Linked by David Adams on Tue 3rd Aug 2010 16:05 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Linux As we mentioned in a previous article, Red Hat advocate Greg DeKoenigsberg claimed that due to the much larger amount of code it's contributed, Red Hat is a better open source citizen than Canonical, adding, "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization." A Computerworld blog retorts that that's no insult; and that marketing Linux could be just as important to the cause as contributing code. Updated
Thread beginning with comment 435221
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
license_2_blather
Member since:
2006-02-05

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.

That, though, is where Canonical has focused its efforts, and made more progress than any other organization as far as I can tell -- including Novell/SuSE, Redhat, and various other distros.

Ubuntu's not my cup of tea personally, but I think Canonical deserves to be recognized for increasing Linux's profile in the mind of average computer users. I hear the word "Ubuntu" roll off the tongues of my non-techie friends more than I would have thought, and certainly more than the name of any other distro.

Edited 2010-08-03 18:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.


And they never wanted to, either. Canonical does, and should be applauded for that. When Ubuntu started out, there was no distribution that had the same role as Red Hat (the distro with that name) used to have. There was RHEL that was very expensive, and there was Fedora that was a bleeding edge distro for hobbyists. What was missing was a free production quality distro. SUSE was not free either. Slackware, Mandrake and others were just bad in their own ways.

Back then Debian was failing to release in pathological fashion, because there was no central authority - so it was pretty bad option for most desktop users.

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.


Where did Ubuntu make a dent? Linux has the same 1% and 40% of those users are running KDE.

If Linux had doubled in share from the first release of Ubuntu I would agree but this is not the case and the fact that the KDE/GNOME divide still exists shows that Ubuntu has just been the most popular Gnome distro, not some new force making inroads within the mainstream.

Sure there are plenty of blog posts about switching Grandma to Ubuntu but there were plenty of those types of posts before Ubuntu existed. If you look at distrowatch you can see that Ubuntu is not that far ahead of the other distros.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There goes the troll again.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Lunitik Member since:
2005-08-07

People aren't spending money on Linux on the desktop, developers need to get paid to do the best work.

You think Red Hat is paying for all this Desktop development based on its desktop sales? Shuttleworth has around $500 million to his name, so its easy for him to support a small team, but look at how he's used it. They do basically nothing at any level of the Linux system, just stuff to set them apart outside of the important upstreams.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.

That, though, is where Canonical has focused its efforts, and made more progress than any other organization as far as I can tell -- including Novell/SuSE, Redhat, and various other distros.


SUSE/openSUSE and Mandrake/Mandriva focused on desktop Linux much before Ubuntu existed. True, not all their releases were perfect, but many were.
For me Ubuntu has meant nothing but bugs.
Heck, even Lindows/Linspire was a great "Joe User" distro (before going 'buntu)
Or Xandros.
Why did they die? Because Ubuntu taught people you don't have to pay for a Linux distro.
Personally I was more than happy to pay for good distros, like the great, unrivalled Libranet.

Reply Parent Score: 3

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

You are very right. One of the things that contributed to the end of paid distributions was Ubuntu. I was part of the very small Libranet team, and I always felt this was one of the reasons of Libranet's demise. It's hard to compete with a multi-millionaire who ships stacks of free CDs to anyone requesting it. Still, for many years after its demise, Libranet's installer and administration tools were far more user-friendly and useful than Ubuntu's counterparts. This was all written by two paid guys and managed by another paid guy. Of course, Ubuntu was not the only cause of Libranet's end, but certainly a contributing factor.

I feel very sorry for Mindriva and its users that it may have the same fate.

Edited 2010-08-03 20:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

In spite of Red Hat's significant technological contributions to Linux in general, and the inroads they have made with Linux on servers, they never made much of a dent in the average Joe desktop market.

I don't want to belittle Ubuntu's accomplishments, because they really did raise the bar in terms of out of the box usability, and they made the rest of the Linux distros sit up and realize that mediocre would no longer cut it, but do you know that Red Hat isn't even trying?

Seriously! They gave up on Desktop Linux around 2000, back when it was a much harder sell. Fedora may exist and get a certain amount of incidental backing, but there is no Red Hat Desktop Linux effort. The reason Ubuntu is better at this than Red Hat is that Red Hat are not attempting to be in that market because they don't know how to profit at it. Which, as it happens, Ubuntu isn't doing.

So let's not compare apples and oranges.

Reply Parent Score: 3

shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

So my Fedora 13 powered MacBook is not a desktop system?
Does it edit pictures? Check
Does it Play MP3's ? Chek (add another repo you yum )
Does it work with 3G wireless Dongle ? Check
Wireless OOTB ? Yep.

So, unless I'm very much mistaken pretty well everything I need from a desktop is there.

Sigh.
Unfortunately thanks to Canonical's viral marketing far too many people thing that Linux == Ubuntu and nothing else.
Believe me, I was once an Ubuntu fan. The aroun Fiesty, the lova affair soured. Buggy beyond belief. So I switched and never looked back.
I certainly don't have 'apt' withdrawal symptoms.

Reply Parent Score: 3