would come.
I'll use Linux when they stop playing OS and get serious about what the want to be when they grow up.
Everyone here knows the term "illegal monopoly" is technically incorrect, yet everyone here everyone knows what the term implies. So quit karma whoring.
Clarification of terms is a very important aspect of any intelligent discussion. If a term is used to broadly, it comes becomes watered down and irrelevant.
Pooty tweet
And corporations like to keep things simple. Why have two distributions (one for the desktops, one for the servers) when one could do the job? This is where Ubuntu outshines.
The last time I looked, two or more is actually rather common, and not just Linux. I don't run the Windows server distributions as my desktop OS, even though they have similar (or identical) cores. The same thing for Apple. It's an apples/oranges argument. I really don't need office applications/games/etc. on my servers, but I don't need server applications on my desktops. You need capabilities for a server that you may - and in most cases, most definitely - not want on an office desktop. Businesses are rather used to this, because it is simpler. My own experience has been that there's a "standard" desktop that IT will support, and then there's the servers. They don't have to be identical, because it's often the case that the server people aren't the ones supporting the desktops, and vice versa.
The fanboys tell me over and over how this is the year of the Linux desktop, I've been hearing that since 1999, but I've tired of the issues I had trying to run Linux as my primary desktop. I bought a MacBook Pro last year and am very happy with it. I run Windows/Linux in VMWare Fusion when I need/want to do something in them but I really am quite happy at deciding to choose the Mac as my primary platform. I started using Linux in 1996 with Slackware 2.x but last year when I found myself still having to compile source code to get a new piece of hardware to work, without full functionality to boot, I through in towel and said I'm done. Linux will succeed on the desktop when hardware manufacturers build their products with Linux in mind and ship with Linux drivers. When the latest gadget that everybody wants has a sticker that says "Ready for Linux", Linux will have arrived.
If you read the article they talk about a lot of important components that they have personally contributed to support desktop Linux. I don't think they are shrinking from it, they are simply saying that can't make a lot of money with it yet. Look at the list below. Some of those items are of great importance for a clean, simple, and easy to use desktop. NetworkManager is a very important application for notebook computers. I can't imagine not having it now.
* X Revitalization effort (kernel modesetting, randr, dri2)
* Screen size control panel
* PolicyKit & ConsoleKit
* Gnome (screensaver, gvfs/gio, GtkPrint, etc)
* Liberation Fonts (with sponsorship of the Harfbuzz font shaper project)
* Theora encoder improvements
* Sponsorship of Ogg Ghost (successor to Ogg Vorbis)
* NetworkManager and Network driver work - developed by Red Hat
* OpenOffice.org 64-bit port
* OpenOffice.org integration into the rest of GNOME: Port to cairo, dictionary unification, print/file dialogs
* PulseAudio
* Bluetooth file sharing
* Ongoing hal maintenance and revitalization
* DBus and DBus activation
* Multiple power management activities:
-- Tickless kernel
-- Gnome power manager and the quirks list
-- Suspend/resume enhancements
-- Laptop backlight intensity autocontrol
-- www.lesswatts.org project support (such as Powertop)
-- CPUfreq
-- AMD PowerNow!
* and of course, lots and lots of bugfixes!
Red Hat hasn't been pushing a "desktop" since pre RHEL 9 which was 2003. This was before Ubuntu did their first release!!
I really don't see why people think this "news" is a retreat. This is a place Red Hat hasn't actively pushed their product as a "desktop" in 5 years. In fact it is probably wise of them to do so where they are not using resources to write software that isn't so necessary for their core business strength. The only news in this is that RH is confirming the strategy they had for years.
So Linux goes from 1% to 2%. Big deal. It isn't that hard (or notable) to get 1% or 2% of the market (or even 3% or 4%). If you have 45% of computer users, which is probably a billion people, and double that, that's something worth talking about.
Nothing times 2 is nothing but 1% times two in less than a year is huge. If it continues at that rate it gets to your 45% target in 3 1/2 years and has 2/3 of the market in 3 3/4.
Of course there are retarding effects as the market fraction increases which will make it fall back from the exponential. (It must eventually, since it can't go over 100%. B-) ) On the other hand, claiming a significant percentage turns the compatibility and social-networking effects in its favor.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They had been playing around with the branding on the server product and around the time they went with "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" is about the same time they stopped the desktop product and announced the Fedora project.
So if they're announcing that they're no longer targeting the home desktop, isn't that what they've been doing for something like 10 years? Or, are they really changing to only targeting servers and moving away from workstations altogether?
A W3Counter survey (this is presumably the page where the 2% figure came from):
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php
A Net Applications survey:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
These guys put OS X at 7.48% while W3C puts it at 4.91%. Linux gets 0.61% from Net Applications while W3C gives it 2.02%........
That's one helluva difference for two surveys that were both done in March 2008!
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I've tried "desktop Linuces" and found them all pretty clunky for the stuff I wanted to do.
... Does everything I need in a laptop - including all the unix tricks I WANT in a laptop. (Could have run it out-of-the-jewel-case, but decided to hand-port my firewall settings from the older laptop rather than trust that tool. B-) ) Even plays DVDs if I grab the codecs. Updating - utilities and kernel - is painless and (once I approve it) automatic - and the stock installation includes the tool that checks periodically and alerts me when it's needed.
I'd been in that boat as well. I switched to Linux (Red Hat) from Solaris for the Y2K upgrade and had been using various versions for desktop and laptop - mainly older ones - since. (And the company provides Gentoo-based desktops to engineers.) Yes, they were clunky - to progressively lessening degrees.
But last year I got a few days of non-crunch to migrate to a newer work laptop, and decided to try Ubuntu. And Gutsy came out the day after I committed to the move.
IMHO as of Ubuntu Gutsy, Linux is starting to hit its stride as a prime-time desktop/laptop OS. Hardware worked right off the bat: Graphics, mouse, WiFi,
Still a few rough edges:
- Some of the Microsoft tools used at work refuse to talk to anything but IE.
- Tried to use the GNU replacement for Flash with the screen's closed drivers and it would hang the window system, so I had to switch to real Adobe.
- I haven't found the right set of DLLs added to WINE to support the Avaya softphone (for VoIPing my company desk phone to the vacation house). Darn thing wants to use the Jet database. (But it doesn't seem to work on all the Windows laptops either.)
- VPN doesn't want to work over the WiFi because of a bug: It's hardcoded to use the ETH0 interface, which is the wired one unless you hand-tweak a config file.
- And of course the standard issues with Open Office not QUITE supporting all the hidden features of Word.
Still, for me it's crossed the threshold. And I expect it to only get smoother from here.
Which is good: We just got merged and the new mothership insists on running encrypted filesystems and token-based authorization on laptops that they let connect to some of the corporate servers. Only supported on Windows by IT. Throw in the towel and move to Windows? But just in time comes Hardy - the next long-term supported release - with encrypted filesystem installs as a stock configuration. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Linux will be a consumer desktop when and only when it is a corporate desktop.
And that will come when two things happen:
1) Corporations decide that making Bill Gates the richest guy in the world is not a productive use of their capital. As corporations are increasingly turning to open source software, Linux as a beneficiary of this is inevitable - especially if corporations like Red Hat continue to concentrate on the server side and let the rest of the community deal with the desktop.
2) Corporations discover that the use of Linux on the servers is accentuated by the use of Linux on the desktop. This is the reverse situation that happened with Windows. There, corporations started using Windows on the desktop, and subsequently accepted Windows server editions on their servers. However, those servers generally suck compared to UNIX/Linux. Therefore Linux will turn Windows (and older versions of UNIX) out of the data center. When that happens, corporations will perceive that the use of standard protocols and APIs are enhanced by both server and desktop running the same OS.
When that happens, corporations will demand Linux from their suppliers. Those suppliers will in turn demand certified drivers from their peripheral manufacturers. That will be the end of the driver problem.
And once corporate users are using Linux on their workstations, they will use it at home as well.
With Microsoft fumbling the release of every new OS they put out since Windows 2000 (it took XP three years or more to start displacing Windows 98 and 2000, and Vista looks like it's a failure), it's unlikely that they can withstand the tide of technological development that OSS represents.
No time table, however, can be put on this, as it is affected by other factors such as the general economy, ups and downs in Windows and Linux releases, etc. But a good guess is that within five to ten years, Linux will displace Windows in the data center, and subsequently over the next ten, on the desktop. That is, assuming some new OS doesn't come out and kill both of them - which appears to be unlikely.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
They hardly tried, even went as fae as making gnome and kde guis look the same just to avoid some problems. Gee thanks RH.
Pussies.
Debian and its related distros (ubuntu) ARE working on the desktop. So people can just move on fi they don't like Redhat'a attitude. Redhat is obviously only interested in gathering paid subscribers in the long run.
Yeah I'm talking to you. The wannabe computer programmer who thinks they are good at computers because they can click around the computer enough times and find the reboot button and 'fix' an inherently flawed windows system. You think you're cool because you can pirate photoshop but not know anything about it, get Microsoft Office for free but have the literacy of a 1st grader when writing a paper, and get a copy of Norton Anti-virus because your inherently flawed system is useless without Administrative privileges. Get a clue, you are not smart, you are just a corporate sheep for a company that will bury you if you ever tried to write any software that did anything remotely useful. You are a clickaround and all you know is your ugly gray existence that is Windows.
/dev/random > Windows.com
Want the source code to windows vista?
head -n 1000000
... in the GNU/Linux community.
Add that to the big list as well.
I'm talking 100% perfect sense and a lot of **painfully** verified truth.
When Linux bosses want Linux to be an "elitist" geek toy, we might as well all discuss something else about Linux.
Linux users and LUG coordinators and regional FLOSS leaders are busy NOT thinking of adoption. Its left to a commercial controversial distro like Linspire to do new things to attract more layman customers.
And many here hate Linspire for it's Windows-ness.
ESR may or may not a greedy businessman, he sure knows who has worked hard at making Desktop Linux useful to common people.
Those are my views. YMMV.
Why is this tagged "ubuntu"? This has very little to do with Ubuntu. The tag "Linux" would work much better.
RedHat is figuring out that there is no way they can keep up with SuSE and Ubuntu, and that any mass market consumer business is tough, so they are focusing on what they think is a cash cow: servers.
Of course, many other companies have made the same mistake.
When you own the hardware and the OS it's a lot easier. There's some irony in Red Hat saying taht they don't (or aren't capable) of doing what Microsoft has tried to do which is build an operating system that works on almost infinitive combinations of hardware and software.
Take ATI out of the picture with a modern Nvidia replacement and you've got a trouble free setup with self-installing binary drivers. I support 11 computers owned by 9 independent people running Ubuntu. GNU/Linux evangelism at work -- with a little nod towards Nvidia for binary driver support. And that last word is the key in the sentence.
However, with AMD at the helm and ATI chipset APIs openly documented, the scenarios of poor driver compatibility should be coming to an end.
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
Red Hat Enterprise Linux is more like Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS. Fedora and Ubuntu both have 6 month release schedules, a new version of Debian | RHEL | Ubuntu LTS takes years.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I will now.
Everybody says "Apps" over here.
Boo-hoo! Nineties calling back!
Such a bunch of oldies!
It's not about work (apps) anymore, it's about home now (entertainment, media)!
Kids and olds want to pop in that "I Am Legend" BR-DVD and watch it on big screen. LEGALLY, without hacking. Will Linux give it to them? No. Because of DRM (ideology, not tech).
Does Youtube play on x86-64 well? No. It crashes. Because of buggy Flash (yes, 8GB per PC slooowly becoming the norm and don't give me that shit that 640KB/4GB ought to be enough for everybody).
Does Netflix play online movies on Linux (their content sloooowly gets better, BTW). No. They don't care.
Daddy's little princess wants to play "My Little Pony" game on PC. "Sorry, darling. Capitalistic pigs do not make that game for my beloved OS". Screw you, daddy!
RMS was rihght, right, right about media.
FSF had to buy rights for (blob?) codecs.
Did anybody listen to him?
Nope. Slashdot laughed at him.
Now eat what you seeded.
-----
And the "64-bit war" is practically lost, too.
Ever since my Pentium box I've never had any issues with Linux drivers(other then ATI and broadcom drivers). Linux works more "out of the box" then Windows 95/98/98SE/2k/XP/Vista for me. So I prefer Linux to Windows, obviously.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
Aside from obvious apps it doesn't have, Linux also doesn't have good enough hardware support. I use Linux at home on my desktop (Ubuntu), however, on my work laptop (Dell D620), I have tried four different Linux distributions -- only to fail on wireless.
Linux still doesn't know how to handle the laptop. Until Linux is able to easily handle things like docking stations, external monitors, and 802.11 WPA connections on common wireless chipsets... Linux on the desktop isn't going anywhere fast.
But then again, Microsoft isn't either, anymore. MS can't figure out if they sell operating systems, software, advertising, email, or web portal services.
I'd be really happy if they were an operating system company that dabbles in software. That's what they did a decade ago and it worked really well. Maybe we'll get lucky and the company will split up into relatively independent companies that actually give a damn about their core products.
It's nice to see that Red Hat understands this problem, and is taking steps to ensure they don't lose their focus, even though we'd all like to see a really good microsoft OS alternative that doesn't require proprietary hardware *cough*apple*cough*
I wounder..
a server can be setup and possibly not upgraded for years if it works no need to touch it. but I find that red hat package system does not cut it if you are upgrading every year or so things to your linux server.
For the desktop your updating sometimes weekly items so package dependencies are a little more crazier depending on the package. so maintaining a desktop you need a decent package system
that can deal with proper removal of packages and can be smart enough to deal with most of that.
Maybe thats why the debian based desktop s are so successfully and that it has nothing to do with that redhat thinks they are so tough. (they are not touch just tough for redhat
Well, after several years, most Operating Systems settled on UNIX or UNIX-like for the backend (Novell NetWare, Apple Mac OS, Solaris etc). They even settled on the Desktop Metaphor GUI with mouse & pointer for the front-end. However, only two have made it into the common public perception - Windows and Mac OS.
...and there was Peace in the Land :-)
Given Windows is a dog's breakfast of a GUI (come on - you know it's true), I would suggest someone like RedHat license the Apple GUI engine (Quartz/Aqua etc) and put it on top of the Linux kernel. Apple makes a cut, RedHat makes a cut, and the user gets a really cool GUI environment.
Then we'd just need to convince Microsoft to abandon their kernel and adopt Linux as the base. Following that, transition from the Windows GUI to the Apple one.
I've used Red Hat for years but it won't install (easily) on recent laptops so I've started using Ubuntu on non-server systems. A side effect of this has been that I've gotten used to the Ubuntu way of doing things and switching back to the Red Hat way when working on servers becomes harder as time goes by.
If you lose the desktop, you're going to lose the battle.
The most stable platform is one where you switch the power off. All OSs undergo evolution, whether they do it openly or behind closed doors until they release something "error free" (TM)
If you take the concept seriously that being aware of ever present conflicts within a system is inherant to its usability, then its not hard to see why something like Vista is having a hard time.
Looking at say sound development on Linux, I used OSS to start with years ago, made the shift to esd for a while, but it lacked the general app support becasue it was no proxy for OSS. ALSA came in from the side with support for the growing list of sound hardware and was a proxy of OSS, so users and developers gravitated to it. Now it seems Pulseaudio has realized the importance of being a proxy for other methods as a means of survival.
The key, Flash - it now has a pulseaudio supported beta floating around. SO, I would expect all to gravitate toward it.
When this is stable, it will represent the unification of all that is linux sound (bar pro mixing/editing) from past to present and since new things come from what we have now - its done and desktop.
Looking at all other efforts for unified linux sound as failures completely ignores how we discover new functionality, how we progress through being introduced to new methods from others. Without a playground, you've got dos.
Linux is just beginning its gradual ride to the top. its a generational thing I think, to see it become normal means accepting conflict as inherant to growth on a large scale.
When you try to force a unified system that has no conflict but somehow "grew" - the conflicts that are inherant are not discovered until users freak out when they do something or combine something the developers did not intend.
Its a consequence of the commercial model of systems. Perfect stability is a great marketing concept.
Yeah, I'm talking to you. The pseudo-artistic elitist who thinks that they are more enlightened because they are willing to pay a premium for vendor-lockin hardware and intellectually demeaning marketing that worked on them. You think you're cool because you have a brand-name mp3 player, a shiny-albeit useless PC, and Steve Jobs' cock in your mouth. You think you're ethically superior because you don't pirate software, when in truth it is because the rest of the world knows that your platform is useless and doesn't bother to trade in software for it. You think that you are "nonconformist" just like every other Mactard, because you don't pay Microsoft, preferring instead to pay another big company that tells you how you are allowed to use your own equipment. You think that your platform is powerful because someone, somewhere may have used it to do postproduction on some movie, despite the fact that you don't even know the name of said software, much less how to use it.
You and your money are soon parted.
You also bring up the point of "paying someone to fix it for you". Which do you think is easier to find in Tulsa, Oklahoma; a Windows expert or a Ubuntu expert? I live in Silicon Valley, it's not hard for me to find a Linux expert (hell, I AM a Linux expert). But I suspect that isn't true in much of the United States. And most of the companies I've worked with overseas used Windows extensively as well. You could probably count me as a mini-mini power user. I am not afraid to wipe a hard drive and install an OS. But on a regular basis, I try to stay away from the command line as much as possible and I can't code anything. I think you're selling yourself short. You're already obviously above 90% of computer users in knowledge, which makes you far from typical. Frankly, I do IT and tech support for a living and based on my experience, 90% of users have serious problems managing their Windows desktops at home. The ones that fare best typically get help from their company's IT or they have a kid or friend that's good with Windows. Because, in practice, few people can afford to pay for truly competent private tech support.
I have installed Linux on five different computers. All were average computers - three desktops and two laptops. I have friends who installed Linux on another 4-5 computers. Collectively we have demonstrated Linux LiveCDs on DOZENS of computers for folks who have never heard of Linux and were curious - with only 2 or 3 exceptions all of the hardware would run Linux without a hitch.
Yes there have been a couple challenges - old softmodems would not generally work and 3D video was hit or miss. I say this to be realistic - don't stop reading here b/c I have had an equal number of Windows systems that I have installed over the years that had serious driver problems or hardware that would never work.
The Linux community is building this OS with very little or no vendor support. VERY impressive to me and mine.
There are thousands of software titles available and I use about two dozen. I can do more with my Mandriva Linux than I ever could with Windows b/c there are no pricetag barriers. There have been some very impressive improvements over the past 5 years that I have been using Linux and the Linux community has impressed me endlessly since I switched to Linux.
Are there some rough edges? Sure but then there have been with all of the Microsoft OS options. Big deal.
I recommend for those of you who can't get the OS installed to give it another look on a different computer. I have planned upgrades around Linux supported hardware (Nvidia video cards for example) and my system is 100% supported. Only my video card and modem (way back when) were chosen specifically b/c what I already owned would not work.
THIS is the year of the Linux desktop. So was last year and the year before if you want to learn a few things, nothing complicated. I'm installing the next version of Mandriva (2008.1) on a 5 year old computer this morning. 30 mins and under 10 clicks with the mouse. No command line work at all.
The biggest problem I see with Linux is the average consumer - a good number of them don't want change. A lady I know complained that her pirated MS Office 1997 quit working (corrupt install) and asked me to fix it. I would not but I installed OpenOffice for her. It far exceeded her needs but the simple differences in GUI was really hard for her to "cope" with. She didn't want to learn anything. I see college kids with this problem occasionally too. Can't cope with change. I think the lady i mentioned had a family kid come and install another pirated MS Office 1997 so she didn't have to learn anything.
Now I turn off the OpenOffice splash screen, and just tell the computer muggles that what I installed was a simple upgrade. They love it and never complain about the GUI differences. It is just the idea of change that scares them.