Red Hat plans Linux-desktop 'for the Masses"

[arctic]

Red Hat is planning a packaged Linux desktop solution that it hopes will push its Linux desktop offering to a far broader audience than exists for its current client solution.

 

Story at eweek.com

[Ixthusdan]

These sorts of articles are more marketing than anything else.

1) Linux desktops are already enterprise ready in a variety of distros.

2) The only distros that ever get mentioned by these types of articles are distros requiring purchase.

3) The articles imply that people must spend money to get an office. This makes Microsoft's so-called research into deploying linux more feasible.

4) Hence, these articles are running interference for Microsoft.

[arctic]

The only distros that ever get mentioned by these types of articles are distros requiring purchase.

Are you sure about that? AFAIK, there are e.g. already computers with Ubuntu preinstalled. You don't pay for Ubuntu. ;)

 

And: The article is about the business desktops in the first place and people are willing to pay for linux there - if they get good support in return. And that is exactly what e.g. Red Hat and Novell offer to their customers. Reliable support and a company that can be held responsible if something goes wrong.

 

On the home desktop, this is - of course - a completely different story. But: If Linux becomes mainstream on business desktops, then home users will get more familiar with linux, too, as they will work day in and out with linux. I don't think that such announcements/deals/whateveryoucallthem are counterproductive for spreading linux.

[SoulSe]

These sorts of articles are more marketing than anything else.

1) Linux desktops are already enterprise ready in a variety of distros.

Enterprise ready, yes - but certainly not desktop ready. Linux is only now approaching the desktop-ready state with the likes of Ubuntu, but still has some way to go. A commercial desktop Linux is just what the doctor ordered. Enterprise customers want to pay for something where support and a competent partner network are guaranteed.

2) The only distros that ever get mentioned by these types of articles are distros requiring purchase.

Yup - and this is good, because enterprise customers (other customers, sadly, do not matter much at this stage of the game) need to be alerted to their presence. As I said above, Enterprise customers want this kind of distribution, and they command the most significant market share.

3) The articles imply that people must spend money to get an office. This makes Microsoft's so-called research into deploying linux more feasible.

And you should spend money in getting an office. If you're an SMB then you can do it "freely" (which really only refers to software). Enterprise customers do not want to and should not want to make use of free solutions.

 

This is a positive move by Red Hat and re-affirms Linux entering the desktop-ready era. We all want Linux to be taken seriously, but with perceived value it is hard to take anything seriously which is free (ie, which does not cost anything). Red Hat are the corporate face of Linux and necessary in grounding vital enterprise customers.

[Ixthusdan]

Please don't get me wrong. I agree that Linux should be better marketed to business as a desktop solution. I don't agree that "it's not ready" because what is usually meant by this terminology is "it's not windows." And if the Linux world thinks that having only Ubuntu (or Mandriva or Red Hat or Gentoo) is the answer, then one of these will replace windows, and nothing will change in computing. In my mind, the windows concept needs to be replaced. I realize this is a large task, but that is how I see it.

[emmanuel_uk]

In my mind, the windows concept needs to be replaced. I realize this is a large task, but that is how I see it.

That's what Ulteo is trying to tackle, is it not?

[SoulSe]

Please don't get me wrong. I agree that Linux should be better marketed to business as a desktop solution. I don't agree that "it's not ready" because what is usually meant by this terminology is "it's not windows." And if the Linux world thinks that having only Ubuntu (or Mandriva or Red Hat or Gentoo) is the answer, then one of these will replace windows, and nothing will change in computing. In my mind, the windows concept needs to be replaced. I realize this is a large task, but that is how I see it.

I disagree, to some extent. Being desktop ready does mean being compatible with the current status quo, which is MS Office at the moment to a degree. But it also means offering enterprise-level support, having a clear maintenance solution in place, offering stability, scalability and value.

 

For the longest time Linux has managed to deliver on all fronts for back-office solutions, but on the desktop things have been shaky. Things like being able to painlessly mount a USB hard drive or manage patches add to desktop readiness. On the GUI front, Linux has had a lot to offer, but has suffered in terms of stability.

 

But this is changing. I like to use Ubuntu as an example, because part of the distribution's goal in creating a Linux for the masses is to solve the desktop issues that Linux has suffered - and they have succeeded in many ways.

 

I would say that even two years ago it would be difficult to roll out a Linux desktop in a large corporation - but now it's looking seriously possible. Not because Linux is becoming like Windows, but because it is more robust in its GUIs and offers serious support from the likes of Red Hat, with a good degree of user-friendliness.

[Ixthusdan]

I do agree that Linux has had some difficulties with usb, an item that is considered fundamental. And, even looking at our own forum, there is a consistency problem which I cannot explain. So I guess you are right.

 

The area of the software world that hurts Linux is specialized applications. One of the networks which I administrate had to move from a Linux server to windows because the accounting applications forced the users to use a Microsoft sql data base. It was a disgusting experience. Business look for specialized applications. Since I am not a programmer, I have no idea where to start with that one.

[SoulSe]

The area of the software world that hurts Linux is specialized applications. One of the networks which I administrate had to move from a Linux server to windows because the accounting applications forced the users to use a Microsoft sql data base. It was a disgusting experience. Business look for specialized applications. Since I am not a programmer, I have no idea where to start with that one.

It's a headache for everyone, and the customer demands for a solution is one of the reasons for the controversial Novell-Microsoft agreement.

 

On the one hand you have vendors like Oracle who are able to supply the complete stack. But a homogenous stack is not possible for everyone and in most cases the environment is heterogeneous requiring integration that is not always possible and leads to the kind of OS shift you experienced.

 

But with Linux entering the desktop-ready state and the subsequent growth in adoption that will follow, the development of specialist applications for Linux will happen. Unfortunately it's a slow process, but once the steam train gets going it can't be stopped ;)

 

And most developers will find that a large percentage of back-office systems are already running Linux solutions, making the switch easy.