Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CEO Questions Relevance of Desktop Linux
snydeq writes "Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC. 'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it,' Whitehurst said, adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing, as well as VDI. 'The concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age. I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.' Despite increasing awareness that desktop Linux is ready for widespread mainstream adoption, fellow panelists questioned the practicality of switching to Linux, noting that even some Linux developers prefer Macs to Linux. 'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'"
I don't want to give up control of 'MY' unit to the cloud...ever!
How about laptops, huh?!
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
that Canonical is doing what he's been trying to do for years.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Only the French could come up with such a daring plan for victory.
See WWI and WWII.
Har Har har.
Put it on the shelf, and sell it for $50. Use the $50 to pay for 1) 24-hour tech support phone line and 2) Licensing for MPEG, MP3, etc so that DVD and music playback Just Works, out of the box. I'll buy half a dozen copies and GIVE them to all my relatives. Please, somebody do this already.
It might not be ready for his desktop be it has been on my desktop for 7+ years.
His main problem is that he doesn't know how to make money off of Desktop Linux.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Yes I think I'm going to take this sage wisdom from some ignant suit... "I dunno how to make money off it, so it must be irrelevant." Maybe loosen that tie a little and let some oxygen up in that ol' brain there, buddy? Perhaps then RedHat and Fedora will stop getting declining in quality with each new release.
Didn't I just read something about Redhat moving back into the desktop?
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/1721248
Simply because some CEO can't sell his product in a market flooded with free (and equally good) alternatives (like ubuntu, debian, puppy linux, soon android, and other), the desktop distro is going to disappear? Really?
Or is he talking about the desktop computer? Well, I'll put his name on the pile of people proclaiming the doom of the desktop. While laptops are almost everywhere, they haven't replaced the desktop in the workplace. In fact, at the firm i used to work for, they bought everyone laptops for a round of buys, but then switched back to towers.
Also, I shudder to imagine how slow and botched a thin client rollout would have been. It seemed like every day one server or another was going down for something. I know that's not how you run your shop, but I can't imagine my old 150 person firm was unique.
Cloud computing and the client-server architecture in general is definitely decreasing the significance of the desktop and will continue to do so, but there will likely remain some niches where it makes sense to have significant desktop performance.
One example that comes to mind is doing development work, including both traditional programming and CAD work as well as graphics design. To be responsive to the user it seems those would want to keep most of the processing near the end user. Similarly, anything dealing with sensitive information must tread lightly when dealing with the cloud or any other server which is not under direct and immediate control.
You're right, in 5 years the hundreds of millions of desktop computers running various OS's will all go away because of massive investments by companies in huge single points of failu^H^H^H cloud computing facilities. And with this booming economy, those billion dollar future tech gambles will be coming along any day now...
Therefore it is irrelevant and nobody wants it.
If large businesses are too conservative to switch to a different operating system, they will definitely be too conservative to use vapour-computing.
And rightly so. Who would give up control of something critical to the cloud.
I've been using a Linux desktop for years. Now that OpenOffice is a reality, and Firefox is the best browser, what's not to like? Sure, Macs are OK, but their keyboard layout makes X windows development very difficult. And the comment, "What about laptops?" is right on the mark: Am I supposed to carry a Linux laptop, and then a Macbook, just so that I can use the Mac desktop? That's absurd. The RedHat CEO is just plain wrong.
How many times have we heard the 'Death of the Desktop'. Just because he can't figure out how to make money on it does not mean it is going away.
Yes I think I'm going to take this sage wisdom from some ignant suit...
That's ignint you ignint dumbass.
Of course the desktop will be relevant in 5 years, because it's still the most convenient way to get serious crative work done (writing, coding, school work, artistic projects). I'd hate to see what would happen to the quality of kids' school reports if they wrote them on smartphones.
That's easy. Make it not suck, then sell copies.
Of course, if you're RedHat, that would require getting rid of RPM and yum, and moving to a packaging system that doesn't suck like APT and dpkg, so it's not going to happen.
Fortunately, we have Ubuntu.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Everyone is all gaga for Cloud computing but there are still millions of used desktops out there that can be used in a cloud-based setup. The idea is that the end user has a dumb terminal, right? Well these old systems -- anything Pentium +, hell even 486s possibly, can be a dumb terminal running Linux with a light Window manager. Puppy comes to mind when I think about Linux that works on *everything* known to Man (with an X86 chip in it). Does this not fill a role of cloud computing?
Wait, that eats into Dell/Apple/Gateway/Asus's entire business plan (build, sell, make obsolete stuff as fast as we can).... oops.
Millions of Ubuntu users question the relevance of Red Hat on the desktop.
As an avid linux user/systems administrator for over 11 years...I still do not understand why you need both server and desktop versions. Once you pick a distrobution, you should choose either bleeding edge or stable...those should be the only two versions you really need to worry about. I've also been a huge user of RH and it's forks (previously WhiteBox, currently CentOS). If I needed a desktop installation you simply do not install the server packages. Can someone explain why we need a dedicated desktop version?
Developers prefer Macs to Linux? Uh, what? One is hardware the other is an OS. I guess he meant OS X and not "Macs".
Just because some Linux developers prefer OS X over Linux doesn't mean anything. I'm willing to bet a larger number like Linux. I have a Mac and I run Linux on it because I don't like OS X.
As for Cloud Computing, we will continue to need something to run on the client. Linux is a way better choice as a Cloud client because it's more secure, lightweight, and cheaper. If anything Cloud Computing makes the case for Linux even stronger. Personally I doubt we will ever see elimination of the Desktop. People have been saying thin-client/Cloud/whatever is coming for a long time. The truth is that we will probably continue to do like we are now. That is, some stuff is network based and other stuff runs locally, whatever fits best (how are you going to run World of Warcraft in a web application?!).
adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing
Oh, please. I stopped reading there. No offense to this man, but give me a break.
Not sure about anyone else but anything redhat based seems pretty poor as a desktop.
Fedora - supported for about 10 minutes (maybe a bit longer)
Centos - as old as the hills.
Enterprise - As if i'd pay for desktop linux ! (when there are much better free options)
Ubuntu/opensuse even Arch linux make better desktops in my opinion...
In my opinion, he's right.
Linux is fine for users who fit (mainly) into two categories:
1) knowledgeable people who like to tinker with computers and have an understanding of the base OS and some of it's quirks.
2) extremely un-knowledgeable people who get linux installed on their desktop by someone from category 1. They make no changes to their desktops, use few programs and if they do have an issue, call "tech support" who is almost always the guy or gal who installed it for them.
In the middle, you have a huge number of people who just want their computer to work. Linux does the trick, but they're conditioned to MSInstallers and setup.exes. They're used to the "Windows Way" and the "Mac Way". They use their computer to play games. They use the internet, email, and maybe some word-processing type stuff.
They don't want to have to change their thought process.
(car analogy time)
It's like being taught how to drive an automatic your whole life and then being forced to drive a stick. There's a learning curve there. And most people simply don't want to try it.
(for the record, I have several different OSes running, Leopard, Ubuntu, XP, and Vista on various computers. I'm agnostic, I use what is best suited for the job.)
Sent from your iPad.
I've been running Centos (RHEL) on my desktop (home & work, laptop & desktop) for years now with no significant problems at all.. it pretty much "just works".
I've also toyed with switching to ubuntu to see what all the fuss is about but ultimately see no compelling reason to switch. Sorry Mr Red Hat - your system works just fine already.. ;)
I don't feel any great desire to rush headlong into "the cloud". The whole cloud buzz these days is interesting and no doubt it has its place but not on my desktop thanks. I also wouldn't like to spend much time online with a smartphone, no matter how shiny.. my old eyes couldn't take the strain!
I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.
Original Quote by Wayne Gretzky:
"I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been"
Anyone old enough here to remember that? Bill Gates responded to Ellison's claim that the PC was dead, by saying, "I like my PC."
I think a lot of folks still like the freedom of being able to install what *they* want, not what is available in some cloud, or what their company's IT folks claim to be "the standard application set" that is more than anyone else might need.
Now, whether Jim Whitehurst can make money off how *I* like to handle my computing needs, well, that's his problem.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.
We've just learned two things about Jim Whitehurst:
This sig intentionally left blank.
wat u meen?!!
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Were you forced to post this troll as part of some bizarre 12 step program?
He doesn't mean people won't use computers in 5 years, he means that more likely than not students will compose and submit documents in a browser-based environment where it won't matter what operating system they run.
Of course with America's aging teachers worried about their retirement at the moment I'm not sure it will be quite that soon. I still have teachers who want me to print documents to hand in. In 2009. Really, its absurd, I haven't used a printer for anything besides school in probably 8 years.
Just because RedHat used to be at the top of the desktop Linux game and failed doesn't mean its impossible.
I was this close, to actually changing my desktop from Ubuntu to Fedora. I was believing in the Red Hat "rediscovering Desktop" hype thing. I guess the Fedora Community should be _really happy_ to this CEO kind words. FAIL
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I want ownership.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's not just his problem. It's his employees' problem too. If he can't make seven or eight figures a year selling the stuff he can't pay his underlings five figures a year to put food on their tables and then they starve and can't do any more work.
Even if you love developing for Linux in your spare time you still need a full time job that, somewhere along the line, sells a service or a product. If that sale isn't made, you won't have a job and you'll have to look for one instead of working on FOSS. No matter how you slice it, FOSS depends directly on the traditional for-profit market to stay alive.
mmmm...forbidden donut
Much like the desktop itself eliminated the terminal interface, and computers meant the end of paper and pencils.
It's interesting to look at, but, on closer inspection, it stinks.
His comment on Macs is a good one. Even some linux devs prefer to work on Macs because the desktop experience of a Mac is better than the desktop experience of linux. The innards of a Mac are similar enough that linux dev work can still be done, but the ease of use of the desktop beats linux hands down. The Mac GUI is what linux should have been ages ago, and probably would have been if linux had standardized the graphics stuff, or even just ripped it out and started over instead of trying to clamp everything onto 20 year old ideas/methods.
After all, many question Red Hat's relevance on the desktop.
I love Ubuntu, it's a very good desktop by Linux standards. However, you have to bear in mind that Canonical is not a typical company. It runs at a loss, subsidized by Mark Shuttleworth, a billionaire. Mr. Shuttleworth has done the world a good deed by investing in Canonical instead of a football team as his billionaire toy, but that does not mean that Canonical is a commercial validation of desktop Linux.
After 4 years, I've given up on desktop Linux. I run a web hosting ISP and have run RH-family Linux servers (Fedora and then CentOS) for about 10 years. However, now that my laptop has 2GB of RAM and a fast dual-core cpu, I can run a text-mode Centos server in the background under vmware. This leaves me with a Windows XP desktop I can use for photoshop etc.
Mark Shuttleworth has said that he's only using desktop-linux to get into server marketplace. He has succeeded rather well in his plan (only the ??? before profit is yet to solve).
One key point is making your server product familiar with sysadmins and the other is convergence. When distribution doubles as a server and a desktop OS it attracts more development and that way also more users (cycle is ready: convergence drives adoption, adoption drives convergence).
There is probably even some money in desktop-linux itself, but then you're either targetting OEMs or some niche market and either way the profit stays small (low margins - low volume).
Jim Whitehurst's comments seem like -1 Flamebait to me. Can't compete in an area? Cop out and say it's not important... just like a 6 year old would.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
Bull Shit! Linux makes a great desktop. As people switch to Mozilla and OpenOffice the perceived problems with desktop Linux go away. Microsoft helps with crap like Vista and Office 2007. I wish Red Hat would see which side their bread is buttered on. Ubuntu does.
MC
I use Linux on my laptop, but even I have to agree.
What I want is a $50 add-on that will:
1. Fully and legally support bytecode interpreter and hinting for fonts. Bonus points for including decent fonts as well.
2. Support all major audio and video codecs. I shouldn't have to break any laws to get support for my digital media. Bonus points for not having to buy another codec pack when I upgrade my OS.
3. Support multi-monitor automatically when I connect a monitor (like Mac or Windows).
4. Work well on laptops. I should not see error messages about my hard drive failing to soft-reset every time I wake my laptop up from sleep.
I don't really mind the "cloud" as it gives me options, alternatives...
What I really want to avoid is the storm
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
All praises to the corporate talking heads! We must bow down to their profound wisdom and mystical knowledge and tailor our lives to their needs and profitability!
Like I give a rat's ass what some corporate drone thinks. People who yet again claim that the desktop or the personal computer are dead, or that everything will be in the cloud, or that people mainly use computers for email and web browsing, or that everything we do at the desktop can be done on an iPhone, blah blah blah, are in a deep state of catatonia. The things we know as "desktops" today will certainly evolve, but to believe they will disappear is absurd.
I'm not sure what he is talking about I have my preferred desktop running Ubuntu now. I use the Windoz box for games and running one piece of software (platypus) that I can't get to work in Linux. Works ok via Virtualbox though.
I have been dealing with troves of infested windows boxes lately that are almost impossible to completely disinfect. One neighbor has had me reinstall Windows three time in the last year.
No more, Ubuntu goes on this box now!
Didn't anyone bother vetting him first?
Saying the desktop won't be relevant in five years is complete and utter, crack smoking, nonsense. I would put money on most people still using computers that a very broadly similar to the current machines five years from now for the simple reason that cloud based applications aren't as good as desktop applications and they aren't going to be for a good few years yet. Sure, there are some cloud based applications that are fairly good. Email is the perfect example, for many people web based email is good enough but those applications are few and far between. We might all end up with virtualized machines and big-iron in the server room again but that is just moving the hardware.
A virtual machine hosted remotely and not tied to a single piece of hardware looks a lot like the end-game of browser based web-applications. Sure there are a few differences over how data is accessed but that's pretty minor stuff.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
right up until:
a) your internet connection drops in the middle of that critical project that must be done in the next hour.
b) You hit your ISPs up/down cap.
c) Your bandwith gets deprioritised due to you not paying as much money to your ISP as company XXX.
d) The internet crashes due to being overloaded with everyone that has a computer connecting and streaming load of data at once..
Anyone else think that "cloud computing" is a UK government IT project?
(For those outside the UK, our government has a track record of failing IT projects (massively over budget and delivered X years overdue), due to exceptionally bad planning and not thinking the whole process through)
<offtopic> Hence I am not worried about the comms database, I am still waiitng on a national health database, an ID card & a biometric passport.</offtopic>
Ignore his obvious mistake of comparing a computer to an Operating system.
Still, What is he rambling about?
I imagine there are a few developers in most camps that prefer another, maybe they even defect. Big deal.
I don't even count myself a real Linux user, and even I use it more than any other operating system. I think it is ready for the desktop, whether he thinks so or not.
Ubuntu is nice for us non linux people, and Mandriva PowerPack is even nicer. It is just brain dead simple to use and I never touch a command line.
My binder of (seemingly) 1000 windows installation CD's and DVD's just sits there, unused!
I kind of miss the days when I felt like a king with my hundreds of nice commercially produced cd's for windows. Then I have to "help" a friend rescue their computer and quickly am reminded how many days it took me to fully set up a system with software and drivers. After that I feel better about all my Linux software being on a single DVD with my crude handwriting on it.
Has Mr. Whitehurst been listening to The Smodcast and Kevin Smith's recent infatuation with Wayne Gretsky?
Wasn't the desktop never meant to happen? Won't we all meant to be using thin clients?
This never happened, and may never happen because the bandwidth speed isn't going up faster than computers speed. Maybe we will reach a point where all the user input and computer output can be piped about and the latency isn't a problem, but even then I'm not sure people will want it. The freedom implications seams sinister to me, and I'm untrusting of storing stuff only online as I've had data lost for me before (ok, ten years ago, but still).
I think things will continue as today, fat clients. I can do whatever I want the limits being only myself, time and my machine specs.
Scales nicely too.
I figured around step 2.5 there would be "Have sex."
!but then remembered what it was i was doing and where i was doing it and then....
I'm sorry... where was i?
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Am I I the only one who is becoming tired of all this marketing speech about weather and hockey?
I've been using the "cloud" ever since I got web mail back in 1996! Web services are a great idea. It's not everything. It will never be everything. It's just a bunch of people exchanging a bunch of services.
We live in a world with a complex global economy, which is why "the puck" is constantly splitting into more pucks going in every imaginable direction. Hopefully it'll hit the the teeth of some jerk who think his attending a talk by Wayne Gretzky makes him a better "business leader".
Would you believe the good old coal and steel industries are bigger than ever? Steel companies are constantly innovating new products. Metal in general is doing great. There is almost no dwindling industry out there except for some information tech, like typewriters and CD's. But on the other hand we have a small renaissance for vinyl records. I wouldn't be surprised if someone told me the future of the pig iron business looks really exciting.
Come back when you have one web service worth paying real money for (as opposed to venture capitalist money).
Once there was an operating system called OS2(Linux) it ran most of the stuff DOS(Windows) could and could do some things it couldn't.
We all know how that came out.
I like Linux, I want to use Linux, I don't want to deal with the hassles. Actually, the last time I installed Suse it detected and supported my hardware better right out of the box then XP or Vista. If anything, cloud computing should make it easier to use Linux.
See above for Mac. At least Mac's get a native version of most of the serious creative software.
And don't try to tell me Gimp=Photoshop. Been there, done that. They are not the same.
How long will corporate customers of Red Hat need the hand-holding provided by paying for Linux? Maybe 2015 will be the year that Linux is ready for the server (i.e. most customers won't need support).
But thats really irrelevant, the thing I take issue to is that Mac OSX is NOT a better developer environment than Ubuntu. I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops. I own a MacMini at home and I just can't bring myself to develop on it. That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
I used to work at a software development shop that created high end Linux-based servers and appliances (I think our cheapest offering was $20K) in the security market. Employees were given the choice of workstations, laptop or desktop. Our pre-approved vendors were IBM/Lenovo and Apple. When I started working there, three or four people were running OS X. A few years later when I left the vast majority of the engineers were using it. During that whole time only one employee switched back from OS X, and it was because he did Linux on the desktop development as a hobby and it made his hobby easier. These were not casual users or casual developers. We regularly submitted code to Linux and BSD and Apache and numerous other projects. One hold out developer who was an OpenBSD fanatic only switched after he wrote some kernel modules for OS X to provide the level of security auditing he felt was lacking.
The reason people gave for sticking with OS X was that it saved them time and effort managing configurations that were not necessary to their tasks. One manager proposed a standardized Linux desktop for his group and the engineers raised hell until the idea was dropped. His proposal was not helped by the fact that he couldn't get more than two Linux fans to agree on a vision as to what that standard should look like. The cost of Apple machines over IBM was negligible and the new employee configuration time as measured by IT was about 20 hours less. They also had a lower hardware failure rate.
My point is, at least in my experience, Linux on the desktop was replaced primarily because it was not as good of a development workstation as OS X.
I've been using Ubuntu for over 2 years now at work and the only thing I can't do with it is Netmeeting, which is becoming less relevant since Lotus e-meeting works in linux for sharing desktops.
I've been running Ubuntu longer than that and Kubuntu before that. There are numerous software packages I use that won't run on Linux, even in WINE. There are numerous tasks where Ubuntu is simply a lot more cumbersome. In general, all things being equal, I will run the same application in OS X instead of Ubuntu (assuming native versions for each). This is because
That bit aside, equipping a programmer with a MacPro desktop or laptop is just far too expensive to justify anyway.
Wow, you must work at some lousy places with weird costing. The cost of an Apple laptop versus another laptop with similar specs is pretty negligible. It probably cost companies I worked at less than filling the fridge with snacks. Just a little bit of time saved, is worth a lot of money when you're talking about the salary of a software engineer or even a QA guy. Heck, the cost of my time migrating to a new laptop using OS X's nifty auto-migrate feature versus installing Ubuntu again, re-downloading all the software, reconfiguring the software, and migrating my home directory and data probably more than makes up for the cost difference and that's just one task.
Obviously there is a lot of room for variation. Different people perform different tasks and get paid different amounts. That said, you blanket statements were certainly not true when we tried them. We saved money.
When people finally give up the notion that a desktop isn't viable unless they can install "whatever" software they want, then we will see sanity in approaches to Linux desktops. Are your business needs capable of being met by what is available to a Linux desktop? The same questions are applicable to Mac on the desktop, after all. And for the same reasons, Apple Macintosh could be deemed as "not ready for the desktop" as well.
People are accustomed to the idea of Apple on the desktop and are quickly faced with problems such as Office on the Mac not being fully functional when compared to Office on Windows. Either those problems are accepted or the use of Apple on the desktop is rejected. Linux is no different in this regard.
Can business needs be met with a Linux desktop? Quite often, YES. It depends on the business needs though, but for more generic and common needs, it is ready.
When approaching the question from a functional needs perspective rather than "can I run iTunes and my favorite screensaver and weatherbug?" then fair assessment of applicability can be determined.
And once again, those same metrics APPLY to Mac OS X just as it does to Linux, so if people will claim Mac is ready for the desktop and that Linux isn't, I think that there is probably something broken in their assessment.
The things that stand out in the linked article are:
My verdict: Desktop Linux is a great choice for many regular Joes with basic computer needs ... ...
In fact, I found that it makes a lot of sense to standardize office workers on desktop Linux.
Let's face it: The app selection for desktop Linux -- especially those designed for regular folks -- is very thin. You won't find BI tools, database apps, media creation apps, and so on, as you would for Windows or the Mac. If you think the Mac has too few apps to be used in business, you'll downright dismiss desktop Linux.
The author completely fails to support his verdict, preferring instead to focus on Linux as a business desktop and even then admits it is not really suited for the role due to lack of apps.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
My background is in Windows and to a lesser degree, the Mac, so I do not consider myself a true Linux user. My use of Linux is too "simple", I just navigate around the GUI's, a monkey could do it.
That being said, how exactly do you claim the Mac experience is better?
"The Mac GUI is what linux should have been ages ago". Oh yes, because the all the programs on my Mac had the same look and feel!
Wait, no they didn't. Even Apple themselves could not keep their act together and stay consistant.
In many ways Apple now trails some of the Linux desktop environments for advanced features and design.
The thing I really like about Linux is that it allows me alternatives... there are SO MANY ways to rip a movie, play a movie etc. Yes, sometimes I almost drown in choices... but when I need an alternate way to do something, the choice is there.
Putting any company data on a 'cloud' would get you sacked.... ...in this business even email has to go through export control !
Think Different. Think Better. Think Apple.
IAs someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked.
Well, it might have sucked for you (as it did for me), but I can imagine that some particular companies thrived very well on that model, and would love to lock in customers to mainframes that way again, in the guise of a wolf in "cloud clothing."
That would be a return to the good old days for them.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'
Linux has much more basic problems it needs addressed before "widespread" adoption can happen. The fact that the development community is so broken also doesn't bode well for its adoption on the desktop - you have to "get it" that it doesn't matter what it does under the hood as long as it works. As long as the current crop of geeks that cling onto every little technical detail continue to be in charge, the bigger picture will continue to be missed and desktop Linux will continue to be an impossibility for your average user.
You can wait until the average user is savvy enough to be able to fix the various technical problems Linux has on the desktop, but me thinks that by that time the whole issue will be irrelevant, and people who can put up with all the crap will refuse to do so, simply because they don't have to and it's a big waste of time.
Must-not-watch TV!
Here an idea. Why not promote RHEL as a way to manage Fedora(or Ubuntu no reason why not) desktops. You offer free desktop but the network management tools come in a supported distribution. Actually, support ubuntu and let the desktop be supported by Canonical commercially. Red Hat would loose no business this way.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't know if this is funny or not, since most everything here is verifiably untrue.
- OS X appears to be cracked faster in contests
- Stable? I guess they have never used OS X
- More secure? repeating claim #1 does not make it any more true
- OS X belongs on the desktop, it is weak at server tasks.
- Yes, poor apple has had to use non GPL code, as they cannot arbitrarily close up GPL code
- America is either one continent or two, depending on you world view. America is not a country.
- I question the legitimacy of the code in OS X, so your last statement is false.
Very true, any moron can soak up enemy bullets. It takes a little something extra to supply bullets to the friendlies!
But this time it's cool and new. Rest assured though that once Cloud Computing takes over, the computer industry will "invent" Local Cloud Computing were you do revolutionary things like install programs on your local system, keep your data locally, and actually buy copies of software. Then, once that's in place, we'll switch to Next Generation Cloud computing (or whatever we call it at the time). Rinse and repeat.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
First, I am not in the IT industry. I run small law firm.
My entire buisness, two offices, 30 computers, routers, servers, all Linux (PClos 2009 is my flavor). Not a single copy of anything else in my office, all running free or open source software legally. I save over $250,000 a year and climbing over what I would have needed to pay for the equivalent (and most is not equivalent). Since I started my biz about 4 years ago, that could be seen as something around $1 million dollars. In real money, that is something likly closer to $400,000 in cash, because I likly simply would have had to do without most of the stuff I take for granted (e.g. loading up a backup mail server on an old computer, rather than forking out $2,000+ for new one ). Thus, my buisness likly would be much smaller.
The savings is even greater on the desktop. Somewhere in neighborhood of $1,000 per seat or more. Hardware alone, as I live in a country with expensive outdated hardware, is 50% over walking in to a store to buy a new computer because I run Linux.
I would likly not be able to afford to be in biz without Linux.
Making money comes in two basic forms. You either raise the price, or reduce your cost. I am making more money using linux and OS, because I reduced my cost. I can afford not to raise prices on clients, I get more clients, and make more money.
Not my problem the old guard IT industry can not figure out how to make money with Linux, because I am sure I am not the only small buisness out there that is making money on Open Source.
Living in Chile
all glory to the hypno-cloud
quoth the CEO whose company primarily sells and services server installations.
So, Mr. Fox, how sour are those grapes?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
At least Whitehurst seems to like hockey. That's good enough for me.
The desktop is always going to matter. Even if we get to a point where there's clouds everywhere (which personally I doubt is going to work they way people are hyping it right now, but that's a whole other debate), the desktop is going to be how you interface with all of them.
The problem really is his other statement. Many desktop linux users are switching to mac. Why is that? Perhaps the Linux desktop just isn't quite there yet. And while I love Linux and the community, frankly the desktop choices still rather suck. They've come a long way, to be sure. But KDE's big problem has always been it's hodgpodginess. GNOME was my best hope back in GNOME 1.0... It was actually really nice to use. But they made a policy decision that they shouldn't have. They removed all choice of configurability. Now it's become this bastard clone of Windows that only really copies the sucky parts of Windows. (albiet with much better fonts than we had before all this started!)
What they should have done is said yes, some people think there's too much customization and no one can really agree on exactly what "THE" way of doing things is. Okay, let's have a policy editor/manager that then lets distribution authors and site administers determine the policy of their systems and configure things the way they expect their users to use them. eg. I'm catering to dumb users that expect things to be like Windows, so I'm going to customize it that way; or I'm catering to uber-geeks that like to have every single option available to them.
As for making money on desktop linux, part of the issue is commercial applications. Identify what the pain points are and see how to resolve it. One of the big issues for commercial developers is the proliferation of distributions. Because of the GPL, it makes it difficult for an application developer to link to GPL'd libraries and expect to work on any distribution (due to a number of reasons: library versions, paths, etc.). In the old commercial Unix days, it was easy, they'd just include a statically compiled version of the app. Unfortunately due to the GPL (and even LGPL) that isn't practical for companies.
So while Redhat I'm sure would only really care about people writing software for Redhat's Desktop Linux. Commercial authors want to make sure they can run an as much Linux as possible. Before that happens, I think we'll continue to see extremely slow adoption by commercial vendors.
That being said, personally, I'm quite happy with most of the OSS out there. But keep in mind commercial needs differ. And sometimes you just have to have commercial software. With April coming around, TurboTax is a good example. (OSS is great, but I don't think anyone's going to be interested in writing an OSS tax software, and I'm not sure how much I'd trust 0.64bpre33 of YetAnotherTaxSuite =) ).
The difference is that in the 70s, this architecture was limited to your office. Now, it's limited to the entire world. You can log on and work with your data from everywhere that you can go.
Once we move into space, unless we've also got instantaneous data transfer, the 'dumb terminal' will make less sense again.
Everything cycles because not everything advances at the same rate. This is the same as multi-core computing becoming popular again.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Shuttleworth has stated before that he was able to start Thawte due directly to F/OSS.
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
That's because you're misunderestimating it. The "cloud" isn't a central server, and it isn't necessarily off premises.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
Cloud computing does not break this model because it does not necessarily include a software lease model. Software leasing is something you can do with or without cloudiness.
I want ownership.
Me too. I don't want "cloud" computing in my home, because I don't have enough computers to make my own cloud, don't want to pay the power bills for that many computers, and don't want to depend on the Internet for computing. BUT, I sure do want it at work!!!
Right now we have six thousand desktop computers using a fraction of their CPU and storage capabilities because they have occasional peak demands that dwarf their normal workload. If this capacity could be harnessed in a "cloud" - which is really just another name for a particular type of "grid" - we could get rid of our huge mainframe and mini complex and save 2 to 6 million dollars a year.
Now, is 2 million dollars a compelling argument? It is to me. Maybe not to you.
Remember there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all condom or a one-size-fits-all computing strategy. Your home needs will be different from a bank, which will be different from a research lab, which will be different from an iron mine. The people being idiots on the subject of "cloud computing" are the ones who think that everyone is going to use it - they are the same idiots who said the PC would kill the mainframe.
NEXT YEAR, the death of the desktop will have been 5 years away for 31 YEARS!!!
Times are changing my friend! A bold new world is about to dawn!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I bought Word back in 98
I want ownership.
Correction: you bought a license to use Word "back in '98". You in no way "own" that piece of software. Microsoft "owns" it.
I want nothing to do with this "cloud computing" bullsnot. It sounds like nothing but trouble. There's too much of this "putting your eggs in one basket" mentality floating around, as if dumping all of our resources into the Internet and browser-based software is somehow going to save us from... what, exactly? I fail to see the point.
Well, this new CEO wasn't around when Redhat pulled the great "we are only for teh enterprise" FU to the regular desktop users community. He's an airlines executive, I mean, WTF? Anyway, back in the day as we all remember, all of a sudden what was a 60 buck boxed version distro with a more or less functional update manager and a lot of users and real decent market and mondshare in this field became hundred$ per seat, and if you weren't some "enterprise" they had no desire to even glance in your direction, with the sop of throwing the perpetual alpha/beta ware Fedora at the community instead. They HAD a happy medium that a lot of people paid money for, me included, and I recall a lot of folks just switched to something else at that time. Now they get no money from me, and I bet this sentiment is reflected all over. In other words, they snatched desktop defeat from the jaws of victory. They didn't have to abandon the consumer desktop to also push the server and other stuff there for business, they just needed two divisions in their corporation, a normal type corporate move (now they would need three, a mobile code division).
The progression is freaking obvious, just like the other successful desktop OSes, from MS and Apple, (and now smart phones), it HAS to come preinstalled on new boxes primarily for the main monetarization effort, and they will HAVE to include the less than 1% non free code to make media "just work" without the dodge of going to some offshore server and downloading code. That's about the only way desktop linux will become common, even if it only makes them ten bucks a copy or whatever, you think and act economy of scale, i.e., potentially millions or even billions of customers out there who will all be using a desktop, a server, a smart phone or any combination there.
First, if you think this is a case of sour grapes, then you don't understand the fable.
Second, the write up is misleading:
I think Whitehurst and his cohorts are thinking beyond desktops and laptops to a future where computing is ubiquitous and people surf and email through their cell phones, game consoles, and TVs and the "desktop" is really a webtop.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
exactly WHY someone should make money off of every individual in the world who uses a computer and/or computing resources. I mean, I have several clocks. I buy them, bring them home, and for that one time investment, I get years of service. Some wind up, some use batteries, some use the electric grid. But, they are all mine, and no one makes money from my use of them. Why should computing be any different? The cloud will cost me directly or indirectly, forever. Subscriptions to Microsoft will cost me forever. Smartphones likewise. Desktops and laptops? They are like my clocks. One time investment, and they work until they quit working, which will likely be a very long time if I paid for quality to start with. Why does RedHat, or Microsoft, or anyone else think that they need to make money, every time I solve a mathematical problem, watch a movie, or play a game? Screw them all. The cloud is aptly named, when you think about it. Vaporware to the max! My money is (slightly) more substantial than vapor, and I intend to keep it in my wallet, thank you.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Just because he can't make a profit on the desktop, doesn't mean the desktop is irrelevant. Just because no one else can either, doesn't make desktops valueless. They're part of the computing infrastructure, and without them we can't get to certain other profits. Stores don't make any money on their parking lots, yet they still use them so that their customer can park. Same with desktops. Commercial distros might not make any money on GNOME or KDE, but they should still consider funding them because it expands the distros' market.
p.s. Oh, and if you're going to base your business decisions on trends, you need to look at ALL trends. Mobile devices are indeed booming, but so are large monitors. More and more people are going dual-screen and/or 20+" monitors. The desktop isn't dying, it's getting breathing room!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
This would be almost a fair assessment.. In 1992.
I'm on the 6 step plan: Every other day at a time
He won't need to wait that much. In fact, according to Shuttleworth, Canonicalâ(TM)s annual revenue is creeping toward $30 million.
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olsen, 1977.
You should become familiar with the new Microsoft then. You're aware of Microsoft Windows Activation? It's only going to get stricter. I'm certain it will reach the point soon where you must activate any version of their software, down to Office.
I understand why companies do this, but unless they provide a "deactivation" option so I can move the software/reformat and reactivate, and put the master activation keys in escrow (in case they ever decide to take down their activation servers), and publish the intractable escrow agreement alongside the software itself, it's just plain unethical
Besides, should the user experience hard drive failure, the only ethical way for the company to respond is to allow them to license the software anyways. How do you then prevent multiple installations? A phone-home routine, how lovely
Long story short, we're already moving in the direction of not owning our computers and copies of software we've paid for. It's a dangerous slide and I don't like it. Too many people have abused the freedom they've had, and now corporations are going to respond by abusing the freedom that they have.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Perhaps Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst is just referring to desktop installation of Red Hat Linux having insufficient payback for Red Hat. The need for support contracts would be SO much greater if clients used Windows desktops to connect to the Red Hat servers (Windows being even less ready for the desktop, and more needy of support).
Whatever about Red Hat, I've found Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS to be eminently suitable for the desktop.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Cloud computing is about control. Period. End of story. I will never entrust all of my data to the Cloud. Why should I want to store all of my information on their servers?
IMHO the Cloud is the second attempt to exert absolute control over end users. The first was Trusted Computing. When they realized that the masses weren't going to accept systems that could be backdoored at will[insert Windows joke here], our would-be overlords came up with the Cloud.
People need to realize that the Cloud serves their interests and not our interests.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
The problem few: people
should be:
The problem: few people
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
imho the relevancy of Desktop Linux is irrelevant. I have never understood why actually should everyone from Joe Sixpack to Linus Torvalds run the same system? Let the hacker geeks have their own nice os and let others use whatever.
not quite.
first, for corporate networks central servers with nomachine's nx clients could be quite worth exploring.
second, you define distributed systems (i don't like that 'cloud' term) as something controlled and deployed remotely, by somebody else. but what if you had an opportunity to link all your home devices in a single computer - your pda/phone, your storage box, your workstation, your laptop - so that they distribute load as appropriate, reducing the time that's needed for generating some image or whatever heavier task at hand ?
even better - imagine you could shut down your laptop, go to your workstation and revive all the open applications that have seamlessly migrated to the other, online devices in your distributed system. now imagine such a system, comprised of many devices with some redundancy between them, so that even if your laptop crashes, you can continue work on your unsaved document on any other machine linked in that system.
i know i would love such a system. on the other hand, while plan9 is doing something vaguely similar to this, i don't think even they are any close to bringing such a system to the enduser.
Rich
For me it's another dirty business game. Red Hat is questioning desktop Linux when Novell is delivering new versions. Questioning Linux desktop does not stop RH to sell Linux desktop on the market and provide support to major partners (ie. IBM).
On Tuesday Novell has announced SLE 11 availability and I am not suprised that the day after Red Hat is questioning Linux desktop.
And the reason why you could not virtualize windows xp inside linux is ...?
I mean, if you want your developpers to have a mac mini, by all ways, do it. Do no try to bullshit us saying that your guys are happier now because they run xp on parallels, you know xp can easily run virtualized under linux. O, you didn't? Well, now you know ;-)
By the way: it has been ages since I have had to recompile a kernel. Are you using gentoo or something like that? You know, some people just install ubuntu or fedora or debian and get on with their lives. Stuff just works nowadays (I re-read your post and see that your experiences are 8 years old. Maybe you should not be so fast to prejudge what you obviously do no longer know so well).
I am a sysadmin at a citrix/vmware shop. My desktop is fedora, I quite like seeing how linux improves every 6 months. Every 6 months I download the iso, install it and in 20 minutes am ready (2 monitors, citrix client, openoffice, flash, java, ready for action in our network). 20 minutes, that's all it takes. No fiddling around with drivers, no kernel recompiling. Nothing. I spent much more time helping our webmaster configure his brandnew mac box, go figure.
It gets even boring, actually. Installing printers is just a matter of point, klik, point, klik, enter ip address of network printer, wait, yes, this is a sharp or a hp or a brother, it detects the right driver and installs it. It no longer is funny :-), it just works. And for outlook, I just launch a citrix session and use it in citrix. This will probably change in the next Fedora, because it comes with the first free mapi client integrated into Evolution. We will see how that works.
Natxo Asenjo
1) No, it's not "there". Ubuntu is the only popular distro that enables this stuff by default, and then only until they get sued by Apple and Microsoft. I want _legal_ support for this.
2) It's not a problem, if you're willing to license technologies. And paying $50 for the license is a heck of a lot cheaper than changing countries.
3). It's not "there". I have NVidia chip in my laptop and Ubuntu 8.10. NVidia drivers are installed. Out of the box, when I connect my external DVI display (through the docking station), nothing happens. If I go through NVidia config utility, I can get it to work, but then when I undock, my main display (on the laptop) doesn't become the only one, and half of my icons and windows are "shown" on the invisible second display. You can fix this by writing some scripts. My point is, I shouldn't have to.
4. Not quite. My Dell Latitude E6400 complains about soft reset of the hard drive every time I wake it up. If I were a "regular" user, I'd be scared to death by that error message, since I wouldn't know what it implies. Default power saving settings in Ubuntu make zero sense (and most "normal" people will never go there to change them).
Absolutely. But just like other things in life, things come and go, 70's fashion too will be the thing again one day. It's on and off, again and again. And you can even sell shit, if you put it in a nice wrapping and create enough hype. I'll never buy it though,
I want freedom.
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
Plus there's the drawback of not owning anything. I bought Word back in 98, and yes it was pricey, but I've been able to use it over a decade now, at a cost of ~$10 per year. I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25). I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I want ownership.
I spent my money on beer and drank that while I installed Open Office
but you are spot on about the cloud/dumb terminal comparison. they *burp* suck
I'd wager that for most people that are content to use a Mac as their desktop computer, Linux is a viable alternative.
Face it, the main app (that lots of people use) that's available on the Mac that isn't available on Linux is Microsoft Office. And I find that to be one of the easiest apps (as a casual Office user) to replace. In fact, I haven't used Office on a home computer since 2005, and haven't missed it at all. I use OOo on Linux and XP and am happy with the results (and the price).
Sure there's other stuff you can get on a Mac, but my point is, once you choose Mac, you've given up the ability to 'run any software out there'. Well, that's also true once you choose Linux. You get lots of great stuff bundled, but you can't just run any piece of software. And yes, the level of polish may be inconsistent.
So? Nobody's saying the Mac isn't 'ready for the desktop'. And Linux is in a similar position. It's ready for me. Don't I count?
Of course this RedHat honcho may be right in the sense that it'll never be ready for RedHat to make lots of money off of. Making money selling a desktop OS requires huge volume, and that's a long way off. Apple has their hardware sales to pay the bills. That doesn't mean RedHat can afford to ignore the desktop, because if Ubuntu becomes the desktop Linux of choice, and they ever start getting serious about servers, then RedHat has a problem.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Several people send me attachments from corporate Exchange servers using their Outlook clients. Never a single problem with my Fedora-included Thunderbird.
When I got to college, I spent a whole semester writing term papers on my Apple computer before switching. I never looked back.
Second semester I got access to engineering's vaxstation 2000's running ultrix. It took a couple weeks to get over the whole applesoft basic to tcsh hump, but a few judicious aliases to spare me frustration while my fingers relearned, and away I went.
Vi plus latex is light years ahead of that silly wysiwyg "ScreenWriter II" word processor on the apple, and I don't see much advancement over that in the current crop of word processors.
Remember when webtv was the future an in 5 years the Desktop would be dead?
Yeah, same bullshit. Cloud computing can only work if people have stable internet connections, which isnt reality yet, hell, there's still a large chunk of users without broadband connections in the US and probably never will have it any time soon due to greed.
It's a fad, we were considering it but our current set up (albeit a microsoft one) works because if our connection dies, productivity isnt dead.
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing, where the programs are run by some central server instead of at home. As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked. I can't envision a rebirth being any better.
To be fair, the "dumb terminal" model works quite well (better than the current one IMHO when implemented properly) as long as it's *your* smart central server and not someone else's.
Funny thing about Linux is that due to its UNIX roots and open licensing scheme, it's the perfect OS for that. Hopefully some Linux distros *cough*RedHat*cough* will realize that and adapt accordingly, it is currently a bit of a PITA to set it up.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Then why does RedHat, by default, run gnome in their server OS product?
I can tell you why he can't make any money on RHEL desktop...It's 3-5 years behind Ubuntu. In fact, RHEL 5.3 libraries are too old for many of our PHP / and C code developers.
As someone who lived through the 70s and 80s, it sounds like the old "dumb terminal" and "smart central computer" model, and we abandoned that because it sucked.
It's even worse than that. Ten or fifteen years ago when they first networked the PCs at my work, all the software -- spreadsheets, word processors, dbmses, stc, were on the server.
Needless to say the goddamned things were slow as molasses. They finally got smart and installed the apps on the desktop machines and used the file servers for (gasp) serving files; storing data.
Now iinm they have McAfee on the server, sometimes it's a full minute before the computer gets over its freeze.
I think the guy in the next cube is named Mr. Dilbert...
Free Martian Whores!
I don't understand all this obsession with "cloud" computing...I don't want to switch to a "software lease" model that sucks $50 out of my wallet year-after-year-after-year. That adds-up to $500 a decade which is plain nuts.
I want ownership.
Don't you think that's exactly why software companies would want a leasing solution?
"Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
Not on the desktop. Who the heck can afford to provide support? Its difficult build a multi-billion dollar ecosystem around a free product. Sun died trying. IBM does but not as a consumer desktop?
Linux will never dominate the desktop because no company will want to support the massive amount of users that Windows has. Apple does not want to support the amount of users Windows has, that's why OSX is only supported on Mac hardware. You think a linux-based OS company is in better shape to do such a thing?
I don't agree totally with the Red Hat CEO though. The only thing that matters is the desktop experience and beyond, especially services and apps that help people get things done and not simply run a computer. Anything lower than that is purely for computer professionals and we are vastly outnumbered.
RedHat makes an OS, not consumer software - its not surprising that they feel that there's no money in a desktop OS. There is not. Not many OSS programmers will be able to properly support their product for free when 10,000 users flood their inbox with bug requests and problem as do people who do so on a regular basis in closed sourced software companies. Therefore, linux in the normal OSS model will never dominate the desktop.
Is it ready for the desktop though? Yes...for yours.
The user experience is all about a daily assessment of cost vs. benefit. When Skype appeared - with sound quality worse than real phones and occasional network break up, people decided they liked it because the benefit of cheaper calls at an acceptable quality was better than the cost of the downside.
Linux has a perfectly functional desktop environment (and it also has Gnome ha ha) and enough configurability to make any CTO happy. But where are the apps? I work in an industry that largely functions on office software and email, plus a collaborative suite. Linux could probably replace our Exchange-Sharepoint set up if it weren't for the fact that we need microsoft project. Where is the Linux equivalent? Kplato and the Gnome equivalent, "Planner" both suck. SUCK! Task Juggler is cool but missing some important things I need and use. The same complaint goes for other software categories. Linux software, in spite of its awesome potential, is feature poor.
I'm glued to Exchange and Sharepoint at work; if I found a place that would let me work on a Linux box - Mutt for email, Pidgin for chat, etc., I'd probably get such a raging hard on I'd faint at the keyboard. But because the apps we need don't quite exist (and because the IT guys are in love with GroupPolicy) Linux is out. At home I use the Mac, and in spite of some complaints (lack of keyboard shortcuts, for one), it has succeeded wildly because it does some things BETTER. That's why desktop Linux isn't taking off. Come out with an application that solves a problem, makes life easier for office drones, and desktop adoption will happen because the cost/benefit ratio will finally work in linux's favor.
Truth is, if the apps were superior to what's out there, people would overcome the learning curve and other hurdles and adopt the new system.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
So, I'm on Ubuntu already for my laptop... And here I was thinking that I should try installing Fedora & try it out... (chuckles).
In any case, I think instead of the nebulous "cloud vision," we are more likely going to continue see a convergence of the server into the PC, and the PC into the cell phone... We will continue to see more and more cores in the PC and continued drop of storage pricing. This will lead to more and more pricing pressure and eventual commoditization of the OS.
(BTW -- maybe captive markets like the Cell phone market make more sense as cloud platforms, hmm?)
Even then, with the cloud vision, you still need a client (embedded) OS... Either way, Linux wins.
I cant see the cloud supplying user written code for all the hardware connected to my pc. Software controlled shortwave radio, Sony walkman, GPS, telescope, three cameras, webcam security recorder, not to mention printers scanners disks optical media writers.
The cloud may be fine for an office PC but its going to be years before it becomes the natural place to put all those little applications that talk to hardware. And another thing, Photoshop on 20Mb RAW picture files, maybe, nonlinear editing of video files - I don't think so.
The cloud is just an additional way of deploying office applications and does not constitute the full spectrum of uses to which computing power can be applied.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
...are a strong wind to blow them away...or their local power grid to drop out. The infrastructure is discussed even less than data security.
I'll keep my Windows/Linux/Mac fat clients, TYVM.
Why are these redhat bosses such twats regarding the desktop? If they want to diss the linux desktop they should just diss their feeble efforts.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I'm willing to accept that and concede your point... I can't find the quote though (with an admittedly short google search).
I've been using Linux on my desktops and laptops for close to a decade, and I'm happy - why should I want more than that? I see this desire to have every desktop in the world use Linux, is that necessarily a good thing? So long as Linux and free software continues to improve, and no one is restricted from using it, I think that should be good enough. What is wrong with there being other users that choose other operating systems? I believe many users can benefit from a switch to Linux, but I don't see how that switch helps the whole. Desktop Linux is pretty good today and only improving. I can try picture a world where every desktop is Linux, and I don't see our lives being very different. Is global tux domination a worthwhile goal?
In regards to the article, I didn't interpret it to be that Red Hat actually believes the desktop is doomed or that there is no benefit to Linux on the desktop - just the point being made was that there was no economic case to be made for it and that there are adoption barriers. I think that is a perfectly accurate statement.
>So what's the real benefit of the desktop? It's hard as hell to make it your only desktop; you'll spend all your time wrangling with WINE. Why bother?
To be fair, Windows runs a lot smoother if you're drinking WINE while using it as well. Really, OS X is the only OS that you don't need to be drunk to enjoy using, since reality distortion is already built in as a standard feature.
The desktop stands for independence and the ability to do what you want without being subject to the whims and fancies of the "cloud providers".
We at CodeLathe have the same concerns with the loss of ownership, lack of control and privacy with the advent of web applications. That is why we are taking a slightly different approach with Tonido.
Tonido ( http://www.tonido.com/ ) brings the ability to run personal web applications on your desktop, which you can use wherever you are, but at the same time you are not giving up neither privacy nor control over your data. Not only is Tonido a light-weight application server which runs on all OSes, it also is an extensible platform allowing developers to develop new applications on top.
Imagine the ability to have your own personal web applications running on your desktop provided by you and not by third-parties.
It is an uphill battle to convince the general populace on the evils associated with completely migrating to the web, but one that must be fought before it is too late.
I for one welcome our new dickwad overlords.
One word - LiveCD
Anyone who talks about the "barrieers" to using a linux desktop identifies themselves as someone who has not used a linux desktop and somewhat of an blabber mouth/status quoer. There hasnt been any "configuration" in liunx for a desktop user for a while now.
The comparison to the 70s is nonsense. Personal computing did not exists for the masses at the time. No email, no word processing (save for a handful of professionals), no digital music, no digital photography, nevermind videography. What great unwashed masses are doing with their computers now has next to nothing to do with the dumb terminals in the workplaces of the 70s.
That said, I'm not ready to swallow the cloud concept just yet. I've watched some friends and coworkers lose their data when the web service they were using went out of business and disappeared. That really makes you think twice. Even if you don't lose data, you have to figure out a new way to work.
Cloud computing keeps coming back every so often, because ever so often, a power hungry CEO thinks:
"Oh... I just had a great idea. What if we could sell a complete computing 'experience' to someone instead of selling software. We could control...err I mean provide all the updates, and everything would be seamless, virus free, be backed up, and work. Oh.. another great idea. We could just rent it like cable TV. I bet people would love that".
Then marketing goes out and takes some polls and gauges people's reactions, comes back, and tells the CEO to shut up.
So that GPL would have nothing to do with it. I'd just pay for the license, install my *.deb and be done with it. Heck, I'd even pay more than $50 for it, if it was a solid, comprehensive piece of software.
you're right, and this is why companies like microsoft have really been pushing hard for it. personally i think the main cause of the move is due to software piracy and open source diluting profits.
Irina Romanov
Nobody's saying the Mac isn't 'ready for the desktop'.
In the case of Mac, its reputed ease of use/brilliant design compensates for the lack of apps.
The people that RedHat gets benefit from - free developers (open source volunteers) are developing primarily for benefit of people. And platform of use is always going to be personal computers or whatever we will have in our rooms.
'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it'
...it's LINUX, your not suppose to make money off it!
With friends like these ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I think IBM took a similar position against Microsoft in the 80's. They were not "worried" about Microsoft's share of the desktop because everything was going to be on the server. Terminals were the interface of the future and all the processing was going to happen centrally. Redhat has to take this position because validating Linux on the desktop gives Ubuntu more power than they want to admit. They'd rather validate Microsoft than to give props to their real competitor, Mark Shuttleworth and Co.
... thousands of Linux users question the relevance of Red Hat CEO.
If you run browser based apps, the desktop OS hardly matters.
BTW: I think internet enabled devises are great, but I could hardly imagine doing serious, long term, work on one.
... is if the major cities of southeast/east asia were destroyed somehow, since that's where desktops/netbooks/notebooks are produced. I don't see the point in differentiating between desktops/netbooks/notebooks because the operating system needs are not that much different and will be less different as netbooks improve in performance/watt.
1. People will still want to OWN their own computers, with their files accessible all the time. Privacy, uptime, trust, status quo, no recurring costs - all play a part.
2. Companies in countries with the world's cheapest labor forces (competent enough to produce electronics) will continue to produce computers, because it is profitable to do so.
3. They will produce computers cheaper every year, and the costs will approach the cost of materials required (squeezing out software, profit and labor costs through automation).
4. FOSS software will improve every year, for the exact same reasons as a ratchet goes only in one direction - it can't get worse.
A software CEO's wet dream about deriving an income stream from all personal computing will not change the above facts. Some people may pay for cloud computing just as some people buy bottled water, but the rest will continue drinking from the tap.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Please enlighten me as to what decent Video editing software exists for linux?
And no i dont have 10k to pay for super high end NLE stuff, do you know of something comparable to premiere/vegas/ hell even something similar to virtual dub or windows movie maker would be fine?
I would love to get off windows but i havent found any NLE stuff, that even comes close to vegas on linux.
Try it in Vista and see for yourself. This is a MANDATORY feature in a business setting, where you might want to hook up a projector to your laptop every now and then.
MS fonts are over 10 years old at this point. And they weren't that good to begin with.
I am using Linux (Fedora) both at my work and home laptops and I do not have any problem with it. Its very interesting to see my colleagues struggling with malware, viri on there M$ latops. Sometime they kill almost all of there working hours fixing there M$ and on the other hand since i have installed my work lappy (1 year ago) i never faced any issue. consequently I can work instead of wasting time and wondering about data loose due to infected system. Linux might not be ready as desktop alternative for other but for me it is _ready_ coz at work there is nothing to stop me from using Linux :)
http://askaralikhan.blogspot.com/
Having used linux since prior to distributions existing, i love it on the desktop and at the server. My first was slackware, but redhat was very close behind that (simply for the package management). Not to sound like a sad baby, but to see someone that prominent in the linux "community" is depressing.
Every now and then i see things in linux that impress the hell out of me in the desktop (even after this many years), like recently using a scanner (haven't done that in years) and seeing how far xsane has come was quite amazing, and there are so many examples of that on linux.
Its depressing to see linux software thats suffered from being primarily targeted at windows (and has the pain of bad porting) such as firefox and to a lesser extend open office.
But all that aside, the thing that really REALLY pisses me off (pardon the language) is companies that rely on linux for life and then dont support it on the desktop. Take vmware esx and citrix xen server as an example - both unmanageable from a linux desktop. Theres too many example of that to list, specially in the hardware makers.
so, redhat does not know how to make $ on desktop.
Does that mean linux desktop has no future?
Of course not.
I've seen the improvement in linux between fedora core to fedora core 10.
At the same time I've seen windows XP and Vista.
Linux and especially Linux desktop is moving much faster and in the right direction than Windows.
It's true that the Linux desktop is not perfect ye. But with the speed at which it is moving, I'm confident it will be a viable choice for more people in the future.
Linux is at the point where Firefox was a few years ago, ready to explode!
For education at least I've seen some effort put into making that sort of thing easier... However the resources for it aren't on par with projects like KDE or Gnome (for instance), so progress can be slow...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Yes the CEO named the REAL reason Red Hat and other don't! push the Desktop.
"First of all, I don't know how to make money on it," Whitehurst said. "Very few people are running a desktop that's mission-critical," so they do not want to pay the company for a desktop OS, he said.
Yes who wants to pay $500.00 a year for a desktop? This is true with all the vendors and yes Sun included. All vendors server products are reliable stable and rock solid. So if the server products are so good then why is the desktop products clunky and a bit buggy? No money in it! Why is Apples desktop so strong? They make money off of it so they took the time to develope it.
Its also sad how they knock thier own dog food.
"I think they're right, there are barriers to adoption," said analyst Tim Clark, partner at The FactPoint Group.
Strange I have no problems running Linux or Solaris as a desktop and have for years. Lets face it maybe FOSS is free software but in the end it is All about the money
Just what is the desktop that these debaters keep referring to? Is it desktop machines? Is it desktop use, as in a certain set of applications?
I disagree with the RedHat CEO: I've used all of the above-mentioned distros, some worked better than others, but all make a good desktop at home and at work. I use Slackware at work, for my Unix-like environment, and I use Kubuntu at home. Multimedia, networking and web-browsing as well as office applications work just fine: so what is this desktop he's referring to?
RedHat has made it particularly clear over the years that they do not care about the "desktop market" whatever that refers to. They care about Big Iron. That's where they make their money. And they shouldn't care about anything else. I do want the opportunity to set up a networked office when I have my own lab, and I don't know who i'll turn to when the time comes, but probably not RedHat. Probably someone who does Slackware, like myself.
And to Mr. "It's all about the apps": which apps are you referring to? I don't think you're talking about the ones I use, because Emacs, LaTeX, R, and gcc work best on GNU/Linux.
Check out claws mail, it has tnef reader plugin. Excellent mail program by the way. Or try Opera maybe? Not sure if it gets the tnef right but I have at least never had issues regarding that after I switched from evolution. I am hooked on opera mail now and been using it for over a year.
Wait, you thought that when I started stamping "My" all over the computer I meant that it was yours? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
No really, *wheeze* all my proprietary software that you explicitly state is still mine in the agreement, that you explicitly agree not to try to take apart, that I use to label the computer you "bought" with My Computer and My Documents, you thought that I meant they were yours? Ha! Ha! *snort* Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Wait, did you drop a </sarcasm> tag? Oh. I guess that makes more sense then.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
Where's the support for new games off the Best Buy shelf? Still not there? Why haven't you Linux proponents demolished that extremely crucial barrier yet? Lazy... I don't want your shit on my PC....
Anonymous Coward Questions Relevance of Red Hat CEO
Time makes more converts than reason
I also have the option to sell it and recoup some of my cost (around $25).
Um - have you read the license?