Linux.com has published a review of Red Hat Desktop, Red Hat’s new RHEL3-based corporate desktop product. It’s a lot like Red Hat 9 was, except not available as a standalone product anymore. The software that comprises it is a little old, as well, but at least everything seems to work, says J. Matzan.
Redhat needs to find a way around the ATI installer problem.
Just recently i bought myself an ATI 9800 pro and i am in no way going back to slow nvidia!
The problem is that XFree detects it as a Radeon and tries to use either the Radeon or the ATI driver for it. Both of those will lock up the system. If you manually change the XF86Config file to use the vesa driver, you’ll be all set until you can download the proprietary ATI driver.
Long, involved and tedious? Yes. But at least there is a way to make it work.
-Jem
I’m confused as to why Red Hat doesn’t base its corp. desktop around a semi-modern Fedora Core. RedHat funds Fedora, and basically all RH programmers *work on* Fedora… so, why not use what you’re paying to develop?
Stability issues may exist under FC, but this review clearly indicates the same is true (even more so) with the RHD.
considering every card works with vesa why not just vesa to start with.
I’m confused as to why Red Hat doesn’t base its corp. desktop around a semi-modern Fedora Core.
I’ll tell you then. It’s their plan, but to be perfectly honest, Fedora is not ready to serve as a base for a supposedly enterprise class OS. Do not let the Fedora zealots fool you, Fedora is a large collection of really low quality software right now, and will be for a while longer.
“I’m confused as to why Red Hat doesn’t base its corp. desktop around a semi-modern Fedora Core. RedHat funds Fedora, and basically all RH programmers *work on* Fedora… so, why not use what you’re paying to develop?
”
the real reason is that redhat enterprise has a 12 to 18 months lifecycle and redhat desktop is actually redhat corporate desktop meaning that they want it to be only there for workstations. in this class, users dont care about the latest and greatest like fedora. they want a more slow moving target which is why redhat desktop has older stuff with backports
unlike what kingston says fedora is the basis for the next redhat enteprise version and precisely the reason why redhat is willing to do this. otherwise they would just used debian
”
Not claiming that you did. I was talking half heartedly to the moron that clicked “report abuse” under my first comment. ”
your claim that fedora is not the basis of redhat enterprise was wrong and your reasoning was incorrect. fedora is the basis of redhat enterprise and the reason was redhat desktop is not having the latest is due to redhat enterprise slower lifecyle and not because fedora is of poor quality. fedora is irrelevant to this dicussion so i dont think we need to talk about that here.
fedora is irrelevant to this dicussion so i dont think we need to talk about that here.
I was answering someone’s honest question, and it damned well is relevant here. Good thing that OSnews has people like you though, who think it’s MORE on topic o complain about how other things are off topic.
Re: “Red Hat Desktop has several features that make it unique among desktop distributions”
Someone correct me if I’m mistaken but aren’t the features the author claims are unique to Red Hat already present in other distributions such as SuSE Linux, Mandrake, etc?
Re: “The software in general is pretty old — the kernel is 2.4.21 with various special updates and backports introduced by Red Hat. Mozilla was version 1.4.2 (several versions old), the GIMP was 1.2 (one version old), and Evolution was 1.4.5 (one version old, but full of bugs, some of which have not been fixed in newer versions)”
This really looks like Red Hat put together a less professional package than what people have come to expect. Why use the 2.4.21 Linux Kernel when other commercial competitors like Novell (SuSE Linux) and Mandrakesoft (Mandrake) offer distributions with the 2.6 Kernel? Those same competitors offer backwards compatibility with older software so it shouldn’t of been an issue for Red Hat. Then they include software that is several releases out of date which boggles my mind. Why include software that is out dated? This only waist valuable time forcing the end user to either update their out dated software packages or take a chance being left open to security risk or risk instability issues due to bugs. If a distribution developer such as Red Hat plans to include software the least they could do is offer the most recent versions prior to the distributions release.
Re: “The standard support offering is 30 days of installation support over the phone or via the Web. Web support is actually extended to one year and covers “basic configuration,” which is more or less useless. The response time is one day for phone support and two days for Web support. In other words this “support” is a farce”
Is it really true that Red Hat customers will wait up to a day for phone tech support? I find this highly unlikely. Maybe customer that email tech support would wait up to a day before getting a response but I can’t see phoning Red Hat, leave a message and then have to wait 24 hours for help being good for any business.
Re: Cost factor
Why does the versions of Red Hat Enterprise cost so much more than the competition? Maybe I’m reading things incorrectly but I can’t understand their reasoning for charging so much. If someone could explain why it’s understandable for Red Hat to charge so much then please offer cost comparisons.
”
Someone correct me if I’m mistaken but aren’t the features the author claims are unique to Red Hat already present in other distributions such as SuSE Linux, Mandrake, etc?
”
redhat did major amount of backporting to 2.4 including nptl which they developed.
”
This really looks like Red Hat put together a less professional package than what people have come to expect. Why use the 2.4.21 Linux Kernel when other commercial competitors like Novell (SuSE Linux) and Mandrakesoft (Mandrake) offer distributions with the 2.6 Kernel?”
because 2.6 hasnt been around for all.redhat desktop is based on the last redhat enterpise version and has a 12 to 18 month lifecyle. its meant for workstations and wont have the latest stuff.
”
Is it really true that Red Hat customers will wait up to a day for phone tech support? I find this highly unlikely.”
redhat support is pretty good afaik. the mailing list in fedora had a few complaints as well as praises so not sure..
”
Why does the versions of Red Hat Enterprise cost so much more than the competition? Maybe I’m reading things incorrectly but I can’t understand their reasoning for charging so much”
redhat desktop is only available on bulk licenses and redhat enterprise is available under different pricing structures. cost comparising should be done based on individual needs. if you dont want their support you can use one of the clones like caos/taolinux/whiteboxlinux
Why pay for another old re-hash of Redhat 9, how many versions of this ‘free’ software can you put in a colorful box and charge $200+ for it with a straight face?
Why pay for another old re-hash of Redhat 9, how many versions of this ‘free’ software can you put in a colorful box and charge $200+ for it with a straight face?
This is the true beauty of commercial Linux distributions. They are so crappy that they practically guarantee that there will be money coming in from support calls. That’s the whole basis of distributers’ income, and it means that commercial Linux distributions will forever be less than perfect, so that people have a reason to pay for upgrades.
The free, community developed distributions are of course available, but they are so disorganized that they are forever doomed to be buggy bloated monstrosities as well, so you’re pretty much screwed either way you go. You’re either spending time or money folks! Have a blast!
Just like in most of the world of proprietary software.
(Every now and then spouting nonsense is kindof fun ;^)
…strictly for having a person answer the phone when you have a problem. I don’t mind that they want to charge corporations for their product. That’s their “business”. If someone wants to pay for the product with support, good for them. At least the money partly goes back to funding continued development of more modern software (ie. Fedora).
Also, people wonder why anyone would want “old software and old technology” when shiney new stuff is available… if you have ever worked in a bank, gov’t or some other financial operation, desktop software versions always lag behind while they wait for any potential bugs to be worked out. Our company usually waits for the first major update before it will move onto a next version of Windows (yah, I know, who wouldn’t with Windows
Old software = tried and true = stable (not necessarily TRUE, but that is indeed the perception).
Mike
Kingston, I have noticed than on any redhat linux/fedora article EACH AND EVERY TIME you will start a major flamebait. Yes, you have some valid claims that in part many agree with, however starting the same flamethrower every time is very tiresome and I do not approve such behavior on my forums. You stated your opinions [more than] once on the topic, and that is enough. Repeating the same thing over and over is perceived as trolling and flamebait.
If you continue the same trend I will have to ban you. This is your first and last warning. It has nothing to do with what you say is right or wrong, it has to do with your persistance to repeat yourself and initiate trolling.
My appologies. I will tone it down.
Yes, crappy software leads to income via paid support. However, Redhat’s customers are paying for “working computer systems”. Whether that means crappy software and lots of support, or well-integrated/tested software with little support doesn’t really matter to the customer; they still are getting what they bargained for.
Now, for Redhat, they benefit if the software is well done, because although they get fewer support calls (== money for support contracts I presume), they get more customers.
Redhat desktop and Fedora just need some more time to mature — remember, this is RH’s first attempt at a desktop OS after the huge change that was Fedora. Give it time.
This thing is apparently US$200, and all you get is only 30 days support?
If the support is anything like for the (MUCH more expensive) RHEL 3.0 this thing is based off, then this is truely ridicolous.
Does RHEL-3 include the Afga fonts that RedHat licensed?
Mozilla 1.4.2 is I believe the stable version of Mozilla. Mozilla 1.6 is not considered a part of the stable branch as one of the highlights of Mozilla 1.7 is that it will replace 1.4 as the stable branch.
Gimp isn’t far behind.
A lack of kernel headers in the minimal install is pitiful. A lack of it on the discs is unforgiveable. I’d change distributions immediately. RedHat 9 and 8.0 had them.
The Agfa fonts were added to RHEL3 post-release in “RHEL3 Update 2” which was released some time ago. The RH Desktop is the first RH offering to come with the Agfa fonts out of the box.
Is it really so hard to understand RedHat’s release cycle strategy? Businesses don’t want to upgrade every 6 months and they don’t care about the latest and greatest software. Upgrading costs money (IT costs, not licensing). Supporting different application versions costs money.
RedHat Desktop will be on the same release cycle as RHEL. For support ease, they are keeping the software between the two in sync. The difficulty with this version of RedHat Desktop is that it was released in the middle of the RHEL release cycle. If it had been released with RHEL3, it would have seemed fairly modern upon release. The next version of RedHat Desktop (released with RHEL4) will be much more up to date (though maybe not bleeding edge like Fedora) upon release.
This is the true beauty of commercial Linux distributions. They are so crappy that they practically guarantee that there will be money coming in from support calls.
How is that? In the Linux world you have mounds apon mounds of forums, books and other things that can help you. Second if they are so crappy then why arn’t there any kind of viruses, crashes or idiotic “activations”?
Compared to windows, Linux is perfect!
That’s the whole basis of distributers’ income, and it means that commercial Linux distributions will forever be less than perfect,
Yes, but there are alot futher along than some of the other propriatory OS’es out there like micro$oft.
so that people have a reason to pay for upgrades.
Some people may upgrade while some may not. I’m happy with RH9 and FC1. However under windowsXP its upgrade or else!
The free, community developed distributions are of course available, but they are so disorganized that they are forever doomed to be buggy bloated monstrosities as well,
Slackware, Gentoo, Debian. These are all free distros that do not have buggy bloated softeare that are free!
Or pay for windowsXP and get those buggy bloated software with tons of viruses to boot!
so you’re pretty much screwed either way you go.
You mean you are screwed. Poeple in the linux world have choice.
You’re either spending time or money folks! Have a blast!
Nope, we are not running windows, and yes, w will hav a blast!
Just like in most of the world of proprietary software.
(Every now and then spouting nonsense is kindof fun ;^)
Heheh!
That was a joke, and nothing more. Didn’t the very last line there seem like a hint to you? Probably not, this is OSnews after all ;^)
Ooops, don’t mind me…. LOL 😀