Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Avoids Desktop Linux, Says Too Tough

Posted by Zonk on from the choosing-where-to-fight-your-battles dept.

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.'"

8 of 472 comments (clear)

  1. Fair enough by locokamil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Smart move by pablo_max · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps they understand that most folks, like myself, don't care about the OS, they care about the applications.

  3. The problem is software. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The problem with the viability of desktop Linux, and why everyone is so leery of it, is the lack of consumer software for it. True enough, OpenOffice is an admirable effort, and it is getting very close to parity with MS Office. And Firefox / etc. are fine. But there is more to do on these damn machines than write emails, documents, presentations, and spreadsheets.

    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.
    1. Re:The problem is software. by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I couldn't disagree more. How many users do you think, are actually using one of these professional tools?

      I think only a few. Most users still use there computer for web browsing, emailing wordprocessing and IM.

      Although it would be nice to have those professional applications ported or seriously replaced with Open Source versions, it's definitely not the BIG problem of Linux on the desktop

  4. Re:Whither Fedora? by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Um, the year of the linux server was a while back. It's gone past buzzword status and become mainstream practice.

  5. Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most important lesson from Apple is that you can be successful in many ways (including making lots of money) with a few percent market share. Gauging Linux's success on market share is pointless.

    Who cares if most people use Windows? All we need is enough of a Linux community to ensure a thriving and evolving platform for those who find that Windows and/or OS X does not meet their needs. You can easily achieve that with a market share of 0.5%.

    Please, no more "World Domination" bullshit.

  6. Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In short, merely being perfectly usable by grandma does not make Linux the viable alternative to Windows from the perspective of an *average consumer*. Our techno babble means nothing to them. Linux needs far more work to justify the switching costs in their eyes. Excellent point! This is the real issue - and has been for several years. Forget the "year of the Linux desktop" trolls. The fact that Linux has been "good enough" for quite some time doesn't open the floodgates of users. There's a lot more involved here.

    As another AC in this thread noted:

    When you know something is possible on Windows and you know something is possible on Linux, the first one means YOU can do it, the second one means YOU can probably do it within 72 hours and with the help of some forum posts.


    The underlying issue here is that software and hardware rarely gets targeted at Linux at this point. I'm a long-term Linux desktop user and fan... and I'm still pleasantly surprised when I take a random piece of hardware and it works seamlessly with my desktop (its happening more and more often). I'm shocked whenever a shrinkwrapped app is available for Linux.

    Once this last hurdle is overcome, we'll get acceptance. That's when Linux's "good enough" functionality and low cost really shines.

    If only one wasn't dependant on the other. Of course - this is the same Catch-22 that's been around as long as the "year of the Linux desktop."
  7. Re:Me too by abigor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People don't use operating systems - they use apps. If the apps are there, then people will use whatever OS the computer comes with.

    Linux doesn't have the apps - Quicken? Nope. QuickTax? Nope. Photoshop? Nope. Office? Nope (although CrossOver is pretty good these days). Garage Band? Nope. And on and on and on...

    However, if you are like me and have very simple needs - coding, browsing, email, Skype - then it's fine. I've been using it on the desktop since 1997, although my main desktop is now a Mac, which is the best of all worlds: commercial apps, Unix, and a beautiful, solid desktop.