RHEL is a conservative release anyway, but this move is a good one. I suspected they would either pick "Classic mode" or use the MATE desktop environment instead.

I've been using GNU/Linux on all of my desktops since 2007, after seeing it outperform Windows in datacenters since 1997. I use Fedora which is known to have some bugs, but that is what you get with cutting edge. I have wanted to try CentOS or Mint on the desktop and haven't put in the time. Needless to say, I couldn't be happier that I finally made the switch. Many years ago I could not, but now GNU/Linux has so many applications that it can easily replace Windows. Easily. Best of all I am able to replace other proprietary Windows software and get rid of Adobe and other software that was costing way too much.

I am glad this information was released. It only makes sense, with Microsoft keeping the Windows kernel closed source. Let's face it, the Linux kernel is setting the bar in business and datacenters; Microsoft is becoming more of a desktop and consumer company. VMware, appliances, and everything in the datacenter all run on the Linux kernel, and has for years. The Windows kernel is too slow and bloated, not to mention more expensive, to run these services. That's why I use GNU/Linux on all desktops as well, it's rock solid and allows me to get the most out of the hardware.

I've found that GNU/Linux can save educational institutions a LOT of money. Especially when they are able to obtain computers that businesses are throwing out because they can no longer run Windows. GNU/Linux has a huge array of education software, and a lot of schools are using the online games which makes it a very good platform for all of the above. It is amazing at the waste from corporate America where the thought process is to "upgrade the PC to support the new version of Windows", where they should instead be saying "install GNU/Linux to allow us to continue using these PCs and give us freedom".

Caving in to Microsoft is exactly the goal, by Microsoft. The entire UEFI Secure Boot issue is another attempt by Microsoft to control hardware, when they are a software company. While I can see benefits of trying to comply with Microsoft, I don't think it's the right thing especially for the end users because it sacrifices end users freedom to use their machine as they intend. Microsoft wants control over this, and we should not allow it. Unfortunately, PC vendors already have allowed it and passed this along to the users. I think the only real reason a user would need to have Secure Boot working is on a dual boot system. How about scrapping Windows, disable Secure Boot, and install your favourite flavor of GNU/Linux and call it good. If you need Windows, spin up a VM in VirtualBox and away you go.

This is a big step to ramping up GNU/Linux as a gaming platform. There are still a lot of hurdles to get many games working, but this move is a big step forward and I look forward to others jumping on board and following in these footsteps.

This is definitely a good way to go. One user mentioned the hardware cost. For a home server (a file server or similar), you can get hardware almost for free, if not for free. We run a PIII 667 with a gigabit card running CentOS 6 and it is very fast and extremely flexible since we can also do tape backups and a list of other things since it is running GNU/Linux. The older PIII or PII machines use less electricity as well, which is another benefit.

This is very surprising coming from a company (Google) that supports open platforms and encourages open source software. I don't understand what a web browser like Chrome needs to rely on so heavily of a long-term released operating system. The binaries should be written to run on any version of GNU/Linux.

Microsoft is surely trying to influence Dell, as it has in the past. This time it will have invested in Dell so this makes perfect sense. However, I don't see it as being very effective for the price tag at stake, considering Dell's dwindling market share. And, Dell customers will still do what they do now, if they choose to rip out Windows and install GNU/Linux on the hardware, they'll do it regardless. I do give some credit to Dell for attempting to provide solid GNU/Linux support in the past, and unfortunately has succumbed to Microsoft's lobbying efforts.

I don't know why PC vendors have allowed Microsoft to control their hardware. The hardware should be released as-is, and the software to fit the hardware. It's completely backwards.

This is why PC vendors should have never allowed Microsoft to control their hardware. Unfortunately, Microsoft's gain = consumer pain, as usual. I'm guessing that disabling the secure boot feature entirely in the BIOS will avoid the machine getting bricked? If I purchase any new machine that will be the first thing I'll do, along with throwing the Windows installation discs in the trash can.

I think this will be a good thing. This is for similar reasons that Fedora also chose LibreOffice over OpenOffice. Fedora continues to be an open distribution and I trust their judgement on which products they choose to include with the distribution.

The new Fedora 18 installer is not good, I totally agree with Cox. The old installer was much more intuitive, and flexible at the same time. The new installer is dumbed down so far that it is cumbersome for those that want a custom installation. Why was it changed????? I've found this, combined with Gnome 3, add to many frustrations. And I specifically work with new GNU/Linux users so this adds to their frustration as well. To be honest, Fedora 14 was the last great Fedora distribution, because it was easy to set up and install, and didn't require a bunch of tweaking because of Gnome 3. However, I have found that doing a minimal Fedora 18 install, then installing MATE after it is up and running provides a fairly clean and usable system.

For some reason the mentality is to make everything more basic and hide options we commonly use, so the new installer is definitely not like it was before. Big blocky icons and very slow, and less intuitive than the old installer because you are forced to click around all over and go in to steps and back to a main screen to look and double check what else needs to be done, in order to continue. The old installer guided the user through the steps in sequence. What also frustrated me is they even stripped out the ability to customize which packages can be installed, such as the graphics suite and other software. LibreOffice was listed, but many other titles were left out. This could be because they are not included on the DVD, I haven't checked. I've used GNU/Linux for almost 16 years and the graphical installers over the years have been changed before, but this one was by far more confusing and took a lot longer to figure out. I can see how it would take a new GNU/Linux user even longer and make them more discouraged and confused.

Since the release of Warcraft II, I was a die hard Blizzard fan. All the way through Warcraft III, Diablo, Diablo II, up to Starcraft II. I run these games on GNU/Linux with Wine, and it's great. However, with the release of Diablo III and forcing online-only game play, I'm done with Blizzard. I think it's great that they may be considering a title for the GNU/Linux platform, which is gaining ground for a great gaming platform, however Blizzard's current focus has been shifted away from providing a quality game to making as much money as possible. And it's very unfortunate as its past products have been top notch.