It has been more than a month since RedHat announced that it will give up the Desktop Linux market, and many others cannot understand Redhat's actions. But we do not think so. On the contrary, after carefully analyzing the Red Hat policy, we found that the red hat company's decision was very correct. The following are some reasons why Red Hat gave up Desktop Linux: money is the top priority. First, the Desktop Linux market share is limited. Compared with the server operating system market, RedHat is more optimistic about the latter. Secondly, compared with Microsoft's desktop operating system, Desktop Linux applications
It has been more than a month since RedHat announced that it will give up the Desktop Linux market, and many others cannot understand Redhat's actions. But we do not think so. On the contrary, after carefully analyzing the Red Hat policy, we found that the red hat company's decision was very correct. The following are some reasons why Red Hat gave up Desktop Linux:
Money is the top priority. First, the Desktop Linux market share is limited. Compared with the server operating system market, RedHat is more optimistic about the latter.
Secondly, applications and Desktop Linux have no advantages over Microsoft's desktop operating system.
Third, SaaS is now popular, and more desktop markets will disappear in the future, including desktops and mobile devices, because everything can be obtained through browsers.
Fourth, lessons learned from IBM OS2
Fifth, Ubuntu is now in the Linux desktop system market, and it is no good to compete with him directly.
Okay, it has been about a month since Red Hat said it had no plans to offer a consumer Linux release. lots of folks went ballistic. the VAR Guy didn't. instead, he took some time to digest the news. and now he's ready to say-definitively-that Red Hat made the right demo. here are five reasons why Red Hat shoshould ignore pleas for a consumer Linux release.
1. Money: Where is Red Hat going to generate the best profit margins and recurring revenue? The consumer desktop business is cutthroat. meanwhile, global 2000 companies are willing to pay for ongoing service and support for higher-margin server deployments. that's Red Hat's sweet spot. and Red Hat shoshould double down on that market by pushing deeper into applications that complement Linux.
2. applications: Sure, Microsoft makes a ton of money selling Windows and the Office suite. but there's no equivalent revenue opportunity in the open source world. yes, OpenOffice is super hot. but is there really money to be made from open source desktop applications? If so, Red Hat certainly doesn't own any of them.
3. software as a Service: The real desktop opportunity involves SaaS. required tops and mobile devices increasingly rely on Web browsers to access hosted applications. so there's less software revenue opportunity on the desktop, but increasing revenue opportunity on servers with SaaS.
4. ibm OS/2 Warp: This entry shocould incite a few thousand angry readers. but here we go. anybody else remember when IBM tried to make the leap from your ATE software into the consumer market? It was a maid support models, and thousands of MERs wound up frustrated. The same wowould happen with Red Hat, which isn't organized to support consumers.
5. ubuntu: Right now, Canonical's Ubuntu Linux is the desktop darling of the open source world. wonderful. let Canonical continue to enjoy that spotlight. if Ubuntu truly goes mainstream, then Red Hat can mull buying Canonical. if Ubuntu never gains critical mass in the mainstream market, Red Hat can continue to take a wait-and-see approach to consumer Linux. (Full disclosure: The VAR Guy blogs about Ubuntu over on his sister site, Works With U .)
Ultimately, there's no good business reason for Red Hat to move into the consumer desktop market right now. Linux advocates who claim otherwise are making emotional-rather than business-driven-statements.
Bottom line:
* Red Hat has a strong reset ate server business.
* Red Hat is struggling to get its own ate desktop business moving in the right direction.
* Adding consumer challenges to the mix wocould be foolish.