Red Hat Returns To the Linux Desktop

CWmike writes "Red Hat used to be in the desktop business along with all the other Linux distributors. Then, they left. Now, however, Red Hat is switching from Xen to KVM for virtualization. As part of that switchover, Red Hat will be using not only KVM, but the SolidICE/SPICE desktop virtualization and management software suite to introduce a new server-based desktop virtualization system. Does this mean that Red Hat will be getting back into the Linux desktop business? That's the question I posed to Red Hat CTO Brian Stevens, in a phone call after the Red Hat/KVM press conference, and he told me that, 'Yes. Red Hat will indeed be pushing the Linux desktop again.'"

Comments

With RedHat.

[jellomizer]

It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...

Re:With RedHat.

[genner]

It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...

Year of the Ox?
China agrees.

Re:With RedHat.

[morgan_greywolf]

If Microsoft succeeds in putting out Windows 7 this year, 2009 may become the Year of Windows on the... Oh wait, nevermind.

Re:With RedHat.

[Anonymous Coward]

It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...

The year of the lame repetitive Slashdot meme?

Ok mods, you can give him a +1 Funny and me a -1 Flamebait now. "We like our lame repetitive memes, mmkay? Thankyouverymuch."

Re:With RedHat.

[jamstar7]

Dood, in Soviet Russia, lame repetitive meme uses YOU, covered in hot grits from a statue of Natalie Portman...

Re:With RedHat.

[Drinking Bleach]

Is this a joke post? I seriously can't tell.

- I just tried using GNOME at 640x480, the screen resolution dialog box fits perfectly fine even with tons of space on every side of the window. Either Ubuntu seriously fucked things up (I use Debian), or you are spreading shit.

- Netscape software? What are you doing using that ancient piece of crap? the Network-Manager in GNOME supports dialup just fine.

- Applications -> System Tools -> System Monitor. Has tabs for filesystems and general hardware specs. Amazing, huh?

Re:With RedHat.

[Runaway1956]

Uhhhh, you trolled the internet to find these petty problem, without searching for solutions, right? I suppose you should be modded "funny" for your effort to make us laugh. A: change desktop resolution from the konsole. B: Stop using netscape software - you need a driver for your modem, nothing more, nothing less. C: Gparted will tell you everything there is to know about your hard drive. D: in the konsole, try "htop" Other niddly frustrations? Try google, "forums + + + Linux" Ubuntu forums MAY BE the best place to find help with those niddly frustrations. (stress the "may be" - there are other excellent forums out there, of course)

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

Or just keep using Windows or Mac OS, which don't hide important functions in obscure programs with nondescriptive names.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

Well I followed your instructions. A: Konsole opened-up a CLI window to type commands which I do not know. Therefore I'm still stuck at 640x480. B: I already tried direct-dialing the modem, connected to my ISP, and it just came-up with garbage. C: I don't see any program called "gparted" therefore I can't run it, and I still don't know the size of my HDD, speed of my CPU, or how much memory I have. D: "The program htop is not installed." Well so much for that.

Is this what you call user friendly?
Ready for distribution to the typical Joe American as a Windows replacement???
(laughs)

Re:With RedHat.

[causality]

- I changed my laptop from 1280x1024 resolution to 640x480 resolution. Then I decided to go back, but the desktop properties windows has the "OK" button off the screen. With Windows such a problem would not happen because pressing the Enter key automatically selects okay. On Ubuntu Linux it does not. Now I'm stuck with 640x480. :-|

Now, I'm not sure exactly what you used to adjust the resolution but this should be an easy solution that doesn't depend on exactly what method you used. If you look in your /etc/X11/xorg.conf file, you should see a line like this (in Section Screen):

Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"

Those are the resolutions available (yours is likely to be different). There is no need to edit that line; you can switch among those modes during a running X session by using key combinations. You can use CTRL-ALT-KeypadMinus and CTRL-ALT-KeypadPlus (must be the minus and plus keys on the right-hand keypad) to change back and forth. This is an X11 feature and is independent from the window manager or desktop environment (i.e. KDE or Gnome) you're using. Once you can see that "OK" button you can select the desired mode and click OK and it'll set it ot whatever option you chose.

I still can't get my Ubuntu machine to connect to my Netscape Dialup ISP. The Netscape software crashes, and even after a connection is established, all I see is a lot of garbage.

Unfortunately I know nothing about Netscape Dialup and can't really help you there. If the software you mention is proprietary and provided by Netscape, they should help you with that. If you are using standard programs (which are unlikely to crash so I doubt this is the case) then you would need to know which PPP settings Netscape is using, particularly with regard to password authentication. If it really is a proprietary system, this is where I would say that just because proprietary systems have such a strong preference for accommodating Windows does not mean that they are a good idea.

I have no idea what speed the CPU is, or how much RAM, because I can't find a "My Computer" or equivalent properties icon. The size of the hard drive is also a mystery; Ubuntu keeps telling me it's 20 gig, even though I'm fairly certain it's 300 based upon the specs at compaq.com. Weird.

For the CPU information, open a shell (a regular user should be able to do this, no need for root) and type this command: cat /proc/cpuinfo. If you have a multi-core CPU, it will have an entry for each core.

For memory, try the "free" command or maybe "free -m" for units in megabytes. For this to make sense you'll need to know a bit about how Linux uses memory. The memory listed as "free", that is, completely unused, will probably be quite low almost all the time. Linux uses a lot of memory that would otherwise be empty (and thus wasted) as disk and file cache; any memory used this way is instantly available anytime a program you are using needs it. Generally, "buffers" + "shared" + "free" memory is what's actually available to use.

For partition sizes, you can use this shell command: df -h. That will list all of them. The "-h" option is for human-readable; that is, it shows a figure like 30G for 30 gigabytes instead of 31443696 blocks. I'm guessing that the smaller partition you are seeing is your boot partition, but the layout of your hard drive(s) is entirely optional and your particular setup might be different.

Those are the more basic command-line functions. You can also use a GUI utility like KInfoCenter (a KDE app) or the Gnome System Monitor or gkrellm etc. for a nice readable display of this kind of information.

I've used a wide range of OSes from Commodore GEOS to Amiga Workbench to Mac to Windows 3.1 to modern Windows, so I'm used to dealing with the learning cu

Re:With RedHat.

[1s44c]

Or just keep using Windows or Mac OS, which don't hide important functions in obscure programs with nondescriptive names.

Or use windows and regedit and reboot to perform anything but the most trivial tasks. And reboot again for regular patches. And reboot again when random bits of software just stop working. And still have to run virus scanning software to check every IO operation against a database of known exploits.

Windows has never been ready for desktop or server use.

Re:With RedHat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, I thought that in Soviet Russia, petrified hot grits were covered in Natalie Portman.

Re:With RedHat.

[afairch]

[Alt] + Left mouse button anywhere on the window will allow you to move it so the buttons will be visible.

From a command line, 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' will give you processor information, including speed, alternatively you could issue the command 'dmesg' and find the information there. 'cat /proc/meminfo' will give you memory information, you can also get this from using 'top' (also from a terminal window)

You can get the hard drive information from 'dmesg' as well. The 'gparted' program suggested earlier is probably a better idea, so if you don't have that installed, try 'sudo apt-get install gparted', or the add/remove programs application.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

>>>"Just ain't there yet" seems to have an underlying assumption that usability for the non-technically-inclined is the one and only criteria of advancement.

No of course not. Lots of systems are designed for technicians/engineers only, but the OP that I replied to (and many other posters) said "YEAR OF THE LNUX DESKTOP" which implies a desktop usable by everybody, same as Windows or Mac OS, and directly replacing those. That was the assumption.

>>>Modes "1280x1024" "1152x864" "1024x768" "800x600" "640x480"

Unfortunately that line does not exist.

>>>For the CPU information, open a shell

I assume you mean Konsole. It tells me I have a 1.7 GHz Pentium M with 502 MB of total mem, and 36G of hard drive. That seems rather small. Oh well. The "free" command's output reminds me of Amiga's version of that command, albeit Amigaspace was divided into CHIP and FAST RAM. (sigh) I miss my Amiga; it's a shame the company went bankrupt.

Re:With RedHat.

[Knuckles]

Right click the window bar and select "Move" Alt + clicking into windows & holding left mouse button lets you do the same.

Re:With RedHat.

[causality]

Dood, in Soviet Russia, lame repetitive meme uses YOU, covered in hot grits from a statue of Natalie Portman...

Sitting at +5, Informative. Now, I'm going to step out on a limb here and suggest that there is nothing "insightful" about it. Funny maybe (debatable), but not insightful. If the mods haven't proven the AC's point then I'm not sure what could.

Re:With RedHat.

[causality]

No of course not. Lots of systems are designed for technicians/engineers only, but the OP that I replied to (and many other posters) said "YEAR OF THE LNUX DESKTOP" which implies a desktop usable by everybody, same as Windows or Mac OS, and directly replacing those. That was the assumption.

The tongue-in-cheek post that currently sits at +5 Funny? Your post seemed to use that joke to begin a serious discussion of usability so it was really your motivation for doing that to which I was responding. That is, your serious reply to a joke made me feel like this subject was important to you.

One thing I'll add is that there were a lot of trollish responses to your question. I think it was an honest question and I generally do assume that unless I have some solid reasons not to. There were no reasons to thnk that yours was anything but an honest post. Some people don't appreciate benefit of doubt; I hope you don't allow that to discourage you.

Unfortunately that line does not exist.

It may not. Some information is critical and must appear in the config file; much of it will be auto-detected when X starts if it is not specified. That key combination I mentioned will still work.

I assume you mean Konsole. It tells me I have a 1.7 GHz Pentium M with 502 MB of total mem, and 36G of hard drive.

Konsole is one way to open a shell, yes. That figure of "502 MB" is either incorrect or you have integrated video hardware that is using a portion of system RAM in place of video memory.

Did the output of "df -h" show only a single partition 36G in size? Or did you have multiple entries in the output that command? DF will show information per partition, not per hard drive. You may also wish to run "dmesg" from a shell (this is especially useful if it hasn't been long since you rebooted) so you can see the output of the kernel drivers, such as the IDE/SCSI drivers that detect your hard drives. If it's been a while since your last reboot then this information may no longer be present; if that is the case, you may have the same information in the text file /var/log/dmesg. This will have not just hard drive information but everything the kernel detects, including CPU and RAM.

The "free" command's output reminds me of Amiga's version of that command, albeit Amigaspace was divided into CHIP and FAST RAM. (sigh) I miss my Amiga; it's a shame the company went bankrupt.

Unfortunately the Amiga was a bit before my time. I was around then, but I was not interested in computing at the time. It seems like folks who had one really loved it, in which case yes that is a shame.

By the way, nice sig.

Re:With RedHat.

[MPolo]

And if the window bar is off the screen as well, Alt-Space will get you the window bar menu, allowing you to move it.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

Thanks for your help.

df -h showed several partitions of 512 megabyte each, so if I add them to the 36G partition, it comes just shy of 40 gigabytes. I'll try dmesg after I reboot my laptop (it's currently downloading Galactica).

Re:With RedHat.

[neomunk]

If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.

It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.

Re:With RedHat.

[causality]

I understand what you're saying and I'm not meaning to speak against it per se. I do disagree with some of it though.

If something is funny enough to deserve an actual Karmic boost, then people use Informative, Insightful, etc. because +1 Funny doesn't give any karma bonus to the recipient.

Whenever I moderate, I've never felt like someone's karma and whether it is in good standing was my responsibility. If they made a really great post that truly expressed something worthy, doing so should have been its own reward. I certainly feel this way whenever I post something (however well or however badly) that truly represents what I believe. It just isn't difficult to maintain "Excellent" karma.

It's a hack around slashdots apparently humorless moral system. I personally think the ugliness of the hack (and it is ugly) is outweighed by the utility of it. It could be rendered moot if not for a fear that funny trolls will get mod points.

I'll give you my honest opinion, and opinion is all that it is. I find that most of the things that get modded to +5 Funny really aren't very funny, or aren't funny anymore now that I've seen someone post it for the last six months. It's rare that I see any sort of truly unique or clever or witty humor on this site, and most of the best examples of that are incidental and not the main purpose of the post that contains them.

You're right that it is a hack but I think it's worth appreciating that the "hack" is not to get around a bug but to circumvent a deliberate design. I certainly do have grounds to criticize Slashdot (the old metamod system needs to be brought back yesterday) but I think that the moderation system is one thing they got right. Of course humor is generally welcome here; if you read what I'm about to say and conclude that I am anti-humor or anti-laughter, well you'd be quite wrong. But Slashdot is not really a "humor" site and if you want to laugh, there are certainly better places to go. I also often see meaningful discussion hijacked and drowned out because one person posts a Russian reversal and the next 20 replies are variations on the joke and don't really contribute anything. There are occasionally good original jokes but in terms of signal-to-noise, the jokes on here are mostly noise.

So, I think the decision to not allow Funny mods to contribute to karma was a sound one and fits well with the overall purpose of this site. Maybe this is going to sound a little too much like "get off my lawn" but I feel that when there are so many millions of Web sites, it makes more sense to find one that provides what you wanted to see at that moment than it does to come up with "hacks" that circumvent deliberate design decisions in an attempt to make the current site conform to your wishes.

Re:With RedHat.

[DiegoBravo]

I have a Dell with 1280x800 and can't move the window upside the screen border with your method (but indeed does downside.) I don't remember what application was, but I ended avoiding it because I never could read the corresponding buttons in the inferior zone.

I'm not sure if this is because compiz or any other addition to X, but it is a real annoyance. Of course, those annoyances are microscopic compared with the windows' ones, like the malware and the corresponding antivirus extortion.

Re:With RedHat.

[Knuckles]

Yeah, after posting I found that choosing Move from the window menu indeed does not let you muve it upward beyond the panel. However, the shortcut (that at least on my machine is mentioned in the menu) does let you do it, and so does the Alt click into the window.

It's not because of compiz, I run Ubuntu (Jaunty) w/o visual effects and the behavior is as described (and the OK button is indeed out of the screen in the first place).

Re:With RedHat.

[Jaysyn]

In Kubuntu I just open the System Monitor. :D

Re:With RedHat.

[DiegoBravo]

mmmmmm, the alt+mouse let's me move the window but not upside off the screen. I don't have (or didn't understand) about the shortcut in the menu.

Re:With RedHat.

[Knuckles]

Alt+mouse works for me. Maybe that's compiz after all. The shortcut is Alt+F7, I see it in the menu. It's possible that I changed a setting somewhere a long time ago to display shortcuts in menus. Anyway, when you select a window and press it you should be able to move the mouse with the window (unless compiz is being uncooperative again).

Re:With RedHat.

[DiegoBravo]

Thanks... The alt+f7 indeed works, but not far upside... I'll try to deactivate Compiz on other machine and try again later.

Re:With RedHat.

[Knuckles]

Depends on how far down you grab the window, that's as far as it will go. You can repeat though

Re:With RedHat.

[Logic Worshiper]

You can fix the 800x600 problem with

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xorg

in terminal. GParted isn't automatically installed on Ubuntu, you have to install it from the repository. Use the "Add/Remove Software" utility to search for it, and install for it.

Windows is far from easy to use too. The only idiot proof OS is Mac.

Re:With RedHat.

[greenarrow7]

I've never in all the time I have read slashdot felt the need to find out what a "karmic boost point" is. Maybe I should, I might discover some great new meaning to my life.

Re:With RedHat.

[Yfrwlf]

What, did you suddenly remember that 7 is based on Vista?

Re:With RedHat.

[Runaway1956]

I will grant you, those people who have never navigated with DOS, and have only ever used Windows style GUI's, have a helluva learning curve if they hope to use Linux to it's potential. The Konsole is your freind - unlike Windows, where attempts have been made to hide the command line. (WinME, most notoriously) However - a lady who has used Amiga, Commodore, etc etc is more than smart enough to figure out those clitoral - errr, I mean NIGGLY - little problems that she finds on Linux. My biggest problem on Linux, is that I started out a DOS man, and the commands are all wrong. Age prevents me from readily associating new names with age old funcions - but that only slows me down. Personally, I LOVE Linux, and I think that every school kid should be familiar with SOME FORM of *nix before he gets into high school.

Re:With RedHat.

[Man Eating Duck]

Is this what you call user friendly?
Ready for distribution to the typical Joe American as a Windows replacement???

Your issues have a lot in common with average issues my father has with Windows. He does what the typical Joe American probably does; he calls a knowledgeable person (me) who can help him. He's an MD and a smart guy, but has no clue about computers.
If you're not interested in looking up reference guides such as this one, you can always contact a friend (or the local Linux user group) to get help. After a while you won't be missing the annoyances in Windows or the limited environment in MacOS.
But, please don't complain about issues that is just as much of an issue in Windows if you have no idea what you're doing. Excercise: explain to Joe American that his Windows just lacks a driver for his network card (a very common problem), and how to identify the card and getting a driver from the vendor without internet. That is if the problem is not that his switch is unpowered or somesuch. Joe American won't be installing Windows from scratch anytime soon either, Linux is actually a lot easier in that respect.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

In my opinion Linux has a long way to go before it replaces Windows. It has too many Non-user-friendly features. Examples:

- I changed my laptop from 1280x1024 resolution to 640x480 resolution. Then I decided to go back, but the desktop properties windows has the "OK" button off the screen. With Windows such a problem would not happen because pressing the Enter key automatically selects okay. On Ubuntu Linux it does not. Now I'm stuck with 640x480. :-|

- I still can't get my Ubuntu machine to connect to my Netscape Dialup ISP. The Netscape software crashes, and even after a connection is established, all I see is a lot of garbage.

- I have no idea what speed the CPU is, or how much RAM, because I can't find a "My Computer" or equivalent properties icon. The size of the hard drive is also a mystery; Ubuntu keeps telling me it's 20 gig, even though I'm fairly certain it's 300 based upon the specs at compaq.com. Weird.

- And other niddly little frustrations.

I've used a wide range of OSes from Commodore GEOS to Amiga Workbench to Mac to Windows 3.1 to modern Windows, so I'm used to dealing with the learning curve of switching between them, and the inherent frustrations. A casual user is not. A casual user needs an OS to be stupidity proof, and blindingly obvious to navigate. Linux just ain't there yet.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

>>>Is this a joke post? I seriously can't tell.

Yes of course. I was lying.

(rolls eyes)

I've been using home computers since 1984... probably since before you were born... and I'm fairly certain I would not come on here and just randomly make up problems. Ubuntu's desktop properties window is "higher" than 480 lines such that I can't access the okay button, and therefore cannot switch it back to 1280x1024. I'm sorry that my sharing of this difficulty offends you; I recommend you never work in tech support.

Re:With RedHat.

[commodore64_love]

I followed your instructions. A: Konsole opened-up a CLI window to type commands which I do not know. Therefore I'm still stuck at 640x480. B: I already tried direct-dialing the modem, connected to my ISP, and it just came-up with garbage. C: I don't see any program called "gparted" therefore I can't run it, and I still don't know the size of my HDD, speed of my CPU, or how much memory I have. D: "The program htop is not installed." Well so much for that.

Is this what you call user friendly?
Ready for distribution to the typical Joe American as a Windows replacement???
(laughs)

Re:With RedHat.

[ClosedSource]

"Or use windows and regedit and reboot to perform anything but the most trivial tasks."

So I guess 99% of Windows users perform only trivial tasks, since they've never run regedit.

Re:With RedHat.

[ClosedSource]

"The only idiot proof OS is Mac."

So are you saying that the original Mac OS is the only idiot proof one and OSX is not? Or are you saying that OSX is the only idiot proof OS and the original MAC OS is not?

Re:With RedHat.

[shutdown -p now]

If Microsoft succeeds in putting out Windows 7 this year, 2009 may become the Year of Windows on the...

... netbooks?

Re:With RedHat.

[shutdown -p now]

You know, I am actually mostly a Windows user these days, and I do find some valid reasons to prefer it to modern Linux desktop distros... but even so... judging from your bullet list of problems, you're either 1) too dumb to use any computer (Windows included), or 2) simply lying/trolling.

Other posters have already gone through your list point-by-point, and you did not deign those responses with any meaningful reply, so I have to assume #2...

Re:With RedHat.

[neomunk]

I think we're pretty much on the same page, but with minor differences.

Allowing a Funny mod to boost an individual posts rating, while not adding Karma to the user allows malicious mods to apply a large negative modifier to a poster by someone modding a post Funny followed by a troll's -1 mod. With a few sock puppets or a little troll-coordination you could put some serious hurt on someone's Slashdot Karma. It's not happened to me, but I've seen evidence of it being done (a well-written post at -1 Funny).

For me, that's the major point of contention with not giving a Karmic bonus to Funny. It would be okay if the post itself didn't get a boost or if there were no Funny mod at all, but allowing for artificial inflation in the same system as actual deflation is asking for trouble, IMHO.

I also disagree with your last paragraph, as I think a long standing community SHOULD have some input into the communities infrastructure, even if privately owned. Being that it isn't fair or right to tell an owner how to run his or her site, using it slightly differently than designed (but still with courtesy and care) seems a reasonable compromise. If the activity were actually disruptive I wouldn't feel this way, but I think the situation we're currently discussing is too light to be considered 'disruption'.

Other than that though, I pretty much agree with you.

Re:With RedHat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you really need to LEARN linux before saying it isn't ready. Did you even read the documentation for your distro? As for you last comment on what a 'casual user' needs, its obvious you have no clue whatsoever. Your casual user wouldn't have a clue regardless of how stupid-proof you make it. Look at your own examples as a case study...

Re:With RedHat.

[Logic Worshiper]

Every Mac OS I've ever worked with has been idiot proof, and that's starting comparing it to Windows 3.1 when I was 10.

Pretty eyes

[Gizzmonic]

I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic, has striking green eyes. I wonder if he did that with Photoshop?

Re:Pretty eyes

[Gizzmonic]

Offtopic? The article was written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic! Did you even RTFA, mods? I didn't think so.

Now you're giving me a headache!

Re:Pretty eyes

[ultrabot]

I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic, has striking green eyes. I wonder if he did that with Photoshop?

Offtopic? The article was written by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Cyber Cynic! Did you even RTFA, mods? I didn't think so.

Now you're giving me a headache!

That's because there is no "-1, gay" moderation option (I know, I had the points today and checked).

Cost-Performance Utopia

[foobsr]

From TFA: Specifically, the new virtual Red Hat Desktop will be managed by Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager for Desktops. This virtual desktops management system, Red Hat claims, will deliver three to five times better cost-performance for both Linux and Windows desktops. (emphasis mine)

Beyond my comprehension; anyone have an explanation?

CC.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[firespade]

In other words instead of going out and purchasing, let's say, a Xen license to run a cluster of VMs (as my company does). They're pushing to trump the VM industry with their own software. How this differs from the rest? I haven't the slightest clue. I honestly don't think it's even worth looking into. All they can say is the the VM Manager will reduce your budget to a fraction of what it is with the competitor, but isn't that the whole point of capitalizing on technology????

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[gardyloo]

They didn't put in parentheses for order-of-operations:

LinuxNew = 325x(costLinuxOld - performanceLinuxOld)
and
WindowsNew = 325x(costWindowsOld - performanceWindowsOld)

    There.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[Aladrin]

Besides the Xen thing, maybe they're trying to say you can virtualize multiple servers onto 1 and save money that way.

I think it's BS unless you have almost zero load, but hey! That's marketing for you.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[davecb]

No utopia, just an improvement.

A desktop workstation or fast laptop is optimal for a developer or fairly heavy user, but in a business context requires

1. buying the darn things
2. an imaging server, to create/update them
3. a backup and/or synchronization server (samba, unison and a tape changer).
4. Etc, etc.

However, many users don't actually need any more than a cheap diskless netbook or a glorified X-terminal, and can do all their computing on a back-end timesharing server.

As in "The Unix Timesharing System" that we grew up with, which was always orders of magnitude more cost-effective than individual shared-nothing workstations.

--dave

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[Obfuscant]

So, LinuxNew will be a large negative number and WindowsNew will be a large positive number?

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a big fan of virtualization, but there's some truth to it. When I buy servers I buy for a worst-load case. So yeah, my machines aren't totally busy 100% of the time. Using the spare cycles for something else increases the cost/performance thingy.

Of course, if all hell breaks loose and all of the VMs are busy at the same time you kind of lose...

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[yanyan]

Beyond my comprehension; anyone have an explanation?

It's just marketing-speak.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[QuantumRiff]

This isn't for server virtual machines. its for pushing apps and environments out to clients seamlessly. Microsoft has something similar, APP-V, and VMWare is working on it too. Why have office installed on every machine? Why not just push or stream an image out to the machine, and then you only have one spot to update, one spot to upgrade, etc. Think LTSP but on steroids... Companies are once again realizing that the biggest cost in computers is keeping the things secure and running...

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[blair1q]

Unless you started doing anything CPU intensive and went to lunch.

Then it was very efficient at making everyone but you nonproductive.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[bberens]

Virtualization is a huge cost saver in our shop. We bought one blade system and we have our source control, developer box (build system, wiki, etc.), a few QA and development servers (including a few db servers for dev/qa). And that's just the stuff MY department puts on there. We are also moving to have a few virtual machines set up as hot backup for some live systems with dedicated boxes. Eventually I predict we'll also put some actual production systems in virtual machines once the pointy hairs have built up some confidence in them in cases where it makes sense to do so.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[zooblethorpe]

Unless you started doing anything CPU intensive and went to lunch.

Then it was very efficient at making everyone but you nonproductive.

Hey, now! When we'd muck about on the old VAX in college, that was definitely not a bug, that was a *feature*!

Cheers,

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[davecb]

Resource management was pretty horrid in those days: users had to do it themselves with "nice". And they usually weren't (;-))

These days, Linux is a hotbed of resource management research and one of it's biggest supporters, IBM, has done some impressive work on zOS.

--dave

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[wastedlife]

Which with correct provisioning of resources in the virtual environment shouldn't be a problem anymore.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[firespade]

Right, I misspoke. Thanks for the correction. I agree with the fact of centralizing the software suite to reduce cost in business practices. I agree streamlining apps is the way to go, however there are going to be downsides to this as well. You can't forget that even though you're centralizing the entirety of the software suite, we then fall into a issue of having developer platform utilities side by side with the front desk secretary. I agree that it reduces cost but you have to take affirmative action towards the security aspect, if not you'll soon see serious repercussions.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[Tsagadai]

That is the entire point of it. If you have a desktop running virtualized on a blade and it runs slow you are doing something really, really CPU intensive. A task that powerful would lock your desktop anyway.

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[hitmark]

Tho you can bet that said pointy hairs will try to make use of VM's in cases where it makes no sense first...

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[KermitJunior]

So if virtualization reduces your budget to a fraction, and this thing from RH reduces it to another fraction, how long until they pay me to virtualize stuff?

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[hmar]

From TFA:

Since when are we talking about the article?

Re:Cost-Performance Utopia

[ClosedSource]

But is the blade so significantly faster than a desktop machine that the extra bandwidth required by virtualization and network latency is not a problem?

Re:Hey, I said nigger

[MindlessAutomata]

....Ubuntu...??

About time

[WiiVault]

I never understood why the left in the first place. They used to be at the top of the game- Fedora, not so much.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood why the left in the first place

Because they know that Linux will be never a serious alternative on the desktop. You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

I know, it is really hard to accept, but we have to move on and stop fooling around.

Re:About time

[morgan_greywolf]

I never understood why the[y] left in the first place.

1. They weren't making money in that area.
2. Most of the problems with desktop Linux at that time revolved around the fact that you need to need to break the law to in Red Hat's country of origin to distribute a useable system
3. They didn't want to compete head-to-head with Microsoft.

Things have improved somewhat since then: Other projects like Ubuntu and FreeDesktop.org have paved the way for desktop Linux; a lot of codecs have been re-implemented as open source and patents are expiring on some codecs; Microsoft doesn't quite have the teeth they used to have.

Re:About time

[jamstar7]

I never understood why the left in the first place

Because they know that Linux will be never a serious alternative on the desktop. You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

Wish you woulda told me that before I installed the then-new Redhat 3.0.3 back in '96. I stuck with them til I went Ubuntu with Hoary in mid-'05. Been daily using Linux as a desktop since '96, nice to know I've been wasting my time on an impossible goal.

Re:About time

[morgan_greywolf]

Do you care to expand on your argument, this time laying out your reasons for making it in clear, concise manner with appropriate references? Because I can.

• MP3 and other patents will be expiring within the next 2-3 years.
• Microsoft not having the same teeth: here, here, here, and here, and here.

OTOH, you have given us no reason to accept your argument.

Re:About time

[osu-neko]

His argument isn't the kind you present reasons for. You're just supports to recognize its truth from its inherent truthiness.

Re:About time

[morgan_greywolf]

If the answer seems obvious, you aren't thinking critically. A critical thinker knows good arguments for both sides.

Your signature line seems oddly appropriate here. ;)

Re:About time

[styrotech]

Because they know that Linux will be never a serious alternative on the desktop. You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

That's about as stupid as saying Windows can never be a server because it was and is designed to be an OS for desktops.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The truth is that MS designed Windows NT to cover the server market. Then, it made modifications to the kernel to make a desktop version. That is very different to what is doing the Linux community: they are designing a OS for servers, and no one is trying to get a desktop version.

Re:About time

[benjamindees]

Most of the problems with desktop Linux at that time revolved around the fact that you need to need to break the law to in Red Hat's country of origin to distribute a useable system

I won't argue with the other two, but this one is not correct.

1. Redhat doesn't make money selling to individuals. They make money selling to businesses.

2. Business desktops do not require multimedia codecs.

Other than that, the biggest change is that the US economy is now in recession. Linux adoption is strongly anti-cyclical. In a growing economy, you add features. In a shrinking economy, you cut costs. Linux desktops would not add features for the vast majority of users. Using Linux mostly cuts costs related to maintenance, licensing, and security breaches. Most of the problems with desktop Linux four years ago revolved around the misconception that Excel needed to be on every desktop, and that Linux was unsuited to provide that.

Re:About time

[Rutulian]

You see, that's why every company that is producing a distribution is trying to get the server market: becuase Linux was and is designed to be a SO for the servers.

No...it's because every company knows servers and the enterprise market is where they can make money (with customizations and support contracts). The desktop just isn't very profitable. In the past, Red Hat worked on the desktop as part of their enterprise package (companies that deployed to workstations needed a usable desktop), and because they had it they would sell it in a retail box, but I don't think it was ever a serious part of their business plan. They eventually realized this and stopped selling the boxed retail versions.

Re:About time

[CAIMLAS]

It's not an impossible goal for you. It costs you nothing to install Linux on the desktop. It's an impossible goal for them, being a company which needs to make money.

Linux on the desktop will not make financial sense for a distribution until the infrastructure is there to support it. By infrastructure, I mean a Linux-friendly network environment. That means Linux servers, first and foremost, with useful client management tools. Then, and only then, will companies consider moving to Linux on their workstations - and, most importantly, paying the distribution vendor licensing and service/support fees.

MS realizes this (and has for a number of years), and it's why they've pushed to much effort into new server technologies and very little into their client operating system - to the exception of technologies which support their monoculture. Granted, Linux on the server and workstation isn't about monoculture, but you do need some semblance of cohesive, complete technology before switching over clients makes any sense.

They had their chance

[Wee]

I started using Red Hat around 4.2. I used it as my primary desktop OS around 5-something. Used it all the way up to version 9. And then I had to find a new OS for not only my desktop but all the servers we ran.

Sorry, Red Hat. Fool me once...

-B

Re:They had their chance

[drinkypoo]

And then I had to find a new OS for not only my desktop but all the servers we ran.

What, you didn't want to give them a big pile of money per-server, even though the amount of effort they have to put out for you to have them work is the same for one or for ten? Say it ain't so!?

I left Redhat when they went Fedora and have never looked back. I hope I never have to.

Re:They had their chance

[jmyers]

I started using red hat with 2.0.2. I currently use fedora 9. As far as I could tell the switch from red hat 9 to fc 1 was a name change only. I have not seen anything out of line with the way the distribution has worked all along. There may have been differences, but as far as I can tell they were marketing and name of the distribution. Not function and the normal evolution of the product. As far as stability I had as many (most likely more) issues with red hat releases as I have with new fedora releases.

How exactly were you burned by a name change of a free product?

Re:They had their chance

[TypoNAM]

I was in the same boat. I had a few Red hat servers and one Red hat desktop, but then received an email that they were no longer providing up2date support for non-enterprise customers. I then switched to Debian for servers and Ubuntu for my desktop, never had looked back since. Now with my desktop I did try Fedora (its crap), Slackware (good, but package management not to my liking), and then just used Debian for a while until a heard about Ubuntu.

I still got my Red hat 5.2 Deluxe edition box with the discs and manual. It was the first Linux distribution I tried and got me hooked around 1998 or so. I didn't purchase it as it was handed to me by somebody who didn't understand it and gave up. Used it on my old AMD Am486 SX2-66 box back then. :)

Because of my initial good experience with Red hat I didn't look to try out other distributions cause I stuck with what works all the way to Red hat 9 (I kept my servers at 7.3 though at the time, too much bloat in 8.0 - 9).

Re:They had their chance

[Lumpy]

I have.

RH9.0 was rock solid.

FC1-4 were buggy as hell with major problems. I jumped ship. I was a solid Redhat Guy.

If they are better, I'll never know. I'm not gonna dump any more time into Fedora.

Re:They had their chance

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as stability I had as many (most likely more) issues with red hat releases as I have with new fedora releases.

Huh. Wait till FC10. 9 went in pretty much fine, but 10, arggg! The installer shows up as garbled graphics with some readable text on my screen and then it locks up my system. It's like fc10 went backwards or it stopped supporting the hardware I have.

It sure pissed me off! I may be on fc9 on this machine until it dies.

Re:They had their chance

[jmyers]

Why do you say Fedora is crap? I have used it since inception up through 9, have not tried 10 yet. I have also installed and tried various versions of Ubuntu, most recently 8.10. The only difference I have seen is that Ubuntu includes non-free codecs that will will play dvd and mp3 out of the box. With Fedora it takes an extra 2 minutes to get that capability. Other than that the color scheme is different. As far as usability I see no other differences. There may be some deep down feature differences but for my home desktop of web surfing, open office, etc there is no noticeable difference.

yum has been in fedora from the start and was/is just as good or better than up2date.

Re:They had their chance

[h4rr4r]

Yum and up2date both sucked compared to apt-get.

Do this;
remove all your kernels, then add one back and see how it treats it. Last time I did that yum left me with a non-booting box.

Re:They had their chance

[Tanktalus]

The amount of effort they have to put out is the same for one or ten? Really? So, ten different machines aren't more likely than a single machine to have more problems? Sure, there'll undoubtedly be some overlap, but that's what large-scale pricing is for. You shouldn't be paying ten times a single-server cost when you buy ten licenses, whether that's RHEL, SLES, Windows Server, or any other software. But, you will definitely be a bigger risk for a higher call count than someone who only has one server. And staffing those call centers do cost real bucks. And they need to have appropriate worst-case staffing to meet demand within their designated goals (e.g., 90% of calls answered within 5 minutes, 95% of the time, or whatever their numbers are).

I used to run RHEL - my employer gave me the option of RHEL or SLES, and SLES simply didn't have all the desktop tools (and SLED didn't have the server tools), so I chose RHEL. Eventually, a few years ago, I gave up on that and went to Gentoo. But that wasn't about cost - it was about flexibility.

Re:They had their chance

[Profane MuthaFucka]

You are FOED for being a Gentoo loser. What a wanker.

Re:They had their chance

[Wee]

How exactly were you burned by a name change of a free product?

It wasn't a name change, it was a support issue for a free product which suddenly became non-free. When you have many dozens of servers, you want support. Red Hat wanted us to pay for security updates and such. That wasn't in our budget, and so we had to go through an enormous hassle to migrate away from Red Hat.

Fedora has a very aggressive release cycle which essentially means that any version released now will be unsupported in 18 months (at least this was the case when the Fedora project started; I've not bothered to look at it since). That's unacceptable for servers. It's marginally acceptable for workstations.

In any case, other distributions work well and hopefully won't pull the rug out from under us like Red Hat did.

-B

Re:They had their chance

[Galois2]

I left Redhat when they went Fedora and have never looked back. I hope I never have to.

Oh, so you've stopped using the kernel, ext3, Xorg, usb, glib, glibc, gcc, gnome, KDE, nautilus, gconf, dbus, hal, NetworkManager, coreutils, parted, grub, rpm, yum, anaconda, kudzu, ntsysv, and firefox? If not, you haven't left Red Hat. They write, maintain, or make major contributions to all of these areas, and you're using RH whether you're using their branded distribution or not.

I am grateful for all that RH has done and is continuing to do for linux.

Re:They had their chance

[Richard W.M. Jones]

It wasn't a name change, it was a support issue for a free product which suddenly became non-free. When you have many dozens of servers, you want support. Red Hat wanted us to pay for security updates and such.

You were greatly misinformed. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is completely Free software. You can download every single line of source from Red Hat's FTP server. It is recompiled and offered at no cost by third parties such as CentOS. CentOS makes available the security updates, at no cost.

Red Hat's releases are supported for 7 years from the date of release, and licenses that large businesses pay support this work and (more practically) get them direct access to experts to help them fix their problems. But if paying for the huge amount of work involved in backporting features and security fixes into the stable versions of RHEL is too much trouble, you can get CentOS to give you them for no cost.

Rich.

Re:They had their chance

[jmyers]

My point is that the Red Hat distribution prior to RHEL was more like Fedora than the current RHEL. RHEL was the new product. RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases. I started with 2.0.2 in 1995 and was on 9 in 2003, the OS changed massively during that time as well.

Take a look at the version history here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Linux

Anyone that could have dealt with that release pace could deal with Fedora for servers. I like the new RHEL pace for server installs and currently use CentOS. But for the desktop Fedora is much better and the quick upgrade cycle is a good thing.

   

Re:They had their chance

[__aanonl8035]

I just want to reinforce Wee's original statement. I am not sure that he was misinformed. When RedHat changed their direction from having a RedHat 9.0 product, to Fedora for the desktop, and RHEL for the server, it left administrators wondering what should they do for a migration path from RedHat 7,8,9 to the new products.

RedHat pushed their RHEL as a paid service. Administrators were left with the impression of "now" they would have to pay $500 a year or so to get updates for the server product. Or to use the less well test Fedora.

CentOS was a risky move. How were we to know what kind of quality CentOS would have? Hell, I did not even hear about CentOS around that time. I recall doing quite a bit of research "at that time" trying to figure out what is the best, most reliable migration path. And my conclusions were that other distributions, that had been around for quite some time, with a proven record, were a better option.

Re:They had their chance

[cerberusss]

Non Sequitur. Just because you can't remove all kernels with Yum doesn't make it suck compared to apt-get.

Really, if that is all you can come up with... Each has their pros and cons. Yum is slower. But doesn't require a separate update. But the apt GUI, Synaptic, is very nice. Et cetera.

In the end, it doesn't really matter.

Re:They had their chance

[gbarules2999]

You're talking about the present. He's talking about the past.

Re:They had their chance

[gbarules2999]

Ubuntu doesn't come with the DVD or MP3 codecs. It takes two minutes to install the codecs for Fedora? Heck, before RPM Fusion it was a good half an hour; now it's maybe half that. And Fedora doesn't come with a good powerful tool like Synaptic, so honestly I have no idea what you're smoking, but it sounds pretty good.

Re:They had their chance

[drinkypoo]

you're using RH whether you're using their branded distribution or not.

That's a bunch of crap. RedHat is a company, and a distribution. I am affiliated with neither.

I am grateful for all that RH has done and is continuing to do for linux.

Me too. But I wouldn't throw them a red cent given the opportunity to avoid it. And I've had enough agony playing unwitting beta tester for Microsoft, I don't feel a need to do it again for Redhate.

Re:They had their chance

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC this is a %post script issue in the kernel RPMs that depends on having a skeleton there. When you remove the last kernel, it toasts the skeleton, so adding back is problematic. This isn't a "Fedora" problem (exists on RHEL/CentOS too), or even an RPM problem- this is a packaging / scripting problem.

Re:They had their chance

[Kjella]

RH9 was a name change to FC1. I don't see much difference in the rate of change and stability of the Fedora releases vs what I saw with Red Hat releases.

Well, I used RHL up to version 9.0 and tested Fedora before deciding to jump ship to Debian and can't say the same. If you didn't notice anything from Red Hat demoting it to no longer being a "Red Hat" product, all the support staff that didn't work on RHL anymore or the settling in of the new community model you were either blind or lucky. I was pretty sure they'd shape up eventually, but I decided to find an established community distro that had pretty much all this in place already. That is until Ubuntu came along and finally did all the things Debian weren't doing, like a graphic boot screen. Trivial but most other distros didn't have the base quality of Debian and Debian wasn't doing it. Ubuntu gets blamed alot for not say contributing much to the kernel, but from my desktop experience the kernel is just fine the way it is. Red Hat needs virtualization and NUMA and supercomputer scaling and whatnot, but for running my plain old single-processor desktop? The last real big kernel change I notcied was the O(1) scheduler in the 2.6 series. Of course a few hardware drivers but noothing to change the basic experience. If they should be doing anything it'd be X11, Gnome and KDE. Last I checked both the last two had rather strong ideologies and I guess the Ubuntu way is to simply put it out there and see if people like it. If they do, upstream can come grab it if they like. I mean open source does work both ways, particularly when GUIs are as much a matter of taste as anything else.

Re:They had their chance

[Logic Worshiper]

Ubuntu wouldn't read my flash drives, or connect to a wireless B network (and they have one at a cafe I like). I have no problems with Fedora, and I'm much happier with it.

Re:They had their chance

[LDoggg_]

Half an hour? You're exaggerating. Freshrpms, atrpms, and livna all have had an rpm on their site you could add to yum by simply clicking on the rpm link for several versions now.

And how exactly is synaptic better than yumex (yum extender) ?

Re:They had their chance

[LDoggg_]

sorta.

RHEL was around a couple of years before the redhat desktop and fedora split. The redhat desktop had a faster release schedule than RHEL since RHEL's inception.

Re:They had their chance

[zaphirplane]

"get them direct access to experts to help them fix ... " you have never raised a redhat support ticket ever, have you. sorry there may be giants working at redhat but their support is no better than a forum or a mailing list.

Re:They had their chance

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one angry dude.

Maybe if you went outside once in a while, saw some ducks, slept with a hooker or even just took your meds you would be a little more balanced.

Red Hat is a company. It isn't much different to other companies.

Re:They had their chance

[ebuck]

Yes, and if I drive my car into all barriers, it doesn't drive so well after I sanely decide to not drive it into barriers.

Exactly what is the use case for removing all kernels from a system? It's not like the kernel is an optional part of the operating system. It doesn't hurt you to install the new one first and then remove the old one.

In fact, keeping the old one might even save your skin. You never know if the new kernel works properly until after you're running on it. You have no fall back plan if you removed the old kernel.

Some people walk tightropes without a net, while others insist on nets. The skill of the performer makes falling a rarity. Once a mishap occurs, only one performer is considered wise.

Re:I don't get it

[jellomizer]

Because Linux is Free as in feeling that somehow your choice in a Computer Operating Systems makes you morally superior.

Or it is free as in beer so When OS X or Windows dies on you you have a quick free OS to install to get your work done.

Or it helps you become an Alpha Geek... If a girl is gonna go for a geek they at least will go for the Alpha geek.

Or the very rare case that there is an app the only runs well in Linux that they need to use.

not that desktop

[Anonymous Coward]

RedHat didn't leave the "desktop" so much as they left consumers. While many of us (including me) used desktop Red Hat back in day, they made their money selling support contracts to businesses using Red Hat on the server. Using a GUI-based app for managing Xen doesn't mean jack shit for the "linux desktop".

Based on colour...

[Fred_A]

Since most of my hats are brown (along with a couple black ones), I guess I'll have to run Ubuntu.

It's not that I really mind running beta software, it's this whole "you people are testing what we expect to sell as 'enterprise' for a premium later on, we're waiting for your bug reports" thing that I don't really like with the current RH. Although truthfully I haven't run RH since RH 3 or 4.

Not that distributions really matter all that much in the end, after you've been through the rounds and you're done with dicking around with your machine and you finally settle with just using it, you realise that they all ship pretty much the same stuff. And that the details really don't matter all that much. So unless you're really excited with a given logo, you can just pick one at random. They're all the same.
If you're in a corporate setting pick the one that's supported by the package you need, or if you don't require anything external, the one you already know, you'll save a week of work. Doesn't matter. Basically they all mostly work (and/or are broken in the same kinds of places). Same as most operating systems really.

And honestly I really doubt one couldn't have used RH on the desktop those past years. No Gnome or KDE repositories (or XFCE, or any other desktop ? did it even have X11 ? Or was it too hard for "grandma" (who is surely glad that RH finally pandered to her needs) ?

Bah.

Re:Based on colour...

[Richard W.M. Jones]

How did the parent comment get "+4 interesting" when it so full of gross errors?

Ubuntu depends on the kernel and GNOME developers funded by Red Hat. Red Hat contributes everything back into the upstream projects, which Ubuntu has been noticeably bad about doing.

RHEL has both GNOME and KDE (and obviously X11).

Rich.

Re:Based on colour...

[Ex-Linux-Fanboy]

It's called the invasion of the clueless Ubuntu fanboys. Who, instead of wanting to discuss the issues with Ubuntu's various bugs, just moderate up anyone who is part of the church of Ubuntu and moderate anyone down who doesn't think Ubuntu's is God's gift to the earth.

I've been using Linux since 1995. I wonder how many of these Ubuntu fanboyz know how to configure an ethernet card with ifconfig? Or how to make a Linux live CD distribution? Or the difference between xdm and gdm. Or know that X is a network desktop.

Re:Based on colour...

[Fred_A]

If you want to download RHEL for free, get CentOS. Identical to RHEL, but free. And, from what I hear, RedHat doesn't mind CentOS' existence.

They don't mind it because the license says they can't help it.

The issue with Ubuntu is that it's buggy as hell. RedHat at least admits that Fedora Core is an open beta; Ubuntu 8.10 is an open beta but Ubuntu didn't inform me of this fact.

That's true enough (somewhat), except that RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).
Nowadays they are a bit more open about the purpose of Fedora. Although "Will you be a free beta-tester for our commercial product" still doesn't feature very proeminently on their website. Granted, CentOS is there.

About Ubuntu, they suffer from the same plague that many other "desktop" distros are doomed with, namely feature creep. "Gotta have more features than the neighbour".

I've been running running Linux systems on desktop and (later) servers since 1994. I've tried all of the major distros, including Yggdrasil (at the very beginning).

Re:Based on colour...

[Patch86]

I've been using Linux since 1995. I wonder how many of these Ubuntu fanboyz know how to configure an ethernet card with ifconfig? Or how to make a Linux live CD distribution? Or the difference between xdm and gdm. Or know that X is a network desktop.

And why should they? None of them know those kind of facts about Windows or Mac either, but it doesn't put people off using them (and paying for the privilege). Get right down to it, 90% of the computer using population aren't interested in file systems, config files or display managers, they just want a box that can surf Facebook and You Tube. And why the heck not? If Canonical can carve out a healthy business catering for that market, then good luck to them.

Speaking of Canonical's lacklustre upstream contributions, we all need to keep in mind they're still a relatively fresh start-up. They have only recently raised the prospect of being a self-sustaining, profitable company- until now they've been munching through capital. In a company's early days, 100% of their resources goes into building up their profit-making business- and for a Linux vendor, kernel patches are pretty low on the agenda.

Now they're becoming / have become an established profitable company, now it's time to watch them. If they continue their bad record, then they'll need a spanking. Everything up to now seems fairly par for the course.

Re:Based on colour...

[turbidostato]

"They don't mind it because the license says they can't help it."

But they could do it hell more difficult and still well within GPL's "spirit".

For instance, they could allow access to sources only to their paying customers just like they do for binary updates.

And/or they could allow access to the unpackaged sources instead of those nifty srpm packages.

Re:Based on colour...

[Ex-Linux-Fanboy]

RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).

OK, I think I know what you're issue is. It sounds like you're one of those people who got upset that RH9 was the last RedHat release where anyone could simply download for free the same product RedHat sold.

RedHat did the right thing; they weren't making enough money giving their product away. By making their flagship product something you had to pay for, while publicly making Fedora Core free and having no objections to CentOS's existance (they only did the trademark suit because they had to, or risk diluting their trademark), they are both the most profitable Linux company out there and one that allows anyone to use their product.

When RedHat made the RH9->Fedora transition, my memory was that RedHat never tried to hide the fact that, yes, Fedora Core was an unstable beta of features they were planning to add to RHEL. And, yes, I was wondering which version of Linux I was going to use when that happened.

I ended up using Fedora Core for a while, then made the transition to CentOS 3, and currently flip-flop between CentOS 5 and Ubuntu on my laptop (when I'm not using Windows); I hope CentOS 5.3 fully supports my hardware, so I don't have to worry about which Linux to use until I get a new laptop or early 2014 (whichever comes first).

- Sam

Re:Based on colour...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the trademark lawsuit wasn't actually a nice thing.
On the centos website, you won't be able to find mention of RedHat.
Try "A Prominent North American Linux Vendor" or some similar bullshit.

Makes it real easy to google "free redhat" etc., doesn't it?

Re:Based on colour...

[gbarules2999]

Ubuntu doesn't want to discuss its bugs? Ever seen the bug reporting facilities? There are more bug reports for Ubuntu because more people want to talk about them; hence, more discussion. Furthermore, Canotical is a very small, four year old company that's just struggling to make their organization break even. I doubt their priority is in giving back quite yet (even though, if you want to ignore the fact that Ubuntu is open source and anybody can take what they want, then fine). And lastly, I have used nearly every Linux distro on the top fifty of Distrowatch, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should I? I started in Linux a few years ago and have had no reason to get deep into the workings of the OS. I'm here to get computer work done, not learn how it works (that's just a perk). Ubuntu, Mandriva and all of their desktop friends are making it easy, and my (red) hat is off to them.

Re:Based on colour...

[Fred_A]

RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).

OK, I think I know what you're issue is.

Yeah, all those damn illiterate RH users.

Re:Based on colour...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... Fedora Core is like, totally EOL.

Re:Based on colour...

[amitshah]

Being a new Red Hatter, I actually admire the policy of "upstream first". If it aint' in upstream kernel or Fedora, it isn't entering Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Isn't that wonderful? It means no matter what distro you use, Red Hat's contributions reach you.

Fedora is a sincere attempt at a working desktop. It has several people working on it to make it as stable as possible. A lot of developers out there use Fedora -- which means it's ready and good enough for them. BTW, what makes you think you aren't beta-testing anything else you're using? Not just ubuntu, *any* software out there? Which software comes with any sorts of guarantees?

Re:Based on colour...

[turbidostato]

"Well, the trademark lawsuit wasn't actually a nice thing."

No, it wasn't, but looking at the whole context I'll ballance on the side of Red Hat: that they did it in order to protect their trade mark against other, more aggressive, possible attacks (they -said, didn't want for "red hat" to seem some kind of "generic term" others could abuse). In the other hand AFAIK it wasn't a lawsuit but a direct agreement between Red Hat and (CentOS/White Tiger). Thinking about it, probably they may KO Centos if they indeed would go for a lawsuit instead of first trying to find an agreement.

Re:Based on colour...

[ebuck]

But Unbuntu is supported by a rich fat cat, who's been propping up the community until it becomes self-sustaining. To their credit, they now claim they are.

That means Unbuntu is the most advertised Linux. You can't get around the marketing. It starts with world peace and ends with children in Africa not falling victim to evil Microsoft.

In other words, it's hard to talk to an Unbuntuite without hearing the marketing talk back to you. I've heard that it's the first Linux "for the people", and that's let me to wonder if I was not "one of the people" over the last pre-Unbuntu decade. I've heard how Unbuntu finally made Linux "user friendly", leading me to wonder how my near-identical desktop was not.

When the really want to get "technical" they bring up the old yum/apt-get wars. Yes, the reasoning is that bad.

Re:Based on colour...

[Anonymous Coward]

And that the details really don't matter all that much.

#> cd /
#> rm * cruft.log

Ohhh Wait! I meant:

#> rm *cruft.log

Oh well. Too late now. That's ok. The details don't matter all that much.....

Re:Based on colour...

[Ex-Linux-Fanboy]

Ever seen the bug reporting facilities?

Yes. Note how my bug (I was even considerate enough to include a patch--that means fix) was ignored for well over a year (the issue has since been resolved because Ubuntu's default Awk is no longer the bread-dead Mawk, but the annoying-handling-of-regexes-in-non-C-locales Gawk).

Furthermore, Canonical is a very small, four year old company that's just struggling to make their organization break even.

The issue is this: Canonical has bitten off more than they can chew. They simply don't have the resources in place to have a proper SQA process for all of the software they ship; having their SQA progress be having users submit bugs (which then get ignored) is a classic pattern of "making end users beta testers".

If Canonical wants to increase Linux adoption, they need to stabilize things. Linux desktop use is very low; at most 2% of desktop computers use some kind of Linux. Ubuntu has the potential to greatly increase that figure, but as long as their code is buggy as it is now, adoption will not expand beyond a small core of dedicated users.

Linux desktop use has gone from .5% to about 2% in the 12 years or so I've been paying attention; compare this to Firefox's increase in use from 0% to about 25% of desktop users in the same time period.

- Sam

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I want to use a server solution on my desktop? Right now, there's only this OSs to use in the desktop:

- Mac OS X
- Windows

The other ones are just server OS, is time to accept it.

So Windows and MacOS aren't suitable for servers, then? *whew* Guess this and this are just figments of my imagination.

Desktop Redhat?

[thermian]

I don't know. I mean it was a great desktop years back, probably the best (discounting Debian), I used it for the whole of my time at university, but things have moved on.
I use it for servers nowadays, servers that I set up and don't change, aside from updates, but as a deasktop system it would need to compete with Ubuntu for ease of use and administration. Ubuntu's a long way ahead in those respects.

Still, I'm mildly interested to see what they might offer.

Re:Desktop Redhat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu, a long way ahead of other desktop distros, when they have no distinctive feature whatsoever ? When they depend on software that competitors write and maintain, and merely repackage six months later, without contributing anything valuable to the ecosystem ? When they -already !- have most of their work cut by Debian proper ? When do not have any more expertise at supporting their own distro than any capable Debian freelancer as shown by their absence of upstream contribution of any magnitude ? And when they maintain this most hypocritical attitude toward free software with on the one hand all the bullshit about the Ubuntu philosophy and on the other hand proprietary compromises galore ?
Technically, Ubuntu is probably the blandest distribution around, yet it is surrounded by some disturbingly powerful and irrational goodwill. Say, like... Apple ?
The difference is that the FreeBSD people are certainly OK that Apple take advantage of their work without giving much back. Freeloading in a mostly GPL environment when you pretend to be a major commercial player, however, sucks big time.

Re:Desktop Redhat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu, a long way ahead of other desktop distros, when they have no distinctive feature whatsoever ?

What about the shiny notifications that are designed to not notify you of anything important?

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/265

THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD! EVERYONE INSTALL UBUNTU!!!!!!!!

Re:Desktop Redhat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Virtually all of the the BSD code Apple uses is available on their darwin page. Personally, I think it's slightly douchebaggy to release BSD code under a new license, but at least they don't pretend to do it in order to make it more FREE. They also have improved khtml/kjs (WebKit) and are involved in llvm.

Other open source projects started at Apple include bonjour, core foundation lite, launchd.

I don't really know (or care) what Ubuntu has done, since I'm a FreeBSD/Debian guy.

Re:Desktop Redhat?

[PitaBred]

Ubuntu may not do any one thing better, but the overall end-user experience is much better with Ubuntu than with any other desktop distro I've tried lately. There's something to be said about streamlining existing work. Just because they don't contribute a ton of actual code doesn't mean they aren't contributing anything. Of course, it's only typical that a programmer thinks that if you aren't writing code, you can't be doing anything useful...

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Alpha geek? Are you referring to a job position at the Best Buy Geeksquad?

Re:I don't get it

[TheLinuxSRC]

Wow.. you sure are gullible. You are assuming that the vendor who is selling you a (server) OS is telling you the truth? I prefer to do a little research and put my money in the solution *I* determine will work for my situation; not the solution some marketroid determined will (might) do the job.

The meaning of the article is unclear

[Galois2]

The article seems to conflate "desktop" and "desktop virtualization."

RH has been on the desktop since the beginning. They offered Red Hat Linux 1.0 in 1995, all the way up through RHL 9 in 2003. They followed that with 10 bleeding-edge releases of Fedora and five main releases of RH Enterprise Linux. All 100% open, including their own work on utilities, Gnome/KDE, and kernel development. They have done more for linux on the desktop than just about any other company. And now we all reap the benefit, even if we use another distribution like Ubuntu.

So it is nonsense to say RH "returns" to the desktop. They never left.

Now, the article goes on to talk a lot about desktop *virtualization.* That's a totally different topic. Maybe the article should have been titled RH returns to desktop virtualization.

Re:The meaning of the article is unclear

[demachina]

As someone who used RedHat on the desktop from 6 through 9 and actually had just bought "support" when they "left" just to show my support for them I assure you when they abandoned RH 7-9 it most definitely felt like they "left". Way back they were a company with a loyal customer base who bought their boxed distributions even when we didn't have to just to support them. Then they went "public" and suddenly the people that got them to where they were and helped them get rich when they IPO'ed were dirt, and the only people they cared about sat on Wall Street and in the Fortune 500. As we've all seen lately the people on Wall Street are a pack of thieves, their loyal customers were worth a lot more to them than they apparently thought.

I do appreciate all they've contributed to Linux over the years but I've never installed Red Hat or Fedora since they "left" and I never will again.

Re:The meaning of the article is unclear

[firespade]

I agree. As I was stating above.. "You can't forget that even though you're centralizing the entirety of the software suite, we then fall into a issue of having developer platform utilities side by side with the front desk secretary. I agree that it reduces cost but you have to take affirmative action towards the security aspect, if not you'll soon see serious repercussions." This is a great technology but we have to find a middle ground to stand on before "releasing the hounds"..

Re:The meaning of the article is unclear

[NemoinSpace]

Maybe it's more accurate to say We left them, after we were invited to leave.

The fact is I used to buy their boxed sets just as a show of support. While I agree Redhat has done more for Linux than anyone, when the PHB's decided my money wasn't good enough for them, I admit I was insulted first and nervous second. I wasn't going to risk my reputation on some wanna be RedHat called Fedora and neither would my business customers. So every machine I touch since gets CentOS for enterprise or Debian5.

They can close the barn door, but the horse has left.

Re:The meaning of the article is unclear

[Galois2]

As someone who used RedHat on the desktop from 6 through 9 and actually had just bought "support" when they "left" just to show my support for them I assure you when they abandoned RH 7-9 it most definitely felt like they "left". Way back they were a company with a loyal customer base who bought their boxed distributions even when we didn't have to just to support them. Then they went "public" and suddenly the people that got them to where they were and helped them get rich when they IPO'ed were dirt, and the only people they cared about sat on Wall Street and in the Fortune 500.

They treated the people who got them where they were like kings. You must not have been one of the hundreds of people they invited into their mega-IPO who had nothing to do with RH other than that they happened to contribute to open source code that RH distributed. I've never seen any company with the ethics of RH, willing to give up money on the table to help the people who helped them.

Users who bought all those RH CD's from the early days and wanted to stick with a RH distribution simply moved on to Fedora Core 1. And if you were paying for support as you say, then RHEL would be no different than what you were doing under RHL 9. I don't see what anyone is complaining about.

Re:The meaning of the article is unclear

[demachina]

"Users who bought all those RH CD's from the early days and wanted to stick with a RH distribution simply moved on to Fedora Core 1. And if you were paying for support as you say, then RHEL would be no different than what you were doing under RHL 9. I don't see what anyone is complaining about."

Because I bought support for Red Hat 8 and it was basically worthless about a week later because Red Hat completely DROPPED Red Hat 7-9 without warning.

Both you and Red Hat exhibit total cluelessness about the fact that not everyone WANTS to upgrade their systems, especially mission critical systems, just because its convenient for Red Hat. Microsoft and Apple go to some pretty great lengths to support their platforms and applications for a long and predictable time and it inspires customer loyalty. Once I have something setup and I know it works I just want critical security fixes or I will update specific applications when I decide its appropriate. I'm starting to think its a pretty critical failing of the Linux community that they have such low regard for backward compatibility and longevity of their software. As a long time KDE user KDE 4 proved to be a dismal failure so I went back to KDE 3 and Linus switched to GNOME. I wager much of it was TrollTech had such low regard for maintaining backward compatibility between Qt 3 and 4 that they totally messed up a nice desktop by not maintaining continuity in their toolkit. 20 year old apps on Windows mostly still run.

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha, Ha. Got the troll label.

Desktop eh?

[certain death]

I think the problem with most Linux distros is the Desktop system...being KDE, Gnome, etc. The OS runs like a scalded dog, but the GUI sucks wind. The only serious crashes I have ever had on Linux was due to the Windowing system, nothing else that I can recall. If they could get their heads together and come up with something that was stable and usable (Gnome and Xfce are better now-a-days) they would probably own. One of the problems my own mother has had was the fact that there were too many choices when it came to the GUI, she could not decide and eventually gave up.

Re:Desktop eh?

[PitaBred]

X is going through some pretty good growing pains now, removing a lot of the required configuration settings and autodetecting things. And KDE/Gnome really aren't that bad.

And if your mother can't deal with the choices, why didn't you just make one for her? Seriously... the whole POINT of Linux is that it gives you choice. If you don't want choice, pay for Apple.

Re:Desktop eh?

[certain death]

My mom is a BOFH! She has been using/managing computers since I was 6 years old and I am OLD!! She wouldn't allow me to make the decision for her. :o)

Re:Desktop eh?

[ToasterMonkey]

If you don't want choice, pay for Apple.

Grow up.

Schitzo Hat

[gmdiesel]

Someday Red Hat is going to decide who they want to be. But until then, I'm keeping them out of my systems, and out of my portfolio.

Re:Hey, I said nigger

[MightyYar]

It's a Dr. Seuss quote, but for you it seems to be a sort of Rorschach test:

Your sig describes a 3some manwich.

And your answer reveals something quite interesting.

Re:Hey, I said nigger

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably *was* the original anonymous troll and only replied to guarantee that the thread wouldn't disappear. That's why I always mod every non-anonymous user under a troll offtopic - you're lucky I don't have mods ;)

Getting rid of Xen, eh?

[metasonix]

I wonder if it has anything to do with a primary Xen developer's wacky business activities?

RedHat

[alxkit]

mark my words: some other color is on its way...

Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[ProteusQ]

I tried a Fedora release not too long ago and found myself in dep-hell before the install was set up to my specs. That was the reason I bailed on RH back when they were on v8.1 If they can't fix that in the space of several years, why bother?

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[ADRA]

Dep hell? Such as??

The only problem I've had (in at least 5 years) with Fedora is with broken/overlapping dependencies as a result of using non-supported third party repositories in tandem, and I fail to see how the problems introduced by using an unsupported repository is RedHat's, RPM's, or Yum's fault.

With most 3rd party repo's joining up for RPMForge I haven't seen one hint of a dependency issue.

So tell me, why play this broken fiddle over and over again trying to carry a fresh tune? Your arguments are old and boring. If you want to bash RPM, bash the physical limitations of the format (if any). If you want to bash yum, tell us how slow it -sometimes- is. If you want to bash Fedora, you could complain about how bleeding edge (sometimes too bleeding edge) they are at releasing new programs.

What you can't say is that RPM is broken because it puts you into dependency hell. Its a fallacious argument so please clarify next time time you try to explain your fedora gripes.

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[pembo13]

Were you installing RPMs manually with RPM?

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[ProteusQ]

Yes. I can't recall the package, but it was something that wasn't standard.

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[ProteusQ]

I found my post written at the time (Mar 29 2008):

***

I haven't installed or used a Red Hat distro since about 2003 -- version 8.1, in fact. I quit about the time that Red Hat announced that all of us nonpaying users were leeches that they were better off without. I ignored the Fedora project, sticking with Kanotix, since it was deb-based, as I was tired of the dependency hell that rpm packages were known for. Kanotix worked after a lot of tweaking, and once Kubuntu reached 6.06, I switched over to that. Kubuntu has had ups and downs but won overall on consistency. It's still the best distro I've ever used. But it only achieved its potential with additional packages, best installed via Automatix.

Well, the news that Automatix is dead prompted me to install Fedora 8 on a spare partition.

Not that I couldn't do what Automatix did via the command prompt, but I figured that it was time to eject my Red Hat prejudices and take a look at what its community has come up with after five years. That, and the end of Automatix might spell the end of K/Ubuntu as the distro of choice for the casual user who wants to give Linux a spin. Those users are its base; tough to survive if your base gets alienated.

And, after five years, I figured that the problems associated with rpm-based distros would be history.

How many words are there on Earth for WRONG?!

Fedora 8 installs fine, and its Gnome desktop looks like a Mac (which is good), but if you add KDE, you lose sound support (as least on my laptop). And I have four packages that can't install because of -- believe it or not -- dependency hell.

It's been five years, folks. Five years! May I be blunt? It's time to ditch the rpms and move to debs. apt works just fine, folks. yum does not. End of story.

***

Broken fiddle my backside. That's a legitimate, serious error. And "apt-get install kde-desktop" does not cause this problem in Ubuntu.

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[Finite9]

yeah thats my reason too: apt-get works so much better when you start adding lots of extra repositories, and has a lot less dependency breakage than RH. I used CentOS as a server for a while and got a bit put off by the "if you add repository X then you cannot add repository Y or it might conflict" messages.

Besides that, Debian was more in tune with my ideals of being free, whereas RedHat is a naughty corporation, and even if they distribute free software, it is still a naughty corporation.

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[pembo13]

Well one is expected to have dep hell if you're installing manually and non using a dep solver like yum. That's like installing a .deb without apt.

Re:Yeah, but rpm's still stink

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to elaborate?

No more Fedora art, please!! They are ugly!

[julie-h]

How I welcome this. I think Fedora have the best software of any distribution, but they also have the worst art of them all. Just compare with SLES or Ubuntu. They are beautiful out-of-the-box.

Re:No more Fedora art, please!! They are ugly!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see an argument for Suse, but Fedora shits all over Ubuntu when it comes to default looks.

Re:No more Fedora art, please!! They are ugly!

[pdusen]

Wow, you must be from the Fecal school of art.

Re:No more Fedora art, please!! They are ugly!

[Logic Worshiper]

You have to be kidding me. Ubuntu is butt ugly out of the box. In fact Ubuntu is so ugly I'll change the theme on a live disk.

It means business desktop Linux

[benjamindees]

When RedHat made it's "workstation" more expensive than Windows XP, and ensured that Fedora was a buggy, unsupported test-bed for new technologies, it effectively abandoned the Linux business desktop market.

These "virtual desktops" are not new, either. RedHat had these types of systems as early as FC2. They just decided not to sell them. Had RedHat not abandoned this product line years ago, they would have made significant inroads in corporate Linux desktop deployment by now.

Instead they left the market to Ubuntu and SuSE/Novell, neither of whom have the clout to effect US corporate adoption of Linux on the desktop.

Re:Fedora is not beta of RHEL

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue with Ubuntu is that it's buggy as hell. RedHat at least admits that Fedora Core is an open beta; Ubuntu 8.10 is an open beta but Ubuntu didn't inform me of this fact.

That's true enough (somewhat), except that RH started by saying that FC was to be their "free" offering and you actually had to read between the lines to figure out that you were a beta tester for the paying customers that were to come further along (which is what made me leave RH for good).

Except that Fedora (no longer FC as they dropped the "Core" part from their name) is not beta for Red Hats products. It is upstream of Red Hat Enterprise Linux which has nothing to do with a beta version. Fedora is more like a general, fast moving playground of all the latest OSS technologies and software which Red Hat pulls out a snapshot from at regular intervals to tidy up and release as their Enterprise product line.

To call Fedora beta testing for Red hat is like calling the Linux kernel for beta testing of the distro kernels.
In some ways it may be true but it is not a accurate description of the relationship.

Redhat do-over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Redhat made a mistake by abandoning the desktop. Even Sun still tries their best to provide a workstation environment. The fact is, Ubuntu came in from the other direction and is now starting to mow everyone's lawn. Also by virtue of its Debian heritage, Ubuntu is easier to manage and an overall superior architecture.

Re:Redhat do-over.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu is easier to manage and an overall superior architecture.

Architecture? I'm having a hard time saying "Linux Architecture" with a straight face. What is that? The driver model? Is there a particular GUI framework intrinsic to Linux? Multimedia API?

  Ohhhh... you're talking about the package manager, because there is really nothing else that differs between two different Linux systems.
Yah, package managers will sell desktops. :(

Re:Redhat do-over.

[Anonymous Coward]

No dumbfuck, I mean architecture. If you can't see the significant design differences between Redhat and Debian, you aren't qualified to comment on the matter.

I miss RedHat 9 (not Fedora 9)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe my Samsung SyncMaster940BW will stop locking up like its done after installing Fedora 2 thru 9...

Switched from RedHat v7.1 to Debian

[mrflash818]

Once RedHat stopped selling desktop packages, I switched to Debian stable.

Now I think that I will not likely switch back. RH had their chance, but now I have evolved (devolved?).

I still have my RedHat v7.1 boxed set, too.

Re:Switched from RedHat v7.1 to Debian

[wwwillem]

I've quite a couple of those boxed sets too. I guess that RH8 was my all time favorite. On a Sony Vaio 505, I had/have wireless, PDA synchronization, sound, and even ...drum-roll... suspension/hybernation working.

OK, after an early SlackWare start I "jumped on the bandwagon" with RH 3.0.3. Must have been 1996 or so. And today, my home-built firewall/router is still humming along RH 6.2.

Jumping ahead, this weekend I had to make the choice what to use as the base platform for my desktop PC. When I say "base" I mean that every thing user facing will anyway be virtualized with VirtualBox. For example, I do quite a bit of WM5 development, but today that doesn't mean that Windows has to be your desktop OS.

I was really tempted to put OpenSolaris on the box, just so that I could use ZFS as my filesystem, but in the end (maybe a RH 3.0.3 -> 6.2 -> EL3 history plays its part :) I decided to stick with CentOS 5. If you use it as the base for a virtualized desktop, you don't care for features, but only for something damn solid. Ubuntu or Fedora can always become the guest OS .....

mod parent up Informative - very useful info there

[Anonymous Coward]

tia :-)

Re:Hey, I said nigger

[Henry V .009]

But extreme prejudice was what started all of this!

SPICE going open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

The key thing here is will the remote desktop protocol SPICE become (mostly) open source? Linux needs something to go toe to toe with Microsoft's RDP and Citrix's ICA. NX is usually called as the obvious choice for this, followed by the lowest common denominator VNC, but privately people have said SPICE beats NX hands down. So will high end stuff finally come to linux remote desktops, like high end video media and CAD? Or will we still be stuck in the 20th century?

Ooppps

[hesaigo999ca]

We all know that VMware uses linux red hat as the backbone of their visualisation module.
Now we have a real Red hat entry into the virtualisation world by teaming up with Xen.
I myself do not like Xen, being that you absolutely need the new VC chips to use it....
where as VMWare always worked from the beginning.

Cool to know though, red hat is trying to do there part and compete against M$

Re:Hey, I said nigger

[mcgrew]

No, actually my comment was offtopic and should have been modded as such. My karma is excellent, so the only time a downmod annoys me is when I have something to say I think funny or important and the comment gets buried. That wasn't one of them.

Definitions

[ClosedSource]

Geek: Someone who has a strong interest in computers and technology.

Alpha Geek: A Geek who thinks he knows more about computers and technology than all the other geeks and wants everyone else to do it his way. A bully's attitude trapped in a geek body.

Re:I don't get it

[causality]

Because Linux is Free as in feeling that somehow your choice in a Computer Operating Systems makes you morally superior.

Or it is free as in beer so When OS X or Windows dies on you you have a quick free OS to install to get your work done.

Or it helps you become an Alpha Geek... If a girl is gonna go for a geek they at least will go for the Alpha geek.

Or the very rare case that there is an app the only runs well in Linux that they need to use.

I really do like and prefer Linux. I enjoy the system. I like its transparency, performance, stability. I like how easy it is to customize, how it does what I want it to do. I like the lack of vendorlock, the use of open standards. I enjoy both the Free Speech aspects and the Free Beer aspects. It generally does not get in my way by making assumptions. I also like the non-commercial nature; that is, companies can use it and market it, but it's not inherently a commercial product and none of those companies have a monopoly on it. I first installed Linux back in late 1996 or so, maybe early 1997. I have not looked back. Not once have I wanted to switch back to Windows.

Does that mean I found the One Superior OS? The Be-All and End-All? No. It means I found something I really like that works well for me. Ideally, everyone else will do that on their own just like I did. There's a lot I could say (and have said) about Linux etc. but ultimately people have to make their own choices. There are lots of people I know to whom I would not recommend it because I know that those folks aren't interested in learning it. I respect their wishes. If they should change their minds and become more interested in computing, enough to want to put some effort into it, I'll be there to help them. Until they come to me about that, I support them when I can with computing issues, be it with Windows or Mac or Linux or whatever. I have some strong Libertarian type beliefs, in that as much as possible I believe people should make their own choices and do their own thing. To the degree that this is reasonable, I try to help the people I know with whatever decision they made even if I tell them why I would not have made that decision myself. Windows versus Linux is no different.

I'll be honest, you seem rather bitter. Your post up there looks like it was trying to be humor but the humor couldn't claw its way out of the bitterness. Such is often the way of cynicism. Linux really is an excellent OS. There are lots of people who cannot enjoy an excellent thing without looking down on others who won't or can't. You don't just see this in computing; unfortunately this behavior is found everywhere. You could focus on this maladaptive behavior until you drive yourself nuts, if you want, but I hope you don't. There are lots of us who do what we do even when no one is looking.

KVM sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

KVM isn't very good. Redhat is making a big mistake by switching to KVM. Citrix just announced they are releasing XenServer free of charge from now on, so I'll be using that for virtualization.