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.'"

Comments

Fair enough

[locokamil]

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.

Whither Fedora?

[Craig Maloney]

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.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[peragrin]

why do you think Red Hat spun Fedora off, and have set them up as mostly self sufficient? The personal desktop market isn't profitable when you have to compete against an illegal monopoly. Even with Free software as a base.

The year of the Linux desktop isn't going to happen. the year of the Linux mobile, the Linux server, and the Linux hand-held computer, however are fast approaching.

Linux will take the desktop market through the back door. By getting in on every other device first.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[fyrie]

As usual, the /. headline is misleading. TFA more-or-less says that they have no plans to produce a consumer desktop product because they don't see it as a money maker. This basically means that they don't plan on having a boxed desktop product that you can buy at the store like Mandriva. Fedora will continue on as is - something they work on with the community but don't sell.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[JeremyGNJ]

Be honest with yourself. That's not *really* linux on a phone, at least not in a way that would ever have any influence over a user switching their Desktop OS.
It's just a way manufacturers found to avoid hiring 2 or 3 more programmers.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[Bogtha]

Linux will take the desktop market through the back door.

On the contrary, I think it's Windows that has been taking the desktop market through the back door, for quite a while now. Roughly, without lube.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[sobachatina]

On the contrary- his post was well worded.

A monopoly can be ruled illegal if it is abused. Microsoft was convicted of abusing its monopoly so it is appropriate to clarify that their monopoly is technically of the illegal variety.

You should be more careful before throwing insults around- it has the potential to backfire.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[Tanktalus]

While you're right that not all monopolies are illegal, that doesn't mean that there isn't a subset of monopolies that are illegal. From a layperson's perspective, any monopoly taken through the court systems and found to be in violation of the region-specific version of anti-trust laws can be called an illegal monopoly without fear of slander/libel charges (using truth as a defense).

From the prosecutorial perspective, it's a bit more convoluted, but simply put, we could say they were charged with being an illegal monopoly while the trial was underway.

If they haven't been charged, then you can only suspect them of operating illegally without exposing yourself to slander/libel charges.

There most definitely are illegal monopolies. Thus the splitting of Bell. Thus the long trial and settled-out-of-court slap on the wrist of IBM. Thus the sanctions demanded of (and largely ignored by) Microsoft in the US. But the US isn't the only region that has found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing their monopoly position. So has the EU. Thus, I'd suggest that we'd be fully in the right declaring not only the obvious that they are a monopoly, but that they've abused it in a manner inconsistent with the law: an illegal monopoly.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[drakaan]

Doesn't that mean that a monopoly that abuses their/its power is an illegal monopoly?

Re:Whither Fedora?

[canuck57]

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.

Lets hope Fedora continues, it is my favorite desktop distro. I like how the menus pull down from the top and are clean and organized. And have always had good stable use from it. In fact, I am counting the days to Fedora 9's release. (Fedora's site.

I really don't think RedHat can afford to let Fedora die. It is after all related to their desktop. And business does not drive the desktop, people do. Maybe the marketing misses this point, but business will buy what the users walk in the door knowing. Business are so adverse to training and change, they will follow user skills not lead in them. So unless RedHat wants to be a server only distribution in the future, they need Fedora.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[Culture20]

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

Re:Whither Fedora?

[canuck57]

I know you were ranked funny because of how it is worded. But there is truth to it.

Lets go back to before PCs. I/T and business didn't bring them in, the real McCoy "hackers" and engineers did. Then the users got on board, often with their own dime or in at least the department business unit bought them. There was no direction from I/T or senior management. The PC crept in through the back doors. I/T even used to say use the mainframe, we don't support the PCs.

At some point the business and I/T woke up and found these PCs took over the workplace, and finally invested in it. The business was driven by the users.

The Linux desktop is no different, get the home users and it will be dragged into business. The other way around isn't going to work.

If anything, Red Hat aught to produce a home user version that is so easy to install a 5 year old could do it. And leverage the Vista mess and hand me down computers. Sell it for $20 a download. Get it out there as a choice for new laptops.

PCs, DOS and MS-Windows came in the back door, and if X-Windows Linux wants it, that is the way in.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[ShieldW0lf]

Sometimes it's about usability, not evangelism. Some people (like those who hate the nvidia binary drivers) would be much better off if they'd just learn that.

Like when Linus makes a change in the way the kernel works, and the nvidia drivers break, and no one can fix them? Is this the usability you're referring to?

You can't have usability when someone else is in control and they're not interested in your problems. It's really that simple.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[pressman]

Well, M$ is not an illegal monopoly, they are a confirmed monopoly which has been convicted of illegal behavior.

A semantic issue, for sure.

There is nothing inherently illegal with their monopoly, but many of their actions which created a barrier to entry into the market as well as blatantly killing off emerging technologies by leveraging their monopoly in other areas are what is abusive and illegal. It's what they got "busted" for, if you can call what the DoJ did to them "busting".

The Bush era DoJ should have had the cajones to split them up as per the judges decree, but I suspect too many people in the Bush administration have too much cash tied up in M$ to do that.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[bignetbuy]

It'll be fine. They don't provide much (any?) financial support for Fedora anymore. I think the foundation takes care of that RHAT provides people, resources, money, hosting, and other assets to Fedora. There is even a Fedora group within RHAT HQ that works 100% of the time on Fedora. That doesn't even include the numerous bugfixes and other coding that RHAT corp developers do for Fedora.

Re:Whither Fedora?

[bfields]

The article title is inaccurate (the press release specifically say they're avoiding the *consumer* desktop, not desktops in general), and misleading (note they're *avoiding* the consumer desktop market, as they always have, not dropping anything new). The release specifically claims that they continue to support Fedora, their enterprise desktop, and their "global" desktop.

They're doing what I'd expect most companies would do in the face of a large entrenched competitor: finding a few niches where they can compete and using those as toeholds to justify further development. And they do a lot of desktop development.

Seems reasonable to me.

Smart move

[pablo_max]

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

Re:Smart move

[waitd]

What I had been thinking about is getting a copy of Microsoft Windows XP designed for the EEE machines when it comes out. It is supposed to be a VERY small foot print and if it will still support the hardware in my system that would be a great base to install VMware on top of and run all my OS's in VMware.

Or I suppose I could try to strip XP down, but that seems like a lot of work. Any one have any good links on how to strip XP down to the BARE MINIMUM?

Re:Smart move

[tarrantm]

nLite: http://www.nliteos.com/ and there's vLite for vista.

Desktop Linux

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:Desktop Linux

[mdm-adph]

You do know that Microsoft's personal deals with nearly every hardware manufacturer out there has a LOT to do with Windows' general "lack of fuss."

Re:Desktop Linux

[mdm-adph]

The biggest one, IMHO, is that the open source community has high esteem/respect for developers, but other tasks that go into producing a polished product meant to be used by less technical people aren't valued the same way. I think someday the community will come around and place high values on rigorous testing, UI design, user documentation, etc., and that really will be "the year of Linux on the desktop." Agreed, as long as it's understood that no matter how hard the community works at anything, it's irrelevant if hardware manufacturers keep producing products that are dependent upon Windows' proprietary technologies (remember "Winmodems?") as well as making it extremely hard -- if not frequently impossible -- to get technical information on hardware just so that the community can begin to code drivers.

The community works as hard as it can, but it sometimes seems like companies are almost working actively against Linux compatibility, and if that's the case, no amount of polishing will ever make much of a difference.

Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[eldavojohn]

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 certainly didn't intend this submission to sound like I was blaming Red Hat for abandoning Linux on the desktop for the single user. I was, instead, hoping this would generate interesting conversation about whether or not desktop Linux is supposed to be delivered by a company. Perhaps it has to come from single developers working together? Red Hat contributes big time (over 10% of all contributions I think) to kernel development so they're already a god to me.

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 ...

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[ewanm89]

Canonical is based in Europe (London IIRC):

Founded in late 2004, Canonical Ltd is a company headquartered in Europe with 130 employees working in over 18 countries. Canonical is the commercial sponsor of Ubuntu project.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[Super Jamie]

Canonical is Mark Shuttleworth's toy, and he's loving Linux at the moment, in between his spaceflight holidays. The company is at least covering costs, if not profitable, but he slipped the Ubuntu Foundation a spare $10M pocket money, should rainy days come. I don't think Ubuntu is going away any time soon :)

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Linux is technically ready for the desktop.

From an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective. What is the easily communicated value that more than overcomes the network effect of Windows' accumulated user knowledge (already knows how to use Windows and Office), file interoperability (nearly everyone else is using office), informal support (family and friends can often help), ...; and overcomes the switching costs of installing Linux (possibly having to pay someone to do it), learning an entirely different operating system and set of applications, a lack of informal support (family and friends still on Windows), ...

Now a company with support capacity and marketing abilities is needed if we want to see more than a 2% market share

Look at Macintosh. It is unix based, has a better user interface than Linux, more informal support, a major consumer brand name behind it, MS Office is natively available, ... and it is around 5-6%. Once you have sold a person on leaving Windows you also have to sell them on going with Linux rather than Mac OS X. Consumers have options once they leave Windows, you can not assume they will go to Linux. Even if Linux were more competitive with Mac OS X, Apple's market share suggests that Linux can not really improve it's share much.

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.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[ozmanjusri]

Now a company with support capacity and marketing abilities is needed if we want to see more than a 2% market share

According to W3Counter, Linux passed 2% in January.

If their figures are believable, Linux use has close to doubled in the past nine months.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[AvitarX]

The only compelling reason I have for the everyman is $200.00 (100 for windows + 100 for works).

I like it personally because it is:
1) customizable (no broad appeal)
2) easier to do advanced things, especially for free (hellaNZB, video codecs, Simple DVD authoring)
3) secure (as in lower profile at the very least)

I don't think those things appeal at all to the general population though. Afterall, how many even know what a news group is?

With Ubuntu 7.04 and then especially with 7.10 I have not booted into windows for over 6 months (since 7.10 beta). I would be really hard pressed to recomend Windows to anyone whos computer I will be supporting unless I think they really need something it offers (games for example, I really miss Rome Total War).

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[Jedi Alec]

From an engineering perspective but not from a marketing perspective. What is the easily communicated value that more than overcomes the network effect of Windows' accumulated user knowledge (already knows how to use Windows and Office)

Speaking as someone who's just had to switch from Office 2000 to 2007, at this point I'm seriously considering going for OO instead. I'll have to pretty much learn how to use the damn suite all over again anyway, might as well get the right thing while I'm at it.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[Markspark]

this year, my school switched from office 200x to Office 2007, and i actually think that this is the first thing MS got right, from my perspective, after a few hours, you find your way around it, and it's alot faster to do scientific papers in the new version than in the old ones.
at home i use OpenOffice, and i think it still has a far way to go. (atleast when it comes to writing equations and stuff, i guess i should switch to latex)

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[uab21]

I'm participating in a StarOffice beta at my current company to see if we can avoid updating our Office2000 installation to Office2007 next year. Everyone I've roped into the beta has uninstalled it within 48 hours. (including me, but I re-installed it to see if I could find ways to workaround what really bugs people). The biggest headache is Excel files with charts (why the hell can't I have a chart on a separate tab in Star by default? Without having to reset background fill and size?), and extensive Visual Basic macros (will those work in 2007 anyway?). The documents and presentation stuff work fine, but the files 'look different' when first opened (although they print fine) - I think Star needs a default 'looks like MS' option for viewing mode when opening a .doc or .ppt

Bottom line is I don't see companies switching, and so individuals likely won't either

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[jc42]

Linux is technically ready for the desktop.

Nah; it isn't, and it can't ever be. The explanation is straightforward.

If you look through this or any other discussion of "Is linux ready for the Desktop?", you'll quickly see that the only test is: Can a Windows user start using linux with no learning period, and find that everything is familiar?

Now, not that this isn't something that is required of Microsoft. If a W98 user goes to buy a new workstation or laptop, they'll find that they can't buy it with W98 any more. They'll have to get Vista (or maybe XP). They'll have to spend a bunch of time learning the bizarre (to them) new Windows GUI. They'll grumble, but they'll do it. And they won't ask "Is Vista ready for the Desktop?"

The reason is that, like such terms as "Personal Computer", "Windows", and "Office", the term "Desktop" now has a specific meaning. Thus, "Personal Computer" first meant a computer owned and used by one person, but when the Microsoft/IBM partnership got into the act, "Personal Computer" quickly came to mean a computer owned and used by one person, and which runs Microsoft software. Similarly, "Windows" first means a GUI that presented info in those rectangular areas on the screen. Then Microsoft finally implemented windows, and "Windows" means a screen that was controlled by Microsoft software that presented info in those rectangular areas on the screen.

Way back in the olden days, "Desktop" meant a computer interface (display, keyboard, and eventually mouse) that sat on your desk's top and interacted with a computer (which may have been on the floor next to your desk or in another room down the hall). But now "Desktop" clearly means that gadgetry sitting on your desk's top, and is running a GUI that's exactly like the one that Microsoft has sold to their customers.

And here's where the problem comes for non-MS vendors. Microsoft has in fact sold dozens of different "Desktop" systems, each with its own peculiar way of interacting with a user. If linux is to be accepted as a "Desktop" system, it must act exactly the way a user's previous Windows system acted. Without the user telling it which Windows he/she has been using. Without any learning on the user's part.

Short of hardware (and a linux-compatible driver ;-) that reads a user's mind and transmits the user's expectations to the Desktop software, this is clearly not feasible. I'm pretty sure we'd have all heard of mind-reading hardware, if it was in development. Without such hardware, there's no way that a linux system can know what a user expects to see on the screen, or how to use it. And visiting Windows users can be guaranteed to see something that they don't like, because it's different from what their Windows screen shows.

This whole "Desktop" thing is a euphemism for what in procurement circles is called a "drop dead" requirement. That's for when you've decided on the vendor that is going to supply what you want, but you are required to request bids from other vendors. You make up a requirement list that includes things that your chosen vendor can do exactly as described right now. You carefully phrase the requirements so that the other vendors' products are different in small ways from what you've written. That way, you can quickly point out that only the one vendor actually satisfies the requirements. The tiny details in the other products are "wrong", and unacceptable. Your chosen vendor gets his sale, you get your kickback, and everyone's happy.

If the linux crowd wants to horn in on Microsoft's territory, they'll have to abandon this "Desktop" metaphor, because that has been thoroughly hijacked by Microsoft. They'll have to find some other language. Maybe persuading users to upgrade to a higher-quality, cheaper system from vendors that won't sue them for reasonable use of their software. That has a chance of succeeding.

But taking over "the Desktop" on Microsoft's terms ain't gonna happen. It's not possible for linux or any other system to emulate all previous Microsoft GUIs without any user training. And that's what has to be done to take over the Desktop.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[dekemoose]

Windows to anyone whos computer I will be supporting unless I think they really need something it offers (games for example, I really miss Rome Total War).
Look at Crossover Games if Wine won't do it for you. It's based on Wine, but they're putting a lot of focus on getting games to work. I use Crossover Office and it works really well for me, worth the money.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Easy, virus and malware.

No. That has been a Linux advantage for *many* years and failed to overcome inertia. The switching costs of Linux exceeds getting AV software and learning not to run things sent to you in email or downloaded from unknown web sites.

Not having to reinstall the machine every six months is a very important advantage.

A delusional anecdote. That is not part of the average Windows home user's experience.

Then we have the licensing costs of windows and applications.

Largely insignificant when bundled with a new computer, which is where most Windows home users get Word and Excel.

Then we have the fact that you can't get Windows XP anymore and you will be bringing to his knees any computer that runs Vista. On the other hand, Linux is quite happy with older computers.

Wrong. I just checked Dell's Home and Home Office channel, they still have a pair of big buttons saying "Configure with Windows Vista" and "Configure with Windows XP". More importantly, few home users upgrade their OS merely because an OS is released, they change OS when they buy their next computer. The older computers argument is a red herring, the older computer works just fine with the version of Windows, Word, and Excel they came with. Hell, I'm still using Office 97 at home.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[RiotingPacifist]

Pre-installed Windows will cost you about £20 or something ridiculously small, you do have a point about MS works / office, but you can install OpenOffice on windows. Cost may be a good enough reason for somebody who is building their own PC, but if your building a pc your already enough of a geek to run Linux or just crack windows.

I suppose we could try and get those geeks that crack windows to switch but they'll probably get whatever your selling for free anyway, so they're is no money in it.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[AHumbleOpinion]

Having to buy new hardware is a gigantic hurdle to take just to switch to another operating system.

No it is not, buying a new computer is exactly where most people get new operating systems. Few home users upgrade the OS on old machines. The same will be true for migration to Linux, the easiest point to get someone to switch is when they are shopping for a new system.

Re:Is Company Driven Linux Meant for the Desktop?

[__aaqvdr516]

Easy, virus and malware. You can say that linux is not attacked because it is not mainstream as much as you want, but the fact is that there are no virus or malware for linux on the wild.

And the 2 trojans, 21 Viruses, and 10 worms listed on Wikipedia are what exactly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses

I know Wikipedia is not the most reliable source, but to say that there are no virus or malware for Linux is nonsense. I'll give you that they are much less prevalent due to the differences in distributions and the overall security model of Linux. When Linux gets it's fair share of the desktop, you'll see a huge upsurge in the number of viruses due to the standardization of the install for the general masses.

Confused ...

[gstoddart]

OK, so I'm thick, I'll confess.

But, seriously ... 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.

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

Re:Confused ...

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Red Hat is just being disingenuous. They're really in the business of selling support for a free product to companies who want to run Linux on their servers and still have somebody to yell at when things go wrong. If you think about it, Microsoft isn't really interested in the "desktop" business either - they want to sell to companies, so they can charge full price, (re)sell frequent upgrades, and sign fat support contracts. After the initial sale, there's NO money to be made (either by Red Hat or Microsoft) for the typical "home desktop" machine - there's only headaches to be had from that market.

Re:Confused ...

[tomtomtom777]

What is missing from the puzzle for being a "desktop"?

Simple answer: easy installation.

FreeBSD with Gnome or KDE is simply not comparable to Ubuntu Hardy (for example) in terms of installation and administration for the average Joe.

I agree that for the desktop might not be the right terminology but if you step in Joe's shoes and compare both solutions you'll notice a huge difference.

Re:Confused ...

[beelsebob]

What's missing is the finishing off, and the polishing that so many computer geeks seem to miss.

An example:
Leopard has a very shiny feature called time machine
The same thing can be done in Linux in a variety of different ways.

What's missing then?
No linux distribution has *one* nicely flagged easy way to do this, that makes the user feel confident about what they're doing. There are no rounded corners, or neat animations to bring up the GUI for it, or beautifully simple browsers with big friendly buttons saying "restore". Even if this did exist, it would probably work in a completely different way to the rest of the system, leaving the user with no confidence that they're doing the right thing.

Re:Confused ...

[jimicus]

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? Every time one problem is solved, it's another one.

It used to be "No serious office software". Then OpenOffice came to be.

Then it was "very difficult to configure" (never mind that in businesses, where much of the money is, a dedicated IT department does all the configuring and they sure as hell don't go around like monkeys clicking "Next Next Next" on every PC). Then Ubuntu came to be.

Right now there are a few more - the first two that spring to mind are "very difficult to manage across a large group in a similar easy fashion to Windows - you can't easily click a button and - poof! - an icon for an application will appear on the desktop of everyone belonging to a particular group, you can't easily centrally disable UI functionality on a per-group basis so end users don't see anything that might confuse them." The general answer to that one is "it's not that hard to roll your own" - which is certainly true but few IT departments want to re-invent the wheel. Canonical have a product called "Landscape" which supposedly solves this but it's only available when you pay for support so how good it is I don't know.

The second argument right now is "all the little business applications which handle boring things like payroll and accounts, of which there are myriad, are conspicuous by their absence on Linux".

Once this problem is solved, I imagine something else will come up. I think what it really boils down to is "a migration would provide little benefit and cause a great deal of work which we can't justify". Which is probably the most sound business reason that exists - make no mistake, it will continue to exist for a very long time. Lots of companies stuck with dumb terminals for years, only to migrate to PCs with a terminal emulator for the business application.

Re:Confused ...

[Tikkun]

So... then you're saying... that Windows isn't ready for the desktop because it doesn't have Time Machine.

Re:Confused ...

[pebs]

WTF is fundamentally missing that it can't be a "desktop"?

Working power management. Just when I have power management somewhat working, the next kernel upgrade breaks it. Power management is especially important on a laptop, but also important on a desktop when you want to be energy efficient.

And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[deragon]

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.

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[deragon]

Replying to myself.

Yes, they plan to offer an enterprise version of the Desktop, but that requires a license. Organization with Linux on the Desktop will eventually influence what their employees run at home. But employees will probably get another free distribution. And if they are familiar and comfortable with a free and libre version at home, managers might be eventually enticed to switch the corporate desktops to this version too.

And AFAIK, free version usually have a bigger repository of software than enterprise versions. That is also appealing.

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[Anonymous Coward]

Canonical sure wants to take over. They've got one step to cross first... Turning a profit _before_ Mark runs out of money...

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[newbiefan]

In the Red Hat world, you install Fedora to try it. You find a problem and want support, tough. If you want Red Hat Enterprise Linux for free, get CentOS. Red Hat contributes more to free software than Canonical.

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[pembo13]

Is not like RedHat isn't already spending money on the "Linux Desktop". Or do you think all those fancy stuff people from @redhat.com write and find their way to the Ubuntu desktop get all reinvented and rewritten from scratch. Fedora is free to the user, but not to RedHat.

Ubuntu is okay and all that, but I believe that RedHat does more than their fair share for the community. If they feel they don't have enough resources reaming to package a proper desktop distro, then so be it. If Ubuntu people want to use this as a reason to kill of RedHat, then I hope they are poised to feel both their own position in the community AND RedHat's

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[deragon]

Yes, but if you want support from THE vendor, you won't get it. With Ubuntu, you can install for free and get support from THE vendor. Of course, you probably can get support for CentOS from 3rd parties, but large corporations prefer to get support from THE vendor, i.e. those who actually designed the product in the first place.

Re:And Ubuntu will take over in the long run.

[Pros_n_Cons]

Canonical barely does any marketing (ever saw an add from Ubuntu?)

Your post was the last time I saw a Ubuntu commercial.
Fedora isn't a try out of RHEL

If Ubuntu is taking over Red Hat let me know when all the ISV's certify ubuntu, when it becomes EAL4 certified (if it does you can thank redhat for pushing SElinux into ubuntu), when they are opening more code than any other company, when they have a cert nearly as respectable as RHC*.
I mean Ubuntu doesn't even contribute to the kernel hardly, or anything else for that matter yet they're going to take over? RedHat has been in this game 20 years and wrote more code in there by any company. You think Red Hat has never seen a free alternitive before? Hell they help a couple of them, fedora, whitebox(made a copywrite RPM to simplify clone OS's and supply SRPM instead of clunky source code with embedded copywrites) .

you should really read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RedHatContributions first. That isn't 2 line bugfixes for drivers either. Skip down to the kernel area.. RedHat is responsible for 13% of the kernel writing, far more than any other company. I'm not sure how much Ubuntu server people have written to the kernel cause it only goes down to 0.8% and they aren't above that.

Just making the point that before they take over the server how about writing some of it.

Desktop Linux

[Sadsfae]

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.

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

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.

Re:hmm.

[Constantine XVI]

RedHat has ALWAYS focused on the server/workstation market. They're not focusing on the desktop because the backroom is what they're best at.

Re:hmm.

[apodyopsis]

lol! Look at all the little Ubuntunoobs modding this "Insightful".

tell you the truth I'm a little startled by that myself, bot don't you worry there, the /. regulars will be along shortly to crank me back down. :-) I miss early RH, I know Ubuntu makes things easy - even my gf uses it - but it removes the glamour of slaving away for hours to make you latest download distro work and be "just so", the exact way you like it.

When you can get a top notch install for just three clicks my sensible side likes it, but my inner geek mourns.

The problem is software.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

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

Re:The problem is software.

[tomtomtom777]

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

Re:The problem is software.

[daliman]

I disagree. The first three areas you mention are of interest to a relatively small number of users. The final is one area that Open Source software is completely cleaning up on, with MPlayer and VLC easily being more useful players than anything else I've come across (and both running under Windows as well, if you want a decent player there...).

As has been mentioned many times, the biggest problems are

1. Windows comes preinstalled
2. The current generation of users have grown up using windows; they know it already, why shift?

Re:The problem is software.

[Ralph Spoilsport]

misterblank wrote:

Adobe is quite happy to remain a significant Apple player I'm sure. That is their platform and it has always shined there.

True, but only so far. Adobe has a very dysfunctional relationship with Apple, especially since Apple became a Serious Software Company. Example: Final Cut Pro (FCP). FCP was aimed at AVID, but the results were the destruction of Adobe Premiere. At the time (1999) Premiere 4 was the deal, and it sucked really badly. It was so disruptive that AVID said they would cease development on the Apple platform. Adobe followed suite. AVID soon went back, but Adobe was very deeply hurt and stopped making Premiere for MacOS. Only recently have they considered going back.

Apple is in a strong position, but they are only as strong as their developers (which is why Linux is sucking wind on consumer apps, as discussed above). If Microsoft pulled MSOffice off the MacOS, and Adobe did the same, Apple would have to leave the computer business.

The fiasco with FCP vs Premiere was so detrimental to Apple AND Adobe, that both sides have backed off a bit, but they still compete a lot. What you will NEVER see is iPhoto turn into a Photoshop killer, nor will Apple develop Adobe Pages and Keynote into anything seriously competitive with Word and PowerPoint - Apple needs MS Office BIG TIME. Apple got spanked - true FCP is the killer video app, and iMovie is pretty good for what it is, but the bad blood it churned up is something Apple is VERY aware of, and they know they have to walk a delicate line with their developers.

If they get too out of line, Adobe could EASILY partner with ASUS and pull a "buy CS3 and get a computer FREE" deal, and that would be the beginning of the end of Apple.

best,

RS

Post Inaccurate

[ebeneazer]

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.

No, Red Hat hasn't given up

[Adaptux]

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Like a utility

[Bombula]

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.

Me too

[drooling-dog]

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...

Re:Me too

[abigor]

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.

Re:Me too

[drooling-dog]

Tax prep software... Well, you've got me there (although there's always Wine). On the other hand, OpenOffice and the GIMP more than meet my needs for what others might use MS Office and Photoshop for (although people accustomed to PS often complain about GIMP's interface). Frequently use Pan for Usenet, XMMS for music, mplayer for video, and of course Firefox. Availability of games - or at least the popular, modern ones - may be a problem for those who are into them, but that's not an issue for me.

Money spent on software in the past 5 years? Zip.

No spyware, no malware, no crapware, no vendor manipulation, and an OS and apps that belong to you and not the other way around? Priceless!

Re:Me too

[RiffRafff]

Even the "Linux has no tax software" is a non-starter; everyone offers platform-independent web-apps for doing taxes nowadays, and they're updated (for when the laws change mid-season) much faster.

Re:Whither Fedora? Where???

[miknix]

Linux Mobile? Where?!?!

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!

There's No Money In it

[reallocate]

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.

It's all about about corp. users

[Ambidisastrous]

Here's what the article says:

Considering our goals listed above, our desktop product plans for 2008 and 2009 include:

        * 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".

Re:What is so hard?

[PRMan]

Simple. Because only Linux geeks will say that GIMP=Photoshop. The rest of us have tried both and know better.

That's not saying that it will never get there (or get close enough, like OpenOffice, that it won't matter to 70% of people.

But right now, it's just delusional to say GIMP=Photoshop. Those applications DON'T exist on Linux.

Plus, companies have decades worth of Access, C++, .NET, etc. apps on every desktop that they are not about to switch. So until it runs all of those, they're not switching. Windows licenses are cheaper and the support costs are lower (because their staffs know Windows really well).

Work with Ubuntu

[steve_thatguy]

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.

Year of the "I Don't Care What's on the Headlines"

[eeek77]

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)

Re:Whither Fedora? (yay for semantics)

[pressman]

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.

This is very odd considering..

[JShadow21]

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.

Desktop is fine

[Xoth]

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.

Re:Year of the "I Don't Care What's on the Headlin

[gladish]

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.

Nothing Doubled is still Nothing

[Crazy Taco]

According to W3Counter, Linux passed 2% in January. If their figures are believable, Linux use has close to doubled in the past nine months.

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.

Because it just isn't ready

[SlashV]

What is it about my desktop that isn't "ready for the desktop"? Example: I'm running ubuntu 7.10

• 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.

Until Linux can install as easily as Windows...

[Fuzi719]

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.

Re:Linux is NOT desktop ready

[jrothwell97]

I've said for a long time that Linux is not desktop ready. (snip BS) So I bought the next best thing. A Mac Book Pro Thats all I have to say. Which wasn't much. Anybody would choose OS X over Linux is a tool. Have you looked under the hood of your fabled OS X? Just look at the directory structure alone. Shit is spewed all over the place. Be honest, you bought the MacBook Pro because it just looks good. You're making a fashion statement, right? Pretty boy running a Pretty OS. Pffft. Go diddle your Finder, Macboy.

Oh please. I think the Darwin/OS X directory structure is far better than most other *nixes', because end-user apps go into their own folder. Things are just more intelligently organised. Apart from that, it's almost identical to FreeBSD, but with sysvinit swapped out for launchd.

True, it's a pain in the scandal and farce whenever you need to do more advanced stuff (its terminal is often difficult to work with) but the directory structure is, by no means, an adequate argument.

The bottom line is Linux needs more configuration. My new Eee PC arrived on Tuesday, and while I absolutely love it, I've still had to

• swap Xandros out for Eeedora, because of no wpa-psk support
• swap Xfce for GNOME, and the text login system for GDM
• install OpenOffice.org
• edit the init and bash config files to get GNOME and GDM to work properly
• edit the GNOME panels to be able to see the config dialogs' OK/Cancel buttons

and numerous other things. It still isn't working completely perfectly. However, I can switch on a Mac and get it up and running within the hour. Even a ten-year-old could probably get it working within three hours. It 'just works'. That doesn't mean it's the most powerful OS in the world, but (at the moment) it's my favourite.

Profit

[T.E.D.]

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.

I bought a Mac because of this realization

[SocietyoftheFist]

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.

1% doubled in 9 months is huge.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.