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