I disagree that the time has past for the Linux Desktop - People will always consider an alternative. Rather, the issue is twofold:
Foremost - when was the last time you saw a Linux advertisement that was in the local flyers from BestBuy/etc? Word of mouth is the best advertising, but the geek market tends to only talk to itself which renders word of mouth almost useless for the market intended to reach.
Secondly - a major of the OS apps out there are betas compared to what one sees on Windows. Poor installers (much less uninstallation), meagre documentation, dependency issues... All stop Joe Average when confronted with these realities.
To ever make a competitive desktop, these need to be addressed. Until that time, Linux will continue to be the elitist OS of choice.
...posterchild of Open Source because it is a product - RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc. just repackage the product to fit a perceived market however the core is still Linux. It is still the same kernel, I can use the same commands to get the same result on any distro...
It is dynamic because of how it was built - modularity to make it flexible so it is able to compete and thrive in avenues others wouldn't like the embedded market.
There is no "Linux process" - I'm not going to "linux" my development; I would be open sourcing my project. Even more accurate, utilizing peer review is more then half of what the open source process/ideal is.
Could we please try to expunge this inane "Linux desktop is dead" meme? First off, it isn't -- or else my desktop is an illusion -- and secondly, you could only believe this if you hadn't been watching the evolution of Linux over the past ten years.
No, it should not be expunged.
What you aren't grasping here is:
1- The market an off the shelf copy of Linux reaches on the local BestBuy/etc. It's not the people who would seek Linux out...
2- That market's interpretation of what a desktop is. Most of them have seen Windows95 or 98, and want to see comparable value.
To those of us who use Linux, a desktop exists because we are willing to function in it and it does what we want it to as a whole. The actual "Desktop" market doesn't accept this, and it would be considered Beta stage after releases the likes of RH 8 and 9...
When the largest Linux distro decides to no longer provide retail boxes, it's pretty significant to the consumer/Desktop market...
The purpose of marketing shrinkwrapped Linux is to make money, not to act as a loss leader for server sales. How many people wandering around the aisles of CompUSA are going to pick up the phone and start ording Red Hat servers?
I did not say the sole purpose was to serve as advertising for servers - try to see the entire picture that if the experience was pleasurable, the user is more likely to continue investing in RH products. Servers is the quickest to point to though as it's Linux only real market at this point.
The reason to drop Linux app development is because of one thing - GPL (and LGPL). Charging for the service to support a software title works only for medium to large scale businesses which completely kills small and home user markets. While the GPL made what Linux is today, it is not the choice license agreement for all. The hand you hold is the one that holds you down...
Umm, no, it's not at all Red Hat saying "The Linux desktop doesn't exist." They know perfectly well that it does, and that they probably have the largest single share of it.
What Red Hat is saying is that Linux does not get onto the desktop via the boxed set, at least not in sufficient quantities for them to make money at it.
Your term of Linux desktop is different from the market the product is trying to sell in. That is the key here...
In order for a product to sell, it must be "branded". That means when you walk into the local Sears/Wal-Mart/etc and say aloud "RedHat", everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Problem is, when you do ask a person about a computer, the two key words in the response will be "Pentium" and "Windows".
Part of the issue for why Linux does not sell in a consumer market is because when a user is confronted with the desktop, they can't function easily in it for numerous reasons - they can't find Word, they can't figure out how to install software, etc. All these details have left Linux as a whole, branded - "it's difficult to install, hard to work with, etc".
Now the largest Linux distro has pulled the plug on their boxed set meant for the consumer market - the Linux Desktop market. They gave it a decent shot - at least 3 years - though I can't say I remember any ads in the paper or flyers to actually advertise the product. That being said, it was destined to fail...
That's the point - why market something that is essentially a beta (and that's being nice) compared to what is found on a Windows desktop? After all, Windows already owns the desktop market - to produce a competeing product whose features aren't comparable beyond that its' free is tatamount to capitalist suicide.
If anything, it's a disservice to have attempted to sell such a product because it's now even more branded then before.
Linux Desktop is a myth, eh? That's some lame flamebait...
#2 - ALL advertisement comes at a price. You have to spend money to make money...
3 - It's obvious the concept of marketing is lost on you, besides that Wal-Mart wasn't selling Linux retail boxes.
4th - If there's so many, go ahead and list them. I'll save you the time - you can't.
5th - I know for a fact of speaking to 5+ people myself who were impressed at the value of the provided telephone support. Just because you don't see value in it, doesn't mean it doesn't entice others.
You're not an intellectual terrorist - you're a moron with points weaker then your morning coffee.
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers...
Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist.
While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost.
This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers...
Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist.
While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost.
This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
...an actual Exchange replacement, a client that provides the Exchange functionality is necessary.
But as already stated, MS runs Outlook off proprietary, undocumented transactions to provide groupware functionality. Which leads to developing one's own method(s) of providing groupware functionality - why chase a company already known for changing practices to limit cross platform support and/or competitors?
I don't see a reason to stick with Outlook when a client exists to provide the same features.
Novell might bring an alternative now that they've announced Linux support, however few I've spoken with liked Novell's groupware alternative.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree that the time has past for the Linux Desktop - People will always consider an alternative. Rather, the issue is twofold: Foremost - when was the last time you saw a Linux advertisement that was in the local flyers from BestBuy/etc? Word of mouth is the best advertising, but the geek market tends to only talk to itself which renders word of mouth almost useless for the market intended to reach. Secondly - a major of the OS apps out there are betas compared to what one sees on Windows. Poor installers (much less uninstallation), meagre documentation, dependency issues... All stop Joe Average when confronted with these realities. To ever make a competitive desktop, these need to be addressed. Until that time, Linux will continue to be the elitist OS of choice.
...posterchild of Open Source because it is a product - RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc. just repackage the product to fit a perceived market however the core is still Linux. It is still the same kernel, I can use the same commands to get the same result on any distro...
It is dynamic because of how it was built - modularity to make it flexible so it is able to compete and thrive in avenues others wouldn't like the embedded market.
There is no "Linux process" - I'm not going to "linux" my development; I would be open sourcing my project. Even more accurate, utilizing peer review is more then half of what the open source process/ideal is.
No prob. Like you I actually want to see Linux succeed on the desktop :)
What you're missing is that the various connectors don't provide full functionality.
Could not agree more. That is the clientelle - to not code for them only guarantees failure.
An Exchange tie-in that functions like all the rest - requiring the Byntari Connector which provides limited service at best.
Could we please try to expunge this inane "Linux desktop is dead" meme? First off, it isn't -- or else my desktop is an illusion -- and secondly, you could only believe this if you hadn't been watching the evolution of Linux over the past ten years.
No, it should not be expunged.
What you aren't grasping here is:
1- The market an off the shelf copy of Linux reaches on the local BestBuy/etc. It's not the people who would seek Linux out...
2- That market's interpretation of what a desktop is. Most of them have seen Windows95 or 98, and want to see comparable value.
To those of us who use Linux, a desktop exists because we are willing to function in it and it does what we want it to as a whole. The actual "Desktop" market doesn't accept this, and it would be considered Beta stage after releases the likes of RH 8 and 9...
When the largest Linux distro decides to no longer provide retail boxes, it's pretty significant to the consumer/Desktop market...
The purpose of marketing shrinkwrapped Linux is to make money, not to act as a loss leader for server sales. How many people wandering around the aisles of CompUSA are going to pick up the phone and start ording Red Hat servers?
I did not say the sole purpose was to serve as advertising for servers - try to see the entire picture that if the experience was pleasurable, the user is more likely to continue investing in RH products. Servers is the quickest to point to though as it's Linux only real market at this point.
The reason to drop Linux app development is because of one thing - GPL (and LGPL). Charging for the service to support a software title works only for medium to large scale businesses which completely kills small and home user markets. While the GPL made what Linux is today, it is not the choice license agreement for all. The hand you hold is the one that holds you down...
Umm, no, it's not at all Red Hat saying "The Linux desktop doesn't exist." They know perfectly well that it does, and that they probably have the largest single share of it.
What Red Hat is saying is that Linux does not get onto the desktop via the boxed set, at least not in sufficient quantities for them to make money at it.Your term of Linux desktop is different from the market the product is trying to sell in. That is the key here...
In order for a product to sell, it must be "branded". That means when you walk into the local Sears/Wal-Mart/etc and say aloud "RedHat", everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Problem is, when you do ask a person about a computer, the two key words in the response will be "Pentium" and "Windows".
Part of the issue for why Linux does not sell in a consumer market is because when a user is confronted with the desktop, they can't function easily in it for numerous reasons - they can't find Word, they can't figure out how to install software, etc. All these details have left Linux as a whole, branded - "it's difficult to install, hard to work with, etc".
Now the largest Linux distro has pulled the plug on their boxed set meant for the consumer market - the Linux Desktop market. They gave it a decent shot - at least 3 years - though I can't say I remember any ads in the paper or flyers to actually advertise the product. That being said, it was destined to fail...
That's the point - why market something that is essentially a beta (and that's being nice) compared to what is found on a Windows desktop? After all, Windows already owns the desktop market - to produce a competeing product whose features aren't comparable beyond that its' free is tatamount to capitalist suicide.
If anything, it's a disservice to have attempted to sell such a product because it's now even more branded then before.
Linux Desktop is a myth, eh? That's some lame flamebait... #2 - ALL advertisement comes at a price. You have to spend money to make money... 3 - It's obvious the concept of marketing is lost on you, besides that Wal-Mart wasn't selling Linux retail boxes. 4th - If there's so many, go ahead and list them. I'll save you the time - you can't. 5th - I know for a fact of speaking to 5+ people myself who were impressed at the value of the provided telephone support. Just because you don't see value in it, doesn't mean it doesn't entice others. You're not an intellectual terrorist - you're a moron with points weaker then your morning coffee.
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers...
Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist.
While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost.
This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
The entire point of putting a distro of Linux on the shelf is public awareness marketing - It's specifically to reach those who don't have a geek friend to install Linux for them. It's an investment to get those people to get into [RH] Linux, and then down the road those consumers come back when they need servers... Magazines exist solely on this principle - You can't have a readerbase if people don't know you exist. While I acknowledge that it isn't cheap to make a shelf copy available - besides packaging, RH and Mandrake were packaging additional CDs of material and offering a year of telephone support in some cases - the reality to the decision of discontinuing a shelf copy is there is a LOT of market exposure lost. This is RH saying the Linux Desktop doesn't exist.
Is to remember when the WHO tried to announce that Malaria was eradicated from the earth.
...an actual Exchange replacement, a client that provides the Exchange functionality is necessary. But as already stated, MS runs Outlook off proprietary, undocumented transactions to provide groupware functionality. Which leads to developing one's own method(s) of providing groupware functionality - why chase a company already known for changing practices to limit cross platform support and/or competitors? I don't see a reason to stick with Outlook when a client exists to provide the same features. Novell might bring an alternative now that they've announced Linux support, however few I've spoken with liked Novell's groupware alternative.