Relevance of desktop Linux?
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:07 amhttp://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/25/1550215&art_pos=14
Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC. 'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it,' Whitehurst said, adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing, as well as VDI. 'The concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age. I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.' Despite increasing awareness that desktop Linux is ready for widespread mainstream adoption, fellow panelists questioned the practicality of switching to Linux, noting that even some Linux developers prefer Macs to Linux. 'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'
I'm curious to hear some others' points of view on this topic. While I can see his argument for the increasing use of cloud-based applications, as well as virtual environments, I still can't help but think that this only increases the chances for Linux to move onto more desktops. The adoption of cloud-based applications in some cases can be a financial move, since many of these are open source. If a company is so eager to reduce costs that they start using Google Apps instead of purchasing Microsoft Office, why can't you use that opportunity to convince that same company to save some cash by installing Linux on the desktop instead of Windows?
Also, have you ever tried running Windows as your host operating system, and then install a virtual machine on it? Let me tell you, it sucks. If you plan on running a virtual environment, it's obvious you use some Unix based system as the host.
And frankly, it's hard for me to appreciate his arguments, when his first reason is his own inability to make money off Linux for desktops. I realize that he runs an organization that sells enterprise copies of Linux, but does he really think that the majority of Linux users are paying for their installation? The fact that he personally isn't making money off desktop Linux doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of users with Fedora or Ubuntu or some other non-enterprise flavor of Linux on their desktop. When I read that argument of his, my first thought is that it was a very Microsoft kind of statement. After all, monetary value is obviously the only value Microsoft places on Windows or any of their other products.
Any thoughts?
Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst questioned the relevance of Linux on the desktop, citing several financial and interoperability hurdles to business adoption at a panel on end-users and Linux last night at the OSBC. 'First of all, I don't know how to make money on it,' Whitehurst said, adding that he was uncertain how relevant the desktop itself will be in five years given advances in cloud-based and smartphone computing, as well as VDI. 'The concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age. I'd rather think about skating to where the puck is going to be than where it is now.' Despite increasing awareness that desktop Linux is ready for widespread mainstream adoption, fellow panelists questioned the practicality of switching to Linux, noting that even some Linux developers prefer Macs to Linux. 'There's a desire [to use desktop Linux],' one panelist said, 'but practicality sets in. There are significant barriers to switching.'
I'm curious to hear some others' points of view on this topic. While I can see his argument for the increasing use of cloud-based applications, as well as virtual environments, I still can't help but think that this only increases the chances for Linux to move onto more desktops. The adoption of cloud-based applications in some cases can be a financial move, since many of these are open source. If a company is so eager to reduce costs that they start using Google Apps instead of purchasing Microsoft Office, why can't you use that opportunity to convince that same company to save some cash by installing Linux on the desktop instead of Windows?
Also, have you ever tried running Windows as your host operating system, and then install a virtual machine on it? Let me tell you, it sucks. If you plan on running a virtual environment, it's obvious you use some Unix based system as the host.
And frankly, it's hard for me to appreciate his arguments, when his first reason is his own inability to make money off Linux for desktops. I realize that he runs an organization that sells enterprise copies of Linux, but does he really think that the majority of Linux users are paying for their installation? The fact that he personally isn't making money off desktop Linux doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of users with Fedora or Ubuntu or some other non-enterprise flavor of Linux on their desktop. When I read that argument of his, my first thought is that it was a very Microsoft kind of statement. After all, monetary value is obviously the only value Microsoft places on Windows or any of their other products.
Any thoughts?