Linked by David Adams on Sat 20th Aug 2011 15:38 UTC, submitted by sjvn
Editorial In five years, Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst sees the traditional desktop becoming obsolete.
Thread beginning with comment 486271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Read the damn article...
by bouhko on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 11:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Read the damn article..."
bouhko
Member since:
2010-06-24

He's actually talking about growing maintenance cost on fat desktop. Fat application have a higher maintenance cost because you've got the whole release/update process that's made much easier with web apps.

But sure, you'll still need a "desktop" computer with a web browser to connect to these apps, it's just that instead of using firefox/thunderbird/openoffice/your file browser, most users will use an all-in-one cloud offering (like Google gmail/docs/calendar).
This actually make a LOT of sense for most non-technical entreprise users that usually just use an office suite and some internal apps (that are more and more web-based).

But you'll still need fat client for most resources-heavy apps : programming, cao, photoshop, etc...

I mean it's kind of the same thing as with the commandline interface. In the 80s, it was the only interface everybody used. Now, for 99% of users, it has been replaced with a GUI, but it's still useful for the techies.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Read the damn article...
by Yamin on Mon 22nd Aug 2011 14:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Read the damn article..."
Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

He's actually talking about growing maintenance cost on fat desktop. Fat application have a higher maintenance cost because you've got the whole release/update process that's made much easier with web apps.


This is not entirely true. It depends on the application. I would suggest that a number of 'custom' and utility applications can be easier to build and maintain than a web app.

If you're building a webapp, you deal with web server issues, scaling issues, permission issues, IT Network, web client restrictions... that you just don't deal with with a local install.

Not a majority ;) , but a fair number... and as long as a few of those exist, you'll still want to have a desktop like environment to run them.

Reply Parent Score: 3

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

He's actually talking about growing maintenance cost on fat desktop. Fat application have a higher maintenance cost because you've got the whole release/update process that's made much easier with web apps.


What's sad is that RedHat has all the tools required to support diskless computing (full-fledged PC on the desk but without any local storage, booting off the network, mounting NFS shares from a central server, but running apps locally). And they want to go off on some "cloud" or "vdi" adventure instead.

I guess they feel they can make more money selling skookum servers with lots of RHEL licenses, rather than a small server with a single RHEL license support Fedora diskless stations.

But you'll still need fat client for most resources-heavy apps : programming, cao, photoshop, etc...


No, you need a diskless station. No need for local disk, local OS, local apps, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2