By Munir Kotadia, 4 November 2003 08:50
NEWS Red Hat's chief executive has said that Linux needs to mature further before home users will get a positive experience from the operating system, saying they should choose Windows instead.
Linux is seen by Microsoft as its most dangerous competitor for desktop operating systems, and after a number of high-profile cases where government departments have switched from Windows to Linux-based systems, the OS has been making some progress. However, Red Hat said that the hype around desktop Linux is still mostly unfounded at the moment.
Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Linux vendor Red Hat, said on Monday that although Linux is capable of exceeding expectations for corporate users, home users should stick with Windows: "I would say that for the consumer market place, Windows probably continues to be the right product line," he said. "I would argue that from the device-driver standpoint and perhaps some of the other traditional functionality, for that classic consumer purchaser, it is my view that [Linux] technology needs to mature a little bit more."
Szulik gave an example of his 90-year-old father going to a local retailer in order to purchase a computer with Linux: "We know painfully well what happens. He will try to get it installed and either doesn't have a positive experience or puts a lot of pressure on your support systems," he said.
However, Szulik expects Linux to be ready in a couple of years after it has had time to mature. In the mean time, he is adamant that corporate users would be surprised by how much the operating system has to offer. "Consumers want USB drivers and digital camera support; but for the enterprise desktop, that is a little bit different - that area is ripe," he said. "We think that the enterprise desktop market place is much more strategic and has buyers whose needs we can exceed."
Munir Kotadia writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 25 comments. Join the discussion
1. Dharmendra Misra
Linux has its own advantage, whereas windows its own. Linux needs more modifications to be perfect competitor of Windows. Linux has great security related features.It favours programming attitude of professionals. But as far as GUI is concerned, microsoft is still leader.
Linux needs to work in this direction and if it improves it will not remain a competitor but emerge as leader.
2. BOFH
For <insert deity here> sake... it's taken years to get management to accept this *nix variant as a better option than M$ Windoze... we build the confidence and then the product line is dumped. Thanks guys(and gals).
3. Sudhir Gandotra
It is Linux that has built RedHat and not the other way around. Abd RedHat CEO should realise this - sooner the better. There is something more to this statement, than what is said. Is RedHat going the SCO (microsoft) way ? That may be seen as dangerous, but RedHat CEO should know that Linux has already matured to be beyond the control of some individuals een if they happen to be as known as him. Linux is alraedy a phenomenon.
Today, Linux is safe from such idiotic attacks and will grow inspite of them.
4. anonymous
Oh dear, another Gerald Ratner in the making! When will these CEO's realise that some things are better left unsaid? Everybody has heard of reflected glory but surely a CEO should recognise that "reflected criticsm" is just as true! He has just given a tremendous blow to the reputation of Linux. Doesn't Matthew Szulik know that most commercial PC users are also home-users? What they like at home they will like at work - so Linux at home equals "I like Linux at work", and vice-versa
5. Craig
Your dumb CEO headline applies here too.
6. anonymous
He's right. I have a RedHat 9 box & an XP box at home - the Linux box is nice, and essentially stable, but if I were a consumer then I'd be tearing my hair out. This may actually be a sensible opinion, although I tend to agree that it may not have been a good idea for him to state it!!!
7. Mat Bettinson
Well, despite the ravings of Linux zealots, what Szulik said is true. Linux isn't a good desktop OS for end-users.
If you happen to believe that complex and difficult to use are just minor issues compared to performance and security, then you don't really understand the priorities of software targetting the end user.
The fact is, not everyone that uses computers is a small beardy man with sandals and a love of some obscure command line text editor from the 70s.
What Szulik is merely indicating is that he understands the strengths of the platform and that's a very good thing to demonstrate. I don't think being some insane Linux zealot is a good thing for a company CEO.
Successful companies need rather more logical and balanced personalities at the helm.
8. Charles H. Tankersley
I fully agree with Matthew Szulik. He is reflecting exactly what I have been shouting from the hilltop for years. Linux is not the Operating System of choice for the casual user. It does not matter that Linux includes all the open source substitutes for M$ Applications. Yes, Star Office does out perform M$ Office, and Linux has some nice tools, too. But WINE is worthless. If we really want to do it right, then VMWare should be a part of Linux/opensource and pre-configured with Linux and Windows ready to run out of the box. But you know that Bill Gate's greed would not go for that. All the Linux purest who cry fowl, pay attention, "WE THE CASUAL USER HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF EVIDENT...:" the casual user will use what works best for him; the casual user does not want to learn commandline; the casual user has taken years of schooling to lean his profession and does not wish to lean geek, too.
9. Mark Howells
This is no Gerald Ratner. This is a welcome dose of reality. It took years for M$ to get Windows into a shape that begins to be user friendly - why can't linux take a while. There's nothing bad in stating that your products are not yet fully prepared for a certain sector of the market - they will be ready soon - just not yet.
10. dexter
linux is a good os if you have been using pc's since the dos prompt days, i teach mainly reired people to use windows - could i honestly see myself doing the same wiht linux - NO!. It isnt for the lighthearted is it
11. Merlin Broil
I use Linux every day and never touch a command line. I'm point and click all the way, no problem. Maybe the people who keep talking about command lines last tried Linux in 1998; things have changed immensely since then, just as they have with Windows and Mac.
And yes, I expect Red Hat's CEO to be a Linux zealot. Last I looked, Steve Ballmer was a Windows zealot and Scott McNealy was a Solaris and Java zealot.
I have trouble imagining Ford's CEO saying, "We make great trucks, but if you want a quality passenger car you should buy a Toyota instead of a Ford."
12. Chris
What security features does Linux have? Everyone now's that Unix/Linux
has very basis security features built in and you can add a ton of security stuff after the fact. I am a security researcher and I am surprized and amazed at how some people feel Unix/Linux is some how more secure then other Operating systems. The issue is not Unix/Linux being more secure as it is swiss cheese along with other operating sytems. The issue is the security community has targeted Microsoft operating sytems, but when Linux gets mass appeal it will be a target and in the news everyday with a security breach as well. This is a non religious veiwpoint that I know to be true from my work.
Chris
13. Gordon Nicol
It you look beyond the statement and at the reality what he says is true. There are more people at home than those who work with PC's, there are kids,mums and dads who don't work or don't use PC's at work. With windows everything is plug and play it's not the same with Linux. Nobody is saying that Windows is a better overall O/S but for the average home user Windows does everything they need.
14. christopher bowen
Linux is a good os, but i certainly feel that it's better suited sitting on a pc doing server things. this it can do with a blindfold on. i believe that it is as strong (and more flexible) as M$ server products.
as an it manager for a small company, i've been given the job to overhaul all IT here. i would dearly love to place linux on all desktop and server pcs here, but i have issues with linux.
firstly i'm using suse's flavour and good as it is, i'll place that only on the servers - why?
as a business we have invested in products such as sage, m$ office and an emailing package called turnpike.
i cannot see me throwing them out in the skip, being that we've bought them recently and everyone know how to use them.
the other issue is that as a company we develop embedded software. we have our tools and particular flavour of compilers. i've spent a couple of months now with different environments, compilers, WINE configurations until the enevitable conclusion (for the moment) is that we can't do away with M$ visual studio and associated os.
i'm therefore looking at upgrading all desktops to xp but migrating away from nt on the servers to linux.
home is a different matter. i like to play games, i like to scan stuff in on my scanner, i take photos using a digital camera, i like to watch dvds on my pc, my daughter like to play some of the 'older - dos' games. in short i'm using xp at home and i also put up with its troubles. without major investment of time, downloads and configuration, i simply cannot see me doing all this in linux.
i've been looking at linux for the past one and a half years and each version of (suse) linux gets better - easier to install, yast to take care of updates, easier to learn and kde desktop is on par with M$ gui (but still some niggles here and there) and other things. BUT the ceo of red hat is right - like a good single malt whisky it needs to mature. i've followed m$ from the days of dos - most of you probably have too. how long has it taken them to get to xp? remember windows 386??
give it time lads, then we'll see what little johnny will be playing with at home
15. christopher bowen
Linux is a good os, but i certainly feel that it's better suited sitting on a pc doing server things. this it can do with a blindfold on. i believe that it is as strong (and more flexible) as M$ server products.
as an it manager for a small company, i've been given the job to overhaul all IT here. i would dearly love to place linux on all desktop and server pcs here, but i have issues with linux.
firstly i'm using suse's flavour and good as it is, i'll place that only on the servers - why?
as a business we have invested in products such as sage, m$ office and an emailing package called turnpike.
i cannot see me throwing them out in the skip, being that we've bought them recently and everyone know how to use them.
the other issue is that as a company we develop embedded software. we have our tools and particular flavour of compilers. i've spent a couple of months now with different environments, compilers, WINE configurations until the enevitable conclusion (for the moment) is that we can't do away with M$ visual studio and associated os.
i'm therefore looking at upgrading all desktops to xp but migrating away from nt on the servers to linux.
home is a different matter. i like to play games, i like to scan stuff in on my scanner, i take photos using a digital camera, i like to watch dvds on my pc, my daughter like to play some of the 'older - dos' games. in short i'm using xp at home and i also put up with its troubles. without major investment of time, downloads and configuration, i simply cannot see me doing all this in linux.
i've been looking at linux for the past one and a half years and each version of (suse) linux gets better - easier to install, yast to take care of updates, easier to learn and kde desktop is on par with M$ gui (but still some niggles here and there) and other things. BUT the ceo of red hat is right - like a good single malt whisky it needs to mature. i've followed m$ from the days of dos - most of you probably have too. how long has it taken them to get to xp? remember windows 386??
give it time lads, then we'll see what little johnny will be playing with at home
16. Richard Ash
Everyone points out that windows XP is plug and play - unless your particular hardware decides not to plug and play. then you are completely stuck, unless you delve really deeply into software configuration, way beyond the average user. I have spent far, far more time on the XP box at home geting sound to work than I have on the Linux box at uni. Why - drivers that didn't like IRQ sharing, random setting corruption looses OS components needing full OS re-installs, loss of registry prevents boot-ups. All this is way beyond the average user to fix, indee way beyond almost anyone to fix as the documentation is not there. At least all of linux is documented and modular so problems can be fixed as they occur, rather than junking the lot.
17. John Ross
There is of course another desktop alternative - the Apple Mac and MAC OSX. (Latin X i.e. Vn 10)
Mac's OSX is NOT uncrashable, as the sales puff would have you believe, but like most Macs, it does feel as if it was designed with a clear vision and built to a specification, rather than bodged (very cleverly in Microsoft's case) to do something that wasn't in the original spec.
As far as security is concerned. the Mac appears to be much less prone to viruses - I have yet to come across one. MAC OSX has a Unix kernel and a pretty interface - Unix with lipstick you could call it.
We use both Macs and PCs - not an ideal mixture, but an insurance policy against Micrfosoft domination.
18. Stephen Feber
Whilst not crash proof 100% OSX is extremely difficult to crash, even with 8 - 10 applications open, CD bruning, net surfing and FTP site dowloading. And, yes I often do all of that at the same time! Applications - Microsoft ones - sometimes quit but the OS is very very stable. This is NOT the case with Windows, which I also use in various flavours. The Apple interface is better, file handling is better and support much better than in Windows - because machine and OS are integrated. Paradoxically I think of the Macs as general purpose and very useful machines and the PCs as specilaised - to run the odd thing that isn't written for Apple.
19. anonymous
There is the multiple PC situation in families to think about. Its like TV: UK households have an average of over two sets per house - PC's will be the same. Especially with broadband ramping up and Wi-Fi spreading multi-PC access - many households will want out of the 'broadband standpipe'.
In my house we have an 'all microsoft' bought PC with windows XP/Office etc. for the usual reasons of work compatibility&familiarity/ease etc. in home office type use.
I've had a play with Linux and intend to build my next PC(s) from components for the kids (and with the kids) - who mainly want e-mail&browse + some basic games. Which Linux seems to do admirably.
The basic reason is cost & security. I can afford Microsoft once and can get a cheapish Linux PC built for little up front cash and low added software costs for other stuff. I also get nervous on what my kids will download and click 'OK' to on our home office computer.
20. anonymous
This statement reaks as bad as AOL buying netscape and using IE. M$ domiantes the market with IE and is able to say there is competition. How is that a reality? Corruption I say!
21. Steven P. Ulrick
I was reading some other people's comments, and I thought I would chip in with "The other side of the coin" When I got my first computer, I was running Windows 98 and Corel Linux (Pretty soon after I got it, I started using Red Hat exclusively. My sole purpose for using my computer is as a normal(?) end user. I have no programming skills whatsoever, and absolutely no classroom training. Everything I have learned about computers, I have learned by trial and error. For a few weeks now, my wife and I have been completely and totally without any Microsoft products on our computer. The moral of this story is, that possibly the CEO of Red Hat went a little too far in what he said about Windows, though I do understand where he is coming from. In closing, my wife and I, as far as training and education go, have absolutely no experience with Linux other than what I have learned all on my own. Would I reccomend Linux to anyone who asked me? I most definitely would, but I would also give them my phone number and my email address, so they wouldn't have to suffer figuring out the stuff that I had to work so hard to learn. Right now, my wife and I are running Fedora Core 1, and I am an extremely happy camper :)
22. Anonymous Support Guy
I hear what Mr. CEO is saying. RH is NOT for the typical desktop user. The people I talk to everyday struggle with the simple stuff and can RARELY comprehend anything beyond clicking "send/receive" in their beloved Outlook Express.
While Linux is a terrific OS, the masses simply are not ready for it. Want proof? Show a typical end-user the Linux desktop. Their response? "It doesn't look like Windows!" The modern user has been so inundated with the M$ way, that they don't realize that other ways exist.
I think Linux *could* be ready for the desktop soon, but not yet.
23. Anonymous Support Guy
I hear what Mr. CEO is saying. RH is NOT for the typical desktop user. The people I talk to everyday struggle with the simple stuff and can RARELY comprehend anything beyond clicking "send/receive" in their beloved Outlook Express.
While Linux is a terrific OS, the masses simply are not ready for it. Want proof? Show a typical end-user the Linux desktop. Their response? "It doesn't look like Windows!" The modern user has been so inundated with the M$ way, that they don't realize that other ways exist.
I think Linux *could* be ready for the desktop soon, but not yet.
24. anonymous
I'm sick of RedHat and their penile opinions. My grampa can run Mandrake. It's a shame they cannot create a desktop environment that anyone is interested in. I've used them all and the RedHat Desktop in 9 was less than adequate. Is Linux ready for the desktop. Heck yeah it is. RedHat isn't ready for the Desktop. After the last two months of RedHat's crap, I wouldn't use them in the datacenter either. FreeBSD it is. Go on RedHat... Go be all you can be. Just remember how you got where you are. Linux. The Linux kernel. Like you really ever had a product of your own anyhow.
25. anonymous
Bill has just got it right earlier than anyone else, no? Make an OS 'usable' and 'affordable' by as many people as possible. It works, windows is the most popular OS on earth and beyond today. So, try making LINUX the same. Don't fight on words of a '$edHat'CEO!