Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
It will make 2009 the year of the... Oh never mind...
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
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.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
I never understood why the[y] left in the first place.
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.
My blog
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?
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
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.
OTOH, you have given us no reason to accept your argument.
My blog
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.
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.
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.
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. ;)
My blog
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.
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.
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.
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) ?
"If they have both, tell them we use Linux. And if they have that, tell them the computers are down." -Dave Chapelle