Red Hat giving up on the consumer desktop

[allix]

I hear the ubuntu crowd going "its bound to happen, rpms suck"

It’s worth pointing out what’s missing in the list above: we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future.

An explanation: as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers. The desktop market suffers from having one dominant vendor, and some people still perceive that today’s Linux desktops simply don’t provide a practical alternative. Of course, a growing number of technically savvy users and companies have discovered that today’s Linux desktop is indeed a practical alternative. Nevertheless, building a sustainable business around the Linux desktop is tough, and history is littered with example efforts that have either failed outright, are stalled or are run as charities. But there’s good news too. Technical developments that have become available over the past year or two are accelerating the spread of the Linux Desktop.

http://www.press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/ ... an-update/

[diazamet]

I can't help but feel this is a bit short sighted. The desktop may not be a profitable area but I still think it's important even if you target is the server market.

When people are choosing server solutions I'm sure the OS people use on the desktop has an influence on their choice.

Places using some unix flavour are more likely to upgrade to linux/bsd/solaris solution because it is the path of least resistance and what they know.

Places that are setting up new server installations are more likely to go with what they know.

At one point Novell had a huge installation base on PC networks with Netware but that drastically diminished when people could use server software (Windows NT) that had the look/feel of the desktop OS (Windows 95/98).

I could be talking shit, just my thoughts, what are other people's take on this?

[Tsuroerusu]

I find it quite amazing that people see this as news, because this was news in 2003 when Fedora was started. How can Red Hat "give up" on something they have not done in the first place?

Here's a few comments from some Red Hat guys:

the reg: let's make shit up and pretend we're journalists
Not, of course, that anyone should mistake The Register for journalism, but the article on Red Hat's desktop strategy is right about 580 nm on the "yellow" scale. For those of you not keeping score, we haven't released anything that could be called consumer desktop product in over five years. If this counts as "scurrying away" from a market, I wonder how they feel about the rapid decline of OS/2 in recent years.

Source: http://ajaxxx.livejournal.com/58780.html

Jon Corbet on Red Hat and Desktop
Seen at LWN today (no permalink — what the heck?):

• Red Hat's desktop team has posted an item saying that the company has no plans to offer a "traditional desktop product" anytime soon.

Say what? The referenced item says:

• [W]e have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future.

Umm... RHEL desktop is doing quite well, all we're saying we're not committed to selling it at Best Buy. Not sure how this debacle has happened. Jon was probably short on coffee.

Source: http://zaitcev.livejournal.com/166053.html

They have a business desktop product: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/
But it's not aimed for the consumer markets, it's intended for businesses. If you want to know what it's like, try out CentOS 5.

[eddie]

As long as they do not give on Fedora, that is no big deal. I think they were competing with themselves so to speak anyway. Rpm's when done right are not such an issue,

[Tsuroerusu]

As long as they do not give on Fedora, that is no big deal. I think they were competing with themselves so to speak anyway. Rpm's when done right are not such an issue,

I seriously doubt you're going to have to worry about Red Hat ever going away from Fedora, I mean that's where they communicate with the community and do their development.

[allix]

They have a business desktop product: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/
But it's not aimed for the consumer markets, it's intended for businesses. If you want to know what it's like, try out CentOS 5.

The title of this thread is "Red Hat giving up on the consumer desktop". I am fully aware they have a business desktop that they will continue to market and sell.

Sorry if I sound rude.

Just maybe that the majority of consumers do not buy and pay for consumer desktop support on windows instead its pre-installed could be why Red Hat are not targeting the consumer desktop market, there simply is no money to be made on your average non-business computer user.

I am not ignoring that consumers do pay for software on windows,however Red Hat do not sell any software that a consumer cannot get legally free anywhere else or its proprietary and Red Hat would not sell or support it anyway.

[Tsuroerusu]

They have a business desktop product: http://www.redhat.com/rhel/desktop/
But it's not aimed for the consumer markets, it's intended for businesses. If you want to know what it's like, try out CentOS 5.

The title of this thread is "Red Hat giving up on the consumer desktop". I am fully aware they have a business desktop that they will continue to market and sell.

Well, my point is, how in the world can they "give up" on something they havn't been going in the first place! That's like if I said "I'm giving up on farming" and having never been a farmer.

Just maybe that the majority of consumers do not buy and pay for consumer desktop support on windows instead its pre-installed could be why Red Hat are not targeting the consumer desktop market, there simply is no money to be made on your average non-business computer user.

Well, they say so themselves, no need in guessing as to the reasons:

An explanation: as a public, for-profit company, Red Hat must create products and technologies with an eye on the bottom line, and with desktops this is much harder to do than with servers.

To me that means "There's no money in it", which makes sense, since Red Hat has to earn money to stay in business, and they can't invest in something that won't give them returns on that investment.

I am not ignoring that consumers do pay for software on windows,however Red Hat do not sell any software that a consumer cannot get legally free anywhere else or its proprietary and Red Hat would not sell or support it anyway.

Yeah, I don't know ANYONE who's purchased phone support over longer periods of time, and that's what Red Hat earns money on. Also, a home user is gonna purchase training or consulting from Red Hat. When a home user has problems, he or she asks the neighbor or some other local guy, or take it to a PC repair shop and pay 70 euros an hour to get it fixed, or just buy a new computer.

[elgordo123]

If they want to pull windows admins away from using windows servers they HAVE to have a desktop environment to administer it. Windows admins cannot function at all without a desktop environment. They dont have a clue about the beauty of using ssh and command line to administer and control server functions. There is no way most windows admin will use a non-desktop environment.
Not only that, but most small to mid size business users (and admins) that use linux would most likely want the same OS/company that runs their server to also be on their user's desktop. They have one support# to call, and the setup/package management/names are all the same.
Just my 2 cents

[Tsuroerusu]

If they want to pull windows admins away from using windows servers they HAVE to have a desktop environment to administer it. Windows admins cannot function at all without a desktop environment. They dont have a clue about the beauty of using ssh and command line to administer and control server functions. There is no way most windows admin will use a non-desktop environment.

Red Hat actually already does this, if you install RHEL or CentOS, you can pick various package sets during the installation. You can pick Desktop, Desktop (KDE), Server (GUI) and Server (Text). Server (GUI) will give you a system with Apache, PHP, MySQL and a few other things, plus a minimal GNOME with a few utilities plus some configuration tools.

Not only that, but most small to mid size business users (and admins) that use linux would most likely want the same OS/company that runs their server to also be on their user's desktop. They have one support# to call, and the setup/package management/names are all the same.
Just my 2 cents

Yeah, that's what I think as well.

[davijordan]

That was a good laugh for me about the command line challenged mswindows admins being mouse jockeys. Gives one reason to go get certified on linux. I am not an admin or pretend to be one. Our family does have several of our own in-house servers. I use ssh with the command line when i need to. Using the nslu2 as a server requires you to use the command line a lot and taught me a bit or two. Anyway. there are quite a few web based utilities out there to help manage servers. I am sure y'all know what they are. So as long as you have a browser, you can still be a mouse jockey most of the time.

[Tsuroerusu]

Anyway. there are quite a few web based utilities out there to help manage servers. I am sure y'all know what they are. So as long as you have a browser, you can still be a mouse jockey most of the time.

That is actually what Red Hat Network is, a web interface to administer servers. Here's some screenshots:

http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Deplo ... ur-rhn.png
http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Deplo ... errata.png

[davijordan]

i like:
webmin/usermin
phpmyadmin/phppqadmin
swat
cups web interface
ispconfig
etc...

[Gomer_X]

I find it quite amazing that people see this as news, because this was news in 2003 when Fedora was started. How can Red Hat "give up" on something they have not done in the first place?

Exactly. Thanks for saving me the trouble of saying this. There's no news here, no cause for alarm. Red Hat is confirming what they've already said.

Concentrating on servers doesn't mean "your desktop is now BASH." Red Hat has developed a lot of good GUI based admin tools, and they're not giving all that up.