5 ms·
I remember when RedHat dropped their desktop version (ah, Redhat 9...). At the time I remember thinking is was a dumb move. That having a good, well supported
by mbreese 16y ago
I remember when RedHat dropped their desktop version (ah, Redhat 9...). At the time I remember thinking is was a dumb move. That having a good, well supported enterprise desktop was too important to RedHat and Linux in general. Then they did their half-hearted spinoff into what is now Fedora, and for a while it seemed like it desktop Linux languished.
Now, I'm pretty sure it was the right move. Enterprise Linux pays the bills. There are very few major installations of Linux desktops, and that's about the only place where you could extract revenue.
I think that they decided that they couldn't make both the enterprise and desktop users happy. Enterprise servers want to be stable and predictable. Desktop users want the new shiny. They had to choose one. So they went out, bought a suit, and went with the ones that gave them more money. Based upon their current financials, it's hard to argue with that strategy. And the funny thing is, they still managed to contribute more code to Gnome than Ubuntu.
As a side note: I used to run all Red Hat servers... then dabbled in Gentoo but recently I've used all Ubuntu. Just this past week I've run into some issues with some very important software (to me), that seems to be related to something in Ubuntu. It runs perfectly in the more conservative RHEL 5, but fails on the more recent Ubuntu. This has made me think a lot about what I'll be using for my servers in the future...
- viraptor 16y agoYou walked almost the same path as me then (re. distros), so I'll give you an advice: Debian. Ubuntu was never a proper server distribution. With their lack of own developers, majority of serious problems have to be pushed upstream as Debian issues anyways. If you liked the "conservative" RHEL, just go for Debian stable. It's the best of both worlds and it is what I'm happy to recommend these days.
- davidw 16y agoThe problem with Debian in the past (and I say this as someone who formerly maintained some packages and is a Big Fan) was that the release schedule was unpredictable. I don't know what that's like these days - anyone care to comment?
- andrewf 16y agoAccording to http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729 http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729 the current policy is a two-year release schedule, with the next release expected in Q1/2 2012.
- draebek 16y agoSeconded, though I'm more interested in Canonical's commitment to Ubuntu LTS releases: at work I don't want to have to upgrade distributions every two years (or six months: Fedora, Ubuntu non-LTS). The same goes for RHEL/CentOS. These distributions are attractive to me in a small business because of the support commitment of the organizations behind them.