Desktop Relevance

[Jarod Wilson]

On Thursday 26 March 2009 10:47:32 Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:14:10AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
> > 
> > I recall back in the 90s when Unix vendors decided to halt workstation 
> > production.  Basically, my point is that while desktop systems don't 
> > make money, it tends to be the desktop systems that people tend to learn 
> > with. I would also agree that in the corporate world, even if a data 
> > center is all RHEL (or SLES), the desktops are primarily Windows. 
> > Actually, this is a good thing for IT people because they spend a lot of 
> > time fixing broken Windows systems :-)
> 
> It's odd that he would say this just at the time when it becomes
> clear that ordinary people can enjoy using Linux desktops...

I don't see anything in the part you quoted that says anything to the
contrary.

He's simply arguing that you can't make money on a desktop OS (unless
you are ginormous and own 90%+ of the market, aka MS, and get resellers
to shoulder the majority of the support burden). But at the same time,
the desktop is where people learn, and thus to get more Linux server
users, you might want more desktop Linux users. Then he's just
conceding that even big Linux shops are still mostly running Windows
on the desktop. Then he goes for a bit of humour, saying busted Windows
boxes are good for IT people's job security.

Bottom line is that a publicly traded company has to make money, and the
easiest way to make money on Linux is in the data center. Making money
on the desktop is HARD. Red Hat very much likes to see more Linux on the
desktop, but it simply doesn't make financial sense to try to sell and
support Linux on the desktop. You'd have to build up market share slowly
over time, and until you reach critical mass, which may well be never,
you aren't going to actually make any money. Investors don't take kindly
to things like that, its jut cold hard business facts.

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org