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".
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...
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.
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.
Millions of Ubuntu users question the relevance of Red Hat on the desktop.
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.
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?
Well, the French **also** fought with the U.S., kicking the British arse on the high seas, etc.
Guess you missed those parts of the American Revolution.
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
OS X does have something that Linux on the desktop is mostly lacking. That is OS X is championed by a hardware and services company (Apple) dedicated to making a very nice user experience for people who buy their hardware. It comes pre-installed, pre-configured, and working smoothly. There is support and services and a good commercial hardware ecosystem and stores individual people can go to to actually buy them at the mall.
If a large company were to start dumping money into making desktop/laptop hardware that runs Linux just as well and keeping Linux working well for those users and promoting the software and add-on ecosystem... well it would cost them a pile of money to really get it going. Then, they'd probably do quite well if they managed their brand well. That said, I really don't think Linux on the desktop is ready because the experience really isn't as polished and the hardware and software ecosystem just doesn't exist. It could with some investment, but it really isn't there yet. Netbooks and corporate desktops are fighting for which will be the first real desktops that are the exception to this.
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
Errr, maybe the average homeuser has little use for a full-blown server? Or, maybe he's afraid of trying to set one up? Or, he doesn't understand the benefits of a server? Personally - I've only dabbled with server OS's enough to realize that some hacking on Win2003 results in a pretty secure and very reliable desktop. As a result of a growing family and growing home network, I intend to set up a server in the very near future. But, I regard this as a leap into the unknown. Do I want to serve only files (and file space), or do I want to serve applications? Multimedia streaming? What exactly DO I WANT?!? It's not exactly scary to me - but it will certainly scare off the non-geek.
"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
Shuttleworth has stated before that he was able to start Thawte due directly to F/OSS.
And in doing so, very convientantly fought a war against Germany which was inveitable (or at least looked that way to American political elite of the time) well away from American soil and while Germany was already fighting on multiple fronts
I'm not saying American involvment in the war wasn't decisive from an industrial and manpower point of view, but Americas entry at the time it did was also about the most advantagous time to enter if a American/German war was going to happen - albeit, a American/German war would have probably been much later.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
See, as I said I am not a real Linux user, So the number of Window managers and desktop environments is irrelevant to me. I just use one at a time.
If I bring up KDE, I use the apps listed... They just work. In KDE I use Opera for web browsing and mail. Why do I need Evolution? When I am using KDE I rarely need to bring up a GNOME app!
When I use GNOME (Ubuntu Studio), I use the Apps they provide.
Even when there are slight differences in appearance, big deal, they didn't stop me from using the MAC, they are not going to stop me from playing with Linux now.
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.
Have you run an Apple and tried to run it against an Exchange server?
Yes. It worked fine for everything I tried, except the Web interface (which also failed for Windows and IE).
Nothing works 100%.
Of course nothing works 100%. Windows doesn't work 100% when trying to talk to other Windows boxes. In fact it fails quite often and always has. This isn't about getting everything to work perfectly. It is about getting it to work smoothly and well enough that the average target user performing average tasks has an acceptable experience. And by experience, I don't mean they can look at their favorite Web site after their nephew comes over and installs Linux as a favor. I mean they go to the store, buy a computer with Linux installed, plug it into their cable modem, and are able to get things working and do what they expect to be able to do.
And there are most definitely limits to what Apple is capable and/or willing to support users on. Does that make Apple "not ready for the Desktop"?
Hopefully by now you see the difference based upon the example I provide above.
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.
He won't need to wait that much. In fact, according to Shuttleworth, Canonicalâ(TM)s annual revenue is creeping toward $30 million.
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
And yum is every bit as usable as apt
Does yum still do the apt equivalent of an update before it does an install? I remember years ago yum taking forever to install software over a slow link. I eventually installed debian (I was using yellowdog) and I never looked back at the RPM world.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
Actually, linux needs threads because they are useful and so much easier to code for than multi-process applications. Multi-process programming sucks.
Threads are a great addition to linux.
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
I can answer those for Linux, but not OS X since I don't feel like walking a flight of stairs just to answer a post fully.
How many window managers are there?
Is that window managers in use, window managers installed, or window managers to choose from? My answer to all three is "enough".
How many different window manager STYLES are there?
Should I only count jarringly different appearances like a brushed metal background as different? In either case, the answer is one since both my GTK and Qt apps use the same theme.
How many desktop environments are there?
I have two installed - one with a bunch of eye candy, and a lightweight one when I want to get work done without distractions. Since this is responding to pedantic assholery, I probably have to point out I only run one at a time.
How many applications are there that use their own UI widgets (think Xine)?
I don't use Microsoft apps, Apple apps or Google Chrome, and for video I just use a bare mplayer window, so I guess zero.
I'd Mod you up, but I already commented. Same vein as "Blu-ray will be irrelevant because we'll get to download everything."
Think "Pay-per-view". Thanks, no.