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.'"

10 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. Cost-Performance Utopia by foobsr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)
    1. Re:Cost-Performance Utopia by davecb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    2. Re:Cost-Performance Utopia by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    3. Re:Cost-Performance Utopia by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  2. Based on colour... by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Based on colour... by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Re:About time by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:They had their chance by jmyers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  5. The meaning of the article is unclear by Galois2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  6. Re:With RedHat. by neomunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.