Way, way, way off base.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2012 12:48 PM EDT |
Carla is assuming OEMs will produce hardware that either doesn't have UEFI or allows users choices. I don't make such an assumption. I assume Microsoft will strong arm OEMs to make sure that their hardware is 100% locked in to Windows-the-latest. Does anyone remember what happened with ASUS at Computex in 2009? Their lovely little Snapdragon (ARM) powered EeePC that they apologized for showing? A Microsoft VP was on stage for that apology. How about IBM's testimony during the DOJ's pursuit of Microsoft? Anyone else remember how OS/2 really died? How about HP? Their Linux laptop/netbook offerings disappeared the day Windows 7 was releases. Does anyone believe that was a big coincidence? I didn't think so. Red Hat had two options: cut a deal or get locked out of the desktop market entirely. Considering many of their enterprise server customers also demand a desktop product that reduced their options to one. That is the option they chose. Red Hat didn't drink the Microsoft Kool Aid. Red Hat looked at the realities of the market, realized that the DOJ was not going after Microsoft again, and realized that if they didn't cut a deal their business would be seriously hurt. There is plenty of blame to go around here but I wouldn't pile it on Red Hat. What they did was basic survival in a very unfortunate landscape. |
| lcafiero Jun 07, 2012 1:00 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, you left out a "way," since this deserves at least four of them in the off-base department. This hysterical rant is way beneath you, Carla, and I'm surprised that an item that is so blatantly ignorant came from your keyboard. |
| tuxchick Jun 07, 2012 1:03 PM EDT |
Burke presents this whole mess as a cool good thing and buying into the Microsoft party line, and disses the well-founded criticism of this whole UEFI secure boot scheme, which is about controlling the market place, not security. At the least he is being disingenuous and gives credence to MS's bogus claims. Surely you saw the part where secure boot cannot be disabled on ARM devices. Surely you saw the part where this MS certificate authority has already been compromised. Way too many people are soft-pedaling this and I don't understand why. Oh yeah, once again we have workarounds and limited choices-- let's celebrate. |
| penguinist Jun 07, 2012 1:31 PM EDT |
Carla, thank you for pulling together the resources around this issue. Hopefully this will encourage objective discussion around this topic in the community. I for one see this as a "boiling the frog" situation, and the community needs awareness raised. |
| kennethh Jun 07, 2012 1:32 PM EDT |
Right on target! I'm loving the opinion articles popping up about this. It just goes to show how off base even the open source world is becoming. It's hard to destroy a well funded wintel machine. That being said the itwire article is the best thus far http://lxer.com/module/newswire/ext_link.php?rid=168134 Carla yours is at #2 :) |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2012 1:35 PM EDT |
Burke's statement was meant to put the best face on a bad situation. Red Hat is a publicly traded company. It's first responsibility is to it's shareholders. It's second responsibility is to it's customers. The Linux "community" (Is there really such a thing?) is relatively unimportant. The fact that Red Hat still cares enough about that community to try and smooth things over says a lot of good about them even if the attempt was misguided. Of course I saw what Microsoft did blatantly with ARM. They are going to attempt to quietly, behind the scenes, to do exactly the same with x86_64. I assume nothing but bad faith and ill will when it comes to Microsoft. You are absolutely correct that there is no cause to celebrate. Of course, that is entirely beside the point. The point is you put the blame squarely on Red Hat when it belongs almost everywhere else: on Microsoft, on a toothless U.S. government that fails to enforce it's own anti-trust laws and instead demands that UEFI will be required on their systems. You do know that Red Hat has extensive government contracts, right? Like I said, Red Hat looked at the landscape and did what they had to do to survive. They capitulated because it's better than watching their business be destroyed by Microsoft, the OEMs and a complicit government. My anger at this article isn't for raising an alarm. That can and should be raised over and over and over again. My anger is at blaming Red Hat, who would have become the victim if they hadn't done what they did. I expected an article like this from the likes of Sam Varghese and he delivered it. I didn't expect you, Carla, to jump into bed with him. |
| linux4567 Jun 07, 2012 2:15 PM EDT |
caitlyn, you really sound like a RH apologist here. RH has never been in the desktop market so they certainly didn't risk getting locket out of it. That said RH could have fought 'crippled boot' instead of cheerfully supporting it and even worse propagating the MS lies that this is about security. It's crystal clear that this is about control, about crippling the freedom to install whatever the user wants and RH is now actively supporting this. TPM was originally designed for this purpose too, it only failed (and was relegated to much more limited use) due to very wide-spread protests at the time. RH could have been cheer-leading the protests against 'crippled boot' including legal (anti-trust) action, but instead they are now cheerleading for MS... |
| freeweaver Jun 07, 2012 2:32 PM EDT |
@caitlyn Yes red hat were thinking about their position. Now you need to consider yours. Ask yourself, Is secure boot and Microsofts forced position as bouncer to accessing YOUR computer acceptable to you? If the answer is no, then please stop parroting red hats position as if its your own. It's not, and its misleading to do so. You yourself are not red hat, you are an individual that likes choice, right? and this decision by red hat removes choice replacing it with... wait for it... Microsoft. The very corporation and control structure that most in the Linux community are actively trying to get away from. Secure Boot is a disgrace! Secure bot + $99 is an utter disgrace. And as for the "Conspiracy Theorists" comment. Well, the big boys pull that one out when they want to try and ostracise any viewpoint (valid or not) which differs from theirs. As in "you must think like us else you're a crazy person". Its a well know tactic to minimise critical discussion. |
| copycon Jun 07, 2012 2:50 PM EDT |
Right on Carla the oh well what are we to do attitude needs to go. This whole UEFI secure boot is rife with monopolistic intentions just look at ARM like you say. @caitlyn you just don't get it. |
| Fettoosh Jun 07, 2012 3:09 PM EDT |
Quoting:They capitulated because it's better than watching their business be destroyed by Microsoft, the OEMs and a complicit government. MS will keep trying to destroy Red Hat's business no matter what, but Red Hat stands a better chance of surviving if they fight back. The proof of the first is in the way Novell handled its contract with MS to cover patents, and the proof of the second is in the way Red Hat itself handled the same issue. Novel was dissolved, while Red Hat grew and flourished beyond expectations. Unless, Red Hat had a secret agreement back then and now it is time for it to come out in the open. |
| caitlyn Jun 07, 2012 4:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:RH has never been in the desktop market so they certainly didn't risk getting locket out of it.You are 100% absolutely, positively wrong. Red Hat is in the corporate desktop market, not the consumer desktop market. Do you really think they would employ GNOME developers if they weren't in the desktop market? As someone who has worked for Red Hat in the past I can tell you that the enterprise desktop is VERY important to them. Quoting:Yes red hat were thinking about their position. Now you need to consider yours.How dare you tell me what my position is? I'm not parroting Red Hat. I am pointing out that they really have no choice whatsoever. It's delusional to think otherwise. What is acceptable to me personally is neither here nor there. Oh, and a huge clue here: whatever computer I have will be able to run Linux one way or another. Quoting:@caitlyn you just don't get it.How so? How could Red Hat have stayed in business and not gone along with what is effectively mandated by the U.S. government? Quoting:RH could have been cheer-leading the protests against 'crippled boot' including legal (anti-trust) action, but instead they are now cheerleading for MS...[editor: removed for TOS violation] They aren't cheerleading for Microsoft anymore than you are. They are making the best of a bad situation. |
| Fettoosh Jun 07, 2012 5:21 PM EDT |
Quoting:How could Red Hat have stayed in business and not gone along with what is effectively mandated by the U.S. government? To my knowledge, Secure boot hasn't been implemented yet, so it shouldn't have been affected Red Hat yet. If the U.S. government and other entities are requiring it (haven't heard), does it have to be implemented through MS? I don't believe cost of implementation is a good enough reason to let MS handle/manage it. what about if/when other entities like the EU for instance, go absolutely against it on principle, what is Red Hat going to do? Is it going to make special arrangements? |
| jhansonxi Jun 07, 2012 6:51 PM EDT |
I kind of agree with Caitlyn regarding RH but they are not the only Linux distribution. I don't see the argument as being any different than "GNU endorsed" distributions versus mainstream distributions that include binary blobs for GPUs and wireless devices. Can we go back to complaining about how Gnome 3 and Unity are ruining the Linux desktop and we're being forced to choose between them? |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 7:03 PM EDT |
Where can you report an article as trolling flamebait? Leave it to Carla to distort the facts for the clicks. |
| penguinist Jun 07, 2012 7:48 PM EDT |
f3wt, can you be more articulate? What are these facts you bring forward? |
| joncr Jun 07, 2012 7:50 PM EDT |
Red Hat was in the desktop business. They aren't now. Now they're in the server business. And Secure Boot won't be implmented in server hardware, per Garrett. (Yes, you can still run RHEL on your desktop and you can still buy support for it. But, Red Hat has not marketed a retail product for severl years.) Also, I'll reiterate this: Microsoft does not need to strong arm any one to convince them to put Secure Boot in their mahines. Almost all vendors are absolutely dependent on selling hardware to support Windows. All Microsoft needs to do is say "Windows won't run unless X is there" and the vendors will fall over themselves getting the specs. |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 8:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:Only because the richest software company on the planet is utterly incompetent, and incapable of building a secure operating system. So instead they bully the rest of the world into trying to mitigate the security disaster that is Microsoft Windows. Fiction. The UEFI Forum board of directors include representatives from the following eleven leading companies: AMD American Megatrends Inc. Apple Computer, Inc. Dell Hewlett Packard IBM Insyde Intel Lenovo Microsoft Phoenix Technologies Other members include RedHat, VMWare, and Canonical. - http://www.uefi.org/join/list Note: Linux and every other OS is vulnerable to the bootstrap attacks that SecureBoot helps protect against. Quoting:this time Microsoft really and truly has figured out how to do security FUD. Microsoft's signing key is managed by Symantec and provided by Verisign. I would know, I created an account to purchase one. Quoting:Microsoft, once again, has colluded with hardware vendors to force yet another nasty, useless unpleasantness that they control upon the world. Don't talk to me about good faith-- look at what they did to ARM devices: Colluded with! It must be so! The bastards! They colluded with Canonical, RedHat, and Apple!!! The top four OS makers!!! OMG!! Just more FUD. Distortions because Carla is unable to sort out the actual facts. Unless it is intentional, making it FUD and Carla a flamebaiting troll. I can't believe they locked all of those Android boot loaders so you can't install other OSs on them!!!1 GET YOUR TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!! Oh, wait, the Android vendors did that. Oh, right, this isn't any different. Hmm.. Actually, it is different. You can get a key through Microsoft and boot an alternate OS while still protecting from bootstrap attacks. Oh, I mean MICROSOFT BAD!!1 Quoting:Fie on ye, Red Hat. It's a sad bad day when you polish the Microsoft road apple. Yes, shame on RedHat but not Canonical because Canonical isn't even a member! Oh, wait. Shame on RedHat for realizing it is better to procure a signing key from a company with THE relationship with vendors. One that is guaranteed to be included in ALL BIOS rather than having to pay for a second key to be included. Let's burn them down!!!!1 Wait, if we did that who would write all of this software that we all take advantage of? Right, we would have far less of it. Disregard, Carla must be right I mean she is flaming RedHat AND Microsoft. Canonical? No, they were just there to take RedHat's work after it was finished. They didn't participate, they can't be at fault here. Carla, please find something else to do and quit trolling one of the entities that practically gave you your pedestal. |
| gus3 Jun 07, 2012 8:35 PM EDT |
@fewt-wanna-be: Take a look at the history of .docx, ISO, and ODF. I don't care if God Himself is on the board, if Microsoft has a member there, the board is corrupt. The best move for Red Hat at this point is to get into the OEM business. It's the best way for their customers to trust the OS and the license. |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 8:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Take a look at the history of .docx, ISO, and ODF. I don't care if God Himself is on the board, if Microsoft has a member there, the board is corrupt. Spread that FUD! |
| gus3 Jun 07, 2012 8:46 PM EDT |
Facts, not suspicions. History, if you care to look it up. Beyond that, your insults say the most about yourself, nothing else. |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 8:47 PM EDT |
FUD. nothing more. |
| penguinist Jun 07, 2012 9:27 PM EDT |
Such anger, fewt. You raised some points that should be addressed, but I'm not sure that you are receptive right now to a civilized and objective discussion. I will comment on one of your points, namely the locked boot loader of many Android products, since I was the one who brought that point to the forefront in these threads. No one here is blaming Microsoft for the Android locked boot loaders, you have misunderstood. The mobile manufacturers have done this in response to the demands of the mobile carriers. The Android boot loader situation is common and familiar to all Android users who wish to have control of their hardware. Bringing the locked Android boot loader into this discussion provides a reference point that should help people to understand what their future could be like if PC hardware also went the way of the locked loader. It's not a future that I want for myself. |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 9:37 PM EDT |
Quoting:Such anger, fewt. You raised some points that should be addressed, but I'm not sure that you are receptive right now to a civilized and objective discussion. What anger? Silly to assume. My comment was intended poke fun at Carla and was written in the same OMG format that her article was read, as her article is an epic showcase of fail. Typical Carla drivel unfortunately, and sadly becoming all too common. With writers like Carla, we don't need Microsoft to destroy us. She does a fine job of it all by herself. She can't pollute LinuxToday anymore so instead she pollutes LXer. Quoting:I will comment on one of your points, namely the locked boot loader of many Android products, since I was the one who brought that point to the forefront in these threads. No one here is blaming Microsoft for the Android locked boot loaders, you have misunderstood. The mobile manufacturers have done this in response to the demands of the mobile carriers. I didn't misunderstand, read it again. I compared a locked Android bootloader with less locked down Microsoft bootloader. I didn't even read your comment before I wrote it, and still haven't. Quoting:The Android boot loader situation is common and familiar to all Android users who wish to have control of their hardware. Bringing the locked Android boot loader into this discussion provides a reference point that should help people to understand what their future could be like if PC hardware also went the way of the locked loader. It's not a future that I want for myself. The boot loader isn't locked ala Android. You can procure a key. The point though was to throw RedHat under a bus because they made a deal with the "devil" and what's a week without an I HATE MICROSOFT post? That would be "productive", WeDontNeedThat™ |
| penguinist Jun 07, 2012 9:48 PM EDT |
Quoting:The boot loader isn't locked ala Android. You can procure a key. That's an interesting point. I would like to know what terms and conditions are associated with the purchase of a key. |
| f3wt Jun 07, 2012 9:54 PM EDT |
Quoting: That's an interesting point. I would like to know what terms and conditions are associated with the purchase of a key. I'd be happy to let you know when the time comes to procure one. |
| flufferbeer Jun 08, 2012 12:11 AM EDT |
+1 tuxchick and gus3, But a long time ago in a galaxy way, way, way, far away..... The M$ Empire strikes back yet again; now getting Canonical onto their bandwagon. According to caitlyn and this f3wt, joining the Dark Side is Your Inescapable Destiny (said in a deep Darth Vader voice!) 2c |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2012 12:14 AM EDT |
Nope. If I'm stuck with nothing but Raspberry Pi's and USB hard drives, then that's what I'll use. |
| JaseP Jun 08, 2012 9:15 AM EDT |
I agree with Caitlyn on this one,... RH drinks nobody's Kool Aide,... Not even Linus Torvalds's. RH started as an open source distro with a relatively limited business model and found a way to monetise Open Source. While I stay away from distros based on their package manager (for preferential reasons,... I prefer debian package manager and apt-get to RPMs and YUM), I have to say they are a force to be reckoned with in terms of their dedication to open source development. I would never accuse them of bending over for somebody else's corporate interests or taking the path of least resistance if it compromised their position or standing. M$ is grasping at ways to keep their empire afloat. But, rather than Darth Vader analogies, I'll use Ming the Merciless from the 1980s Flash Gordan movie, where Ming is told by Flash, "You power is fading, Ming." Like with Ming's empire, the subject kingdoms are rebelling against their former M$ masters. However, Balmer is a little too fat and bald to pull off a Ming the Merciless costume,... come to think of it, I think a Jabba the Hutt costume is about all he could pull off... |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2012 9:34 AM EDT |
> FUD. nothing more. Has it ever occurred to you that there are occasions where fear,uncertainty, and doubt are justified? > She can't pollute LinuxToday anymore so instead she pollutes LXer. While Carla, like all us, can be wrong, she has a far better track record of being right than certain other former (and now recent) commentators do. That track record means I'm inclined to listen to her opinion. Caitlyn also has an excellent track record when it comes to technology, so I listen to her opinion too. In this case they disagree, which probably means the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's likely that this is an emergency action to fix the problem for Red Hat in the short term, as they search for a long term solution. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2012 12:45 PM EDT |
Yes jdixon, Caitlyn is worth listening to even when she is COMPLETELY WRONG. Kidding, I couldn't resist. And you, JaseP, gus3, dino, flufferbeer, penguinist, jhansonxi, fettoosh, khamul, and all the rest of the cat herd that is LXer. I expect this is a point of broad agreement: Quoting: Balmer is a little too fat and bald to pull off a Ming the Merciless costume,... come to think of it, I think a Jabba the Hutt costume is about all he could pull off. |
| jdixon Jun 08, 2012 12:54 PM EDT |
> Kidding, I couldn't resist. That's why we love you, TC. :) |
| Fettoosh Jun 08, 2012 1:16 PM EDT |
@TC, You handled the personal attacks very professionally, they don't even deserve a second of consideration. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 08, 2012 2:05 PM EDT |
@f3wt-- I do not abuse my power, I use it..to keep things civil. You do not have to like it.. |
| caitlyn Jun 08, 2012 4:41 PM EDT |
@joncr: Red Hat is very much in the enterprise/corporate desktop business. They have both Workstation and Desktop editions of RHEL 6.x for a reason. If they didn't some of their corporate server customers who also want a desktop solution from the same vendor would go elsewhere. The desktop is much, much more important to Red Hat than most of you imagine. On this one I am speaking from direct experience. I can't give more details without violating an NDA I signed or I would. I suspect that is the main reason Red Hat did what they did. They cannot afford to be locked out of the desktop. Not at all. |
| Fettoosh Jun 08, 2012 7:06 PM EDT |
@caitlyn, It all started to make sense. Read this new article which has been posted on Lxer very recently. MS is using "Divide & Conquer" to isolate and fight Red Hat. You are right about flaming Canonical. It is the one betraying the community. Personally, I never considered Canonical to be part of the Linux community. They always were in it for the advancement of its own business. |
| BernardSwiss Jun 08, 2012 7:33 PM EDT |
Does anyone feel qualified to comment on the fact that Red Hat's official missives are likely to be aimed at as much at stock traders / investment analyst types as at technical types, and how that might affect the tone and purpose of Red Hat's public statements on such an issue? |
| gus3 Jun 08, 2012 7:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:I suspect that is the main reason Red Hat did what they did. They cannot afford to be locked out of the desktop. Not at all.All the more reason to get into the OEM business. If they can create their own BIOS/EFI (or substitute for same), they can demonstrate that Microsoft doesn't own the world. Then UEFI would be not long for this world. |
| Fettoosh Jun 08, 2012 8:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:All the more reason to get into the OEM business. Excellent point, especially at this time. Best solution for all the problems that MS has been creating with the help of lackey OEMs, including this latest UEFI shenanigan. I always advocated for Canonical/Ubuntu to do that and I never considered Red Hat since they pretty much abandoned the personal computer to concentrate on corporate business. It was bad decision then and it is still bad decision now to keep out of the PC and hand held devices business. Red Hat has a much better chance of succeeding since they now have all the engineering and financial resources to do that. It might not be lucrative at first, but it will grow. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2012 8:21 PM EDT |
Quoting: Does anyone feel qualified to comment on the fact that Red Hat's official missives are likely to be aimed at as much at stock traders / investment analyst types as at technical types, and how that might affect the tone and purpose of Red Hat's public statements on such an issue? You're doubtless right. But was it necessary to cheerlead Microsoft and snark at the Secure Boot critics? That's what I'm objecting to. The announcement could easily have been neutral, instead of rank codswallop. |
| BernardSwiss Jun 08, 2012 8:29 PM EDT |
Perhaps a co-operative project between RedHat, Ubuntu, one or two or three others (Suse? IBM? Samsung?) for a "Linux Compatible" Sticker/Logo program? It wouldn't be as directly lucrative as the Win 8 sticker/logo program, but I'm sure that it could be marketed as a sign of superior quality -- that some bit of hardware can be relied on, regardless of the OS you choose to run. |
| tuxchick Jun 08, 2012 8:37 PM EDT |
We're long overdue for that, Bernard. I harbor dark thoughts why none of the big vendors ever implemented such a program. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2012 3:42 PM EDT |
tuxchick, here is where you and I... and of course BernardSwiss agree. OTOH, Red Hat sees the corporate/enterprise world as their market and has always been leery of straying outside that space. They've been successful but I think the market is changing in ways that may not be favorable to them if they don't at least help others in consumer and embedded space. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jun 11, 2012 4:33 PM EDT |
Wait..Bernard, Carla and Caitlyn all agreeing on something?!? And for the second time in a week I thought I had heard it all..nope. ;-) Love all of you btw! Scott |
| helios Jun 11, 2012 6:30 PM EDT |
I did a service call to recover data from a failing disk drive and replace the drive a month ago at an extremely large and well-known financial house here in Austin. That location alone has just over 300 work stations active in house . Every one of them are running Red Hat 6 Enterprise on the desktop. I don't know about their other locations but given the stature and success of this business, if every one of them are running Red Hat, it represents a substantial account for Red Hat support. My short chat with their floor manager led me to believe that they are all indeed running Red Hat Linux world-wide. That would seem to conflict with any opinion that Red Hat is not in the desktop business. It may not represent their core but it obviously is an important part of their whole. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2012 6:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:That location alone has just over 300 work stations active in house . Every one of them are running Red Hat 6 Enterprise on the desktop. I don't know about their other locations but given the stature and success of this business, if every one of them are running Red Hat, it represents a substantial account for Red Hat support.Red Hat has customers with thousands or tens of thousands of workstations/desktops running RHEL. Quoting:That would seem to conflict with any opinion that Red Hat is not in the desktop business. It may not represent their core but it obviously is an important part of their whole.Exactly. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 11, 2012 6:48 PM EDT |
I'm not a Windows expert, but it seems like managing Windows desktops is a huge pain, Linux much less so. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2012 6:53 PM EDT |
And -- let us not forget the Red Hat ladies! http://www.redhatsociety.com/index.aspx? |
| Steven_Rosenber Jun 11, 2012 7:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:We welcome you to join the international Red Hat Society -- a global Sisterhood on a mission to give all women permission to step out of the demands of life and step into a world of giggles, Sisterhood and fun! Our Queens and Members are made up of Red Hatters (those over 50) and Pink Hatters (those under 50). Looks like a par-TAY!!! |
| helios Jun 11, 2012 7:19 PM EDT |
Red Hatted Cougars...... great. |
| dinotrac Jun 11, 2012 8:57 PM EDT |
@helios -- g-r-r-r-o-w-l! |
| vainrveenr Jun 12, 2012 11:09 AM EDT |
A commentator above wrote Quoting:I always advocated for Canonical/Ubuntu to do that and I never considered Red Hat since they pretty much abandoned the personal computer to concentrate on corporate business. It was bad decision then and it is still bad decision now to keep out of the PC and hand held devices business. OTOH from another above commentator's blogpost entitled 'News flash: Sky NOT falling' and found at http://larrythefreesoftwareguy.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/news-flash-sky-not-falling/ Quoting:No one does more for Linux and FOSS across the board — developing software and pushing it upstream, for starters — than Red Hat and Fedora. They do it pretty much thanklessly and while much of their efforts have made Red Hat a billion-dollar entity, they give back substantially to the FOSS community. Essentially calling Microsoft’s bluff on UEFI with this particular action is not capitulation, it’s just yet another thing Fedora and Red Hat are currently doing in order for people to be able to use UEFI-based hardware going forward. According to the veracity of this blog quote, Red Hat is hardly abandoning "the personal computer [in order] to concentrate on corporate business" through at the very least, their developing software and their pushing such software upstream. Insofar as Fedora remains Red Hat's "Community" (non-corporate) desktop distro, the benefits of the parent company's purchase of UEFI keys would likely and eventually trickle down to Fedora users who still may choose to keep UEFI secure boot activated. |
| Fettoosh Jun 12, 2012 12:33 PM EDT |
Quoting:According to the veracity of this blog quote, Red Hat is hardly abandoning "the personal computer [in order] to concentrate on corporate business" through at the very least, their developing software and their pushing such software upstream. No one can deny the scale or the quality of Red Hat's contributions to FOSS. I certainly mentioned that in some of my comments in different threads. But in terms of abandoning the Personal Desktop (Individual not corporate), the fact is, Red Hat did initially but gradually started to come back when Ubuntu was getting the dominate FOSS Distro. Not sure what was there reasoning, but chances are due to limited resources or the desktop not as lucrative as the server market. If RH had paid more attention and escalated its efforts as much as or even close to what it did for its Linux server Distro, Ubuntu wouldn't have had the chance of becoming as popular as it did. Red Hat realized that and consequently made the move to pay more attention to the desktop before it was too late. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!