“Opennet, the master distributor for Red Hat Linux in the region, has announced the availability of the new Red Hat Desktop, for the Middle East market. The Red Hat Desktop includes the core Linux operating system, open source business applications including an e-mail client, browser and a full-fledged office suite. “The Red Hat Desktop will be made available in configurations which include either Red Hat Network Proxy or Satellite Servers,” says Tewfik Zitouni, managing director, Opennet. A proxy or satellite Server deployment enables several clients to be deployed and managed simultaneously and promises to simplify the ongoing security and management of systems.” Read the report here.
Opennet Ships Red Hat Linux Desktop
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m curious to know what the below statement means:
The Red Hat Desktop includes the core Linux operating system
“Core Linux operating system”, the kernel? The kernel & filesystem? What exactly the the core linux operating system?
You would be better off if you don’t nitpick on things. He obviously means the Linux kernel and the gnu skeleton softwre.
All I want to know about is FC2 final.
It’s installed on my Duron next to me. What more do you need to know?
I need to know all about the hype. Just like anything else. I hope to see some news articles soon.
Is the 4K stack still default? Is it possible to go back to 8K so I would be able to install my nvidia drivers?
No idea, I don’t use nvidia’s 3D drivers, I only use the 2D “nv” driver from XOrg. I installed the latest nvidia drivers on my Arch Linux 2 weeks ago (2.6.5 kernel and xfree 4.4) and the *2D* part of the nvidia driver was painfully slow (the 3D part was fine, but the 2D was slow: I could visibly see the gnome terminal and gedit refreshing their windows). So, I switched back to the 2D-only “nv” generic driver and I happy again and I don’t bother again with nvidia’s stuff.
“What more do you need to know?”
Are you going to review FC2 for us
I’m concered about FC2 because there is too much innovation/change. Innovation doesn’t even mean progress, it’s just change. Forces you to change so that they can sell you more junk.
FC1 was the most stable community product I’ve ever used, and it was more stable than any vendor product that I’ve ever used.
Are you talking crap or what? FC1 the “most stable community product”? FC1 sucked a$$ here (read my review) and in terms of stability is nowhere near Debian anyway.
sucked ass?
The intelligence of that comment just overwhelms me!
I tried FC1 a few weeks after release and after the patching up it was as stable as anything.
Well, read again what you wrote: “a few weeks after release and after the patching up”
Do you think that I and millions others have the _patience_ to wait a “few weeks” just to fix bugs so obvious and easily reproducible that should have being fixed BEFORE the 1,0 release?
Sorry mate, but this industry doesn’t forgive. You either do the job right, or you get out of my calendar. Remember, I don’t run Redhatnews.com, I run OSNews.com and that means that I have a large number of alternatives to run, I don’t need to “wait a few weeks” for red hat just to patch up bugs that were so obvious and destracting in the first place.
In other words, it is not my job to be “patient” and wait for patches after weeks (especially for bugs that are so easily reproducible). My job is to review the _exact_ versions I am sent to review and then offer an opinion if the reviewed product is ready for deployment or not.
Patching, recompiling, filing bug reports is not part of my job (however I personally do it out of not being your average ‘dont-care’ journalist)
Remember, I am talking about important bugs that were reproducible *everywhere*, not just some remote/isolated issues. FC1 should not have released with these in. That’s what made the whole thing really sour.
Be nice to Red Hat now .ha…ha..
Seriously ,linux desktop honeymoon is over..
It’s time that people start’s testing these distros tough.
I can agree with shawcable a little because 2.6 kernel series have been a mess (not a troll) and still is partially,
this is not a distro thing, it’s been all kinds of trouble with drivers and then came gcc 3.4 along and make it even more painful,
I’m happy now on my private box(arch) but I hope that those distros who are shipping professionally are ready to meet paying customers support calls otherwise it will be bad pr for FOSS/OSS in general.
That’s all , good luck!
I’m still using FC1 and it’s still running bug free. I can’t say the same for MS WindowsXP on my notebook.
I bet that I could stay with FC1 because it works like a dream, and I could just ignore FC2, but I want to try out FC2 because FC1 was so good.
I understand what you’re saying, at first I was disappointed with fedora though I bought a brand new PC the same week as FC1 so I assumed it was just too new of hardware.
Mainly my problem was, what repositories do I use, yum wasn’t ready for intergration, servers weren’t ready for yum, etc.
This thing (fedora) was thrown together very quickly and still accepting Ideas up until the release date. After the first week of mass testing, bugs got ironed out and the server load problem was fixed I’ve been hard pressed to find any problems since.
So my point is even though it was screwed up a bit, I’m not sure I would hate Fedora forever not writing any reviews.
Did anyone flame kernel 2.4.0 this hard? or kernel 2.6.0 or kde 3.0, etc? They were all .0 releases and we knew the first shot will not be perfect with its a completly new system. Just like I know FC 3 will not be perfect because of SElinux.
boy .. did somebody got on Eugenia’s nerves regarding FC1.
i just cant wait for her FC2 finals review. i really do take her words in her reviews.
keep up the good work Eugenia.
FC1 was good and stable, the test2 sucked so much… Yum is slow as hell, I wish that RH would just drop it and stick with apt. I haven’t tried the release of FC2 but the test was so unstable, felt like I was using SID on Debian but without any real freedom to get what packages I wanted.. RH needs to drop one of their updating utilities, they have 2.5 at the moment.