There’s a meme out there about how looked like your first desktop, and how it looks right now (related to theme changes in the next Ubuntu release).
I don’t have a screenshot of my first desktop, but I have one shot from 2003:
If I recall correctly that was a KDE 3.1.1 running in a Debian Woody with lots of steroids (please notice the Mozilla 1.0.0, great browser back in the days!).
I’ve tried to reproduce that screenshot again with my Fedora 12 and Gnome 2.28.2 (and Chromium 5.0.382.0), and this is the result:
Not that different I guess, but I don’t know if it’s good or not. I’m looking forward to see if Gnome 3 is the answer to that question.
I’m partially involved in a project that aims for the full replacement of Windows as a desktop OS in a BIG institution in the autonomous goverment in Valencia. Although I don’t want to give too much details by now, I’ve proposed to the project manager a strategy based on Fedora/CentOS/Red Hat.
The main problem of a big institution is there are several kinds of desktop users (and desktop needs). In a first approach we’ve defined three variables:
- Features: Do we need the shiny new features of the desktop world, or we can live with outdated (but stable) applications? In this variable Fedora is a big winner as a cutting edge distribution.
- Stability: I know that new applications can be stable enough, but for the user that only does ‘1, 2, 3’ every day, it doesn’t matter if there’s Firefox 3.5 or 1.5. We want stability and support as long as possible without upgrading. Here I suggest CentOS.
- Support: Sometimes the work in a desktop is critical and we may need paid support, and Red Hat has a good reputation for our customer, so RHEL is the best choice.
Another big problem is the number of desktops, and a nice tool to help administrate all the computers would be a good point for the proposition (we’re providing solutions, not new problems heh).
The bonus is that we can manage all three distributions with Spacewalk (or Red Hat Network Satellite, although the reason behind the desktop migration is money), and the customer loves the idea of a three level solution related to the same vendor.
I’m optimistic about this project, and customer feedback it’s also good, so I’ll keep you informed.
I know I’m an old-school system administrator, who doesn’t want a X session running on his servers.
The Console and the CLI are the ultimate tool for a sysadmin (In the Begining was the Command Line), and I don’t like the extra stuff, specifically when you have to update the system: desktop applications have frecuently security updates, as other applications, but I’m not using them in a server so I feel it’s a waste of time and bandwith.
I tend to say base system as synonymous for bare minium install, and yesterday I had a little problem with a partner and a CentOS install.
We requested just base and the IT guy did a default install, that includes all the Gnome desktop and associated applications. That’s not a big deal, but it’s not the optimal situation.
What do you think? Are you OK with a desktop installed in a server?
"Next up is creating the seamless Bluetooth desktop experience from pair to air by adding the necessary bits to the applet and connection editor. But the heavy lifting on the NetworkManager side is mostly done. Thanks to Bastien, NetworkManager 0.8 will ship with native Bluetooth support that doesn’t suck"
—
From A•B•C Delicious.
IMHO NetworkManager is one of the best pieces of software I’ve seen that actually makes desktop’s life better. Seriously.
While others are wondering what will be the next step in desktop experience (you know those compiz bells an whistles, desktops shells, trackers to slow down you computer, etc), I thank there are people that has focus and provides us with software that is really needed.
Don’t get me wrong, bells and whistles are OK and I like them, but everybody can choose his heroes, and I’m with NetworkManager team. Keep on good work!
A workmate asked me for recomendation for a Desktop Linux distribution to a user without too much experience with computers. That user was a costumer.
My first answer was: Ubuntu. It’s user friendly, stable and it’s easy to add new applications with GUI tools.
After answering that… I added: or Fedora.
This user (costumer, remember) already knows Red Hat in bussiness, but Ubuntu it’s unknown for him. But being honest, I don’t think Fedora it’s right now as friendly as Ubuntu. I know that I can’t say something like this without proving it. Just an example: Ubuntu documentation vs Fedora user guide.
I don’t mean Fedora it’s not a good desktop distribution, but I wouldn’t recommend it to a newbie.
Update: fortunately, the documentation is here for the new shiny Fedora 11. Rectify is of wise people (although when I wrote this post, there wasn’t any documentation).
"We have an extraordinary brand, and the last thing I want is for someone to take a computer home and find something is not working."
—
From Red Hat Opts for Pragmatism Over Glitz, about Linux and desktops.
Red Hats wants to stick at the server market, and it makes sense to me: they do it extremely well at it.
But the fact is that Red Hat, even in their desktop editions, isn’t ready for the desktop: they rely on tested and stable software (that’s a very good idea for the server editions), so they’re missing the great improvements on the Linux desktop world out there, and that’s related to the something not working part Jim Whitehurst (Red Hat’s CEO) is telling us.
That’s why the Fedora project exists, and that’s why Fedora it isn’t the Red Hat brand. It’s a different market and Red Hat doesn’t want to fight in that front.
I think Ubuntu (and Canonical) are doing it very well on the desktop, but that’s not Red Hat bussiness right now. Period.
