Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 20th Apr 2012 20:09 UTC, submitted by fran
Thread beginning with comment 515029
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Why so much misunderstanding?
by leech on Fri 20th Apr 2012 22:55
in reply to "RE[2]: Why so much misunderstanding?"
a) They spun off Red Hat (the free, desktop version) to Fedora project. That is user-based testing platform, not for serious use. They don't do much customization there, just stabilize during the (short) support period and then release that later as commercial Red Hat Enterprise Linux product.
b) Everything they do, they do on the server side. Focus on server, on cloud - related tech. Nothing on desktop, nada.
They go where the money is, good for them. Good for us - we get stabilized software downstream, in ubuntu and such. But I wouldn't touch Fedora on a desktop with a ten yard pole - the first and only Linux distro that went kernel-panic on my hardware was Fedora release.
b) Everything they do, they do on the server side. Focus on server, on cloud - related tech. Nothing on desktop, nada.
They go where the money is, good for them. Good for us - we get stabilized software downstream, in ubuntu and such. But I wouldn't touch Fedora on a desktop with a ten yard pole - the first and only Linux distro that went kernel-panic on my hardware was Fedora release.
Actually they do a ton of desktop development. Network manager came out of them, they were one of the ones who were pushing for Pulse audio so much (though I don't think they originally developed it, I'm sure they started sponsoring the team that did.)
While Red Hat certainly doesn't show that they're doing all this desktop work, more of it is infrastructure things. And look at all the virtual machine work they're doing with Spice and KVM, which quite frankly is the only reason to be getting more than a dual core for your desktop.
Red Hat gets a bad rap for once upon a time saying that the Linux Desktop just isn't there and that they wanted to concentrate on building a solid foundation for a server operating system. Take a look at how snappy and quick CentOS 6.2 is for a good reference on what Red Hat's 'dead' desktop looks like.
RE[4]: Why so much misunderstanding?
by Lennie on Sat 21st Apr 2012 11:10
in reply to "RE[3]: Why so much misunderstanding?"
RE[3]: Why so much misunderstanding?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 21st Apr 2012 13:42
in reply to "RE[2]: Why so much misunderstanding?"
RE[3]: Why so much misunderstanding?
by cyrilleberger on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 06:40
in reply to "RE[2]: Why so much misunderstanding?"
a) They spun off Red Hat (the free, desktop version) to Fedora project. That is user-based testing platform, not for serious use. They don't do much customization there, just stabilize during the (short) support period and then release that later as commercial Red Hat Enterprise Linux product.
RHEL is also a desktop product, albeit, non-free, but then you can get it for free with CentOS or Scientific Linux. Also most of the work of FC goes to serve as based of future version of RHEL, meaning that a lot of FC packages are maintained by Red-Hat employees. And finally, Red Hat is the largest corporate contributor to the Gnome project (a desktop project).
Red Hat has not given up the linux desktop, they have given up the linux desktop for consumers, there is little to no money to make in that area.
Cannonical is still barely profitable, and they only managed to reach that point after years of sponsorship by Shuttleworth, which has basically kills all the existing competition on the consumer market (ie Mandriva, SuSE...).
RE[4]: Why so much misunderstanding?
by AdamW on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 15:56
in reply to "RE[3]: Why so much misunderstanding?"
No-one outside of Canonical actually knows if they're profitable or not, as it's a private company and doesn't have to report financials. I don't believe anyone there has said that they're profitable yet; but it's been a while since the last time anyone said definitely that they weren't. So right now we just don't know whether they are.





Member since:
2009-12-17
a) They spun off Red Hat (the free, desktop version) to Fedora project. That is user-based testing platform, not for serious use. They don't do much customization there, just stabilize during the (short) support period and then release that later as commercial Red Hat Enterprise Linux product.
b) Everything they do, they do on the server side. Focus on server, on cloud - related tech. Nothing on desktop, nada.
They go where the money is, good for them. Good for us - we get stabilized software downstream, in ubuntu and such. But I wouldn't touch Fedora on a desktop with a ten yard pole - the first and only Linux distro that went kernel-panic on my hardware was Fedora release.