3 ms·

The point is (and it's actually written in bold at the middle of the article) that Red Hat invests a lot more in the desktop than Canonical, while Canonical rea

The point is (and it's actually written in bold at the middle of the article) that Red Hat invests a lot more in the desktop than Canonical, while Canonical reaps all the benefits. Your argument that Red Hat is not treating the desktop seriously seems a bit shallow when comparing the amount invested by each company in desktop development.

andrewf 16y ago
Yeah, but Ubuntu's PR has always promoted the desktop (and laptop, and netbook..) They now talk about the server more than they used to, but ubuntu.com still gives the desktop a lot of emphasis. Meanwhile: * redhat.com's frontpage is devoid of anything but the odd "Desktop" link * Way back in 2003, Red Hat's then-CEO said consumers should buy Windows [1] * In 2008, Red Hat stated that "we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future." [2] * In 2009, their CEO said "the concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age." [3] I think you could say that Red Hat's focus makes sense, or even that their view on the Linux desktop is more honest. But Canonical, at least, has aspirations for the Linux desktop, while Red Hat decided a long time ago that they're not really fussed. Credit where credit is due is one thing, and in [2] Red Hat lays claim to the work they put into the desktop, and its suitability for certain niches. But contrasting their PR with Canonical's, can anyone be surprised the "power user" Linux desktop set don't give Red Hat much attention? [1] http://www.silicon.com/technology/software/2003/11/04/red-hat-ceo-says-you-should-buy-windows-39116741/ http://www.silicon.com/technology/software/2003/11/04/red-ha... [2] http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/ http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-h... [3] http://www.techworld.com.au/article/296873/red_hat_ceo_questions_desktop_relevance_linux_debate?fp=4&fpid=159 http://www.techworld.com.au/article/296873/red_hat_ceo_quest...
- mapleoin 16y ago
  And still... That's not the point. The point is that Canonical is targeting the desktop market, but their contributions seldom get upstreamed. OTOH Red Hat makes most of the contributions and they're not even focusing on that market.
  - nkassis 16y ago
    Redhat is a much larger company with much larger resources. The contributions they are able to make is thus much larger. I don't see how this should be taken as a surprised. Their contribution to the desktop are nothing compared to their server side work. Most of what Ubuntu/Canonical contributes is integration work which is specific to their distro in nature. That's already a lot of work for the size of their company. If Redhat wanted to they could promote Fedora as a desktop system. I know many organization that use it but for the man in the street (MITS) Ubuntu is just more visible. Red Hat could put some PR money on Fedora. I see also a lot of work being put by Canonical in just replicating work that took Red Hat years to make. Building their enterprise infrastructure is sapping a lot of work. Landscape,Launchpad,Ubuntu One... (Launchpad could be dropped considering the other services popping up that are much better.) are expensive projects to make and aren't of much use to the FOSS community at large.

andrewf 16y ago

Yeah, but Ubuntu's PR has always promoted the desktop (and laptop, and netbook..) They now talk about the server more than they used to, but ubuntu.com still gives the desktop a lot of emphasis. Meanwhile: * redhat.com's frontpage is devoid of anything but the odd "Desktop" link * Way back in 2003, Red Hat's then-CEO said consumers should buy Windows [1] * In 2008, Red Hat stated that "we have no plans to create a traditional desktop product for the consumer market in the foreseeable future." [2] * In 2009, their CEO said "the concept of a desktop is kind of ridiculous in this day and age." [3] I think you could say that Red Hat's focus makes sense, or even that their view on the Linux desktop is more honest. But Canonical, at least, has aspirations for the Linux desktop, while Red Hat decided a long time ago that they're not really fussed. Credit where credit is due is one thing, and in [2] Red Hat lays claim to the work they put into the desktop, and its suitability for certain niches. But contrasting their PR with Canonical's, can anyone be surprised the "power user" Linux desktop set don't give Red Hat much attention? [1] http://www.silicon.com/technology/software/2003/11/04/red-hat-ceo-says-you-should-buy-windows-39116741/ http://www.silicon.com/technology/software/2003/11/04/red-ha... [2] http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-hat-desktop-systems-an-update/ http://press.redhat.com/2008/04/16/whats-going-on-with-red-h... [3] http://www.techworld.com.au/article/296873/red_hat_ceo_questions_desktop_relevance_linux_debate?fp=4&fpid=159 http://www.techworld.com.au/article/296873/red_hat_ceo_quest...

mapleoin 16y ago
And still... That's not the point. The point is that Canonical is targeting the desktop market, but their contributions seldom get upstreamed. OTOH Red Hat makes most of the contributions and they're not even focusing on that market.
- nkassis 16y ago
  Redhat is a much larger company with much larger resources. The contributions they are able to make is thus much larger. I don't see how this should be taken as a surprised. Their contribution to the desktop are nothing compared to their server side work. Most of what Ubuntu/Canonical contributes is integration work which is specific to their distro in nature. That's already a lot of work for the size of their company. If Redhat wanted to they could promote Fedora as a desktop system. I know many organization that use it but for the man in the street (MITS) Ubuntu is just more visible. Red Hat could put some PR money on Fedora. I see also a lot of work being put by Canonical in just replicating work that took Red Hat years to make. Building their enterprise infrastructure is sapping a lot of work. Landscape,Launchpad,Ubuntu One... (Launchpad could be dropped considering the other services popping up that are much better.) are expensive projects to make and aren't of much use to the FOSS community at large.