Are Proprietary Tools the Key to Linux Desktop Success?

I think that for Linux to survive and thrive as a desktop operating system, it needs some proprietary tools.

This is a poor article. It tries to drag Linux into a situation where it doesn't belong. This is not about Linux needing proprietary tools.

This is about vendors being blind or self-serving when it comes to providing management tools for their apps. They don't even need to provide those. Releasing Open (RAND-Z, sublicensable) specifications on how to communicate remotely to the hypervisor would be enough.

Why VMWare doesn't support Linux with tools? No idea. Why MS doesn't? Very clear. MS want all roads to lead to Windows and Office. Authoring a Linux management client certainly doesn't lead to Windows.

I believe that all this freedom and openness might be turning in on itself and hurting us in such cases.

What? A proprietary vendor refusing to write a closed source management client is a cause of the freedom inherent in Linux? Can I smoke some of Ken's stuff? Oh no, that's not what he means...

Would the Linux desktop find success in such practices? I don't like the smell of it but it might be the only way to compete.

OK, someone went off the deep end. For Linux to succeed we need to close our management tools? What good would that do in the face of MS using their coffers to promote Hyper-V? "Look, we've got proprietary management tools too!" Yeah, people would be flocking to KVM overnight...

As I noted once before, Ken Hess = Matt Hartley.

"It is also surprising to note that one must have a Windows Server on which to install VMware's Virtual Center to manage VMware ESX/ESXi systems that are Linux-based."

Yes this is a pain in the arse. You have to have a windows desktop too to get to the console of your server. Stupid is as stupid does. When will these mindless corporations quit going out to lunch with vendors and buying these stupid proprietary tools.

In the long run this is what microsoft wants. I believe this is why citrix bought xen too so they could squash any momemtum that xen was going to have in the enterprise with redhat. Citrix is just another "partner" of microsoft.

Can't judge the article but can totally understand where the author is coming from since I have a few piece of sxxt vmware instances with redhat and I hate I mean absolutely hate that I have to use windows to get to a console for my machines.

@jsusanka "partner" = lackey.

Here is a DOH moment, trying to get to know an MS product (Hyper-V) and you cant do it with Linux ... do you see the connection here. No s*** sherlock.. That code they released was for running linux inside Hyper-V, if you want to tweak hyper-v then you need windows tools, if you want to tweak the linux vm inside hyper-v ... ssh comes to mind.

Do we need proprietary tools is not the question, do we need bloggers with brains is the one we should be asking. The second question you need to ask is why in the world would you put a high uptime VM on a system that needs to be rebooted on a regular basis? Logic would have you put the one that needs to be down more often as a VM inside the high uptime.

*edit* using windows to virtualize a production system is like trying to use a bicycle to fly */edit*

> The second question you need to ask is why in the world would you put a high uptime VM on a system that needs to be rebooted on a regular basis?

Stupidity comes to mind as the most likely answer. :(

I've been seeing a LOT of this lately.

"Proprietary applications are better than F/OSS."

Right along with renewed attacks on the GPL, as if only the BSD license represents actual "freedom" for software.

It's so obviously coordinated, and so obviously insane. Or maybe just desperate.

@Bob_Robertson Yeah, it does seem pretty coached at times... like they have a "play book" they are all working from.