Slashdot Mirror


Linux Mergers?

flupke asks: "In this article at ZDNet one can read about Linux consolidations. They provide several possible schemes such as: Caldera & SuSE, LinuxCare and O'Reilly, SCO and Turbo Linux, Compaq and MandrakeSoft. I don't think it's very accurate, but I'd like to have Slashdot readers on this subject because one day, it will happen ..."

24 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. More Linux laptops? by Cloud+K · · Score: 2

    If Mandrake were to merge with Compaq, a major laptop company, we could finally see some good features in Linux for laptops (hibernation is a nice thought, as is USB). This is of course all speculation, but it's a nice thought. With IBM making a Linux thinkpad recently, things may be moving forward in portable computing at last :)

    1. Re:More Linux laptops? by alhaz · · Score: 2

      There are kernel patches already available for both usb and suspend-to-disk, get with it man.

      Of course, it would be nice if the power managment support got finer grained. The screen on my Portege turns off after 2 minutes of keyboard inactivity and there's nothing I can do about it. (believe me, I've tried).

      --
      This is just like television, only you can see much further.
  2. One Distro by doublem · · Score: 3



    One distro to rule them all, and in the darkenss bind them.

    Yes, he will buy them all. He will buy them all.

    Resistance is futile. Innovation is inevitable. You will be embraced and extended.


    Matthew Miller,

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:One Distro by dclydew · · Score: 3

      Lord of The Distros

      by D Clyde Williamson

      Three Distros for hacker gurus,
      with just a CLI.
      Seven Distros for Linux geeks,
      with tarballs to compile.
      Nine Distros for Wannabes,
      that self-install.
      One Distro for the Dark Lord,
      in his dark home.
      In the land of Redmond where shadows lie.

      One Distro to rule them all,
      One Distro to find them,
      One Distro to bring them all,
      And in binaries only bind them.

      In the land of Redmond where the shadows lie

      --
      Get a life, not a lifestyle. - Hikem Bey
  3. O'reilly? by ostiguy · · Score: 2

    Does anyone really think they would invoke questioning of their integrity by aligning themselves with a particular OS?

    O'reilly: the religious texts of agnostic geeks the wolrd over

    1. Re:O'reilly? by ostiguy · · Score: 2

      But on the other hand I have seen stuff by Tim O'Reilly where he kicks himself for not doing Greg Lehey's FreeBSD book when he had the chance, and he mentions how he was still open to doing a FreeBSD book if the opportunity came along.

      matt

  4. Voodoo.. by technos · · Score: 4

    Predicting this stuff requires the kind of black voodoo magic normally found only in SCSI drivers, and I don't think economists, financial analysts or journalists have that sort of magic. Some of them will consolidate, sure, but we certainly can't tell now!

    But specifics aside, my personal theory says none of them will be primarily in the distribution business in a few years time, having pared back operations to support and VAR. Several well-informed people happen to think they will just die off, seeing all of them as an intermediary step to a more idealistic system.

    But what happens when and if they do consolidate? Do we get the 'one-size-fits-all' distribution that is good for nothing? Do we get competing, mutually 'incompatible' distributions from the few remaining players? Or does everybody still play reasonably nicely as they have in the past?

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
    1. Re:Voodoo.. by Yamao · · Score: 2

      Or does everybody still play reasonably nicely as they have in the past?

      I think that as long as one distribution doesn't own too much of the market share, they'll have to play nice - it'll be in their best interest. If one gets popular, it'll stop being in their best interest to do so, and they'll stop. Bleak, huh?

      I don't think a company that sells a Linux distribution (or the services for it) is really inherently more moral than anyone else just because it deals in Linux.

      --
      Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
    2. Re:Voodoo.. by speek · · Score: 3

      This is a good point. It seems to me that the way of the future is for companies to provide contract work in software. Redhat will provide support in the form of on-site contractors, similar to EDS and the like, to manage IT for a company. I also see people working contract jobs where their job is essentially to modify and customize free software to the specific needs of a company. This is all very biased since it represents what I hope will happen - companies no longer paying for software, but rather employing people to support their software needs.

      I also think it likely that these Linux distros will run into hard times, and when that happens, the real fighting will begin, and it will be interesting what tactics they try. I don't doubt the ideals of open-source will be ditched for the sake of survival.

      --
      First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
    3. Re:Voodoo.. by technos · · Score: 2

      Exactly my thoughts.. The model is on a maintained even footing thanks to the GPLs role in the software base. Even if you get [x] closed-source addition, the competition is already 99.999% there due to the common base, and they will open-source to kill you.. So the only real money is in the specific 'pay-to-play' options that large customers are willing to pay fees for regardless of future outcome.

      The community gets better software, companies get exactly what they need, and everyone pays next to nothing.

      It's not just the model that we hope for; it's the only sustainable model after 65% GPL market saturation, or so a trustworthy analyst has told me.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
  5. Here's a Suggestion by tealover · · Score: 2

    To paraphrase the immortal Glorius Meept:

    All the divided Linux factions should combine to create one big divided Linux faction !!!

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  6. Maybe a new company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5

    I heard a rumor on ZDNet that Linux Thorvaldees, author of Red Hat Linux 6.1 and Richard Strawlmann, designer of the eMacs word-processor were teaming up to develop a new e-commerce platform using the popular Linux operating system. No word yet on whether it will run on Windows 2000, but the buzz in the IT industry is hot.

    Rob Milda, creator of the popular SlashDot.com web site, offering "News for Nerds" was quoted as saying "itll bee SWEET! :)" Another industry luminary, Leary Wall, designer of PEARL, a method for translating programs written in one language to another, offered the comment that "I think it's a great oppert..." before he was surrounded by a hoarde of frothing, raving madmen chanting shouts of "[~A-z**~^38937][!A _$]-o~!" and "There's more than one way to do it!". At this point, a decision was made to end the interview.

  7. Playing with Fire... by knightPhlight · · Score: 2
    Consolidation of Linux distros & hardware vendors should be a true concern for Open Source enthusiasts. As Linux becomes more accepted and it will, some distros will diverge from what makes the OS so rubust. They'll forget that Linux is a hack in the Stephen Levy-esque sense of the term. The development of Linux should not be dictated by hardware vendor's wants but rather by its original owners: the dev community.

    As soon as we have hardware and system vendors who start telling the community the course x distro will take in regards to hardware support and development, we will have lost the true value of an Open Source operating system. Aa fas as I'm concerned, they get their value from the outstanding configurability not their cookie-cutter "compatibility" as Compaq, ect.. would like us to swallow.

    Vendors (both distro and hardware) should work in support of each other but not for each other.

  8. Where's the value in a linux distro? by Shoeboy · · Score: 3

    This is a serious question. A linux distro doesn't exactly own a lot of IP. The value is in:
    1) the reputation in the community.
    2) the qa work done in the distro.
    3) the big names associated with the distro.

    So if Compaq were to hire Alan Cox and several other big names, plus a solid QA team, then GPL parts of Tru64Unix and announce a coherent linux plan - they would have a better deal than if they bought mandrake or red hat.

    Am I wrong here?

    --Shoeboy
    (former microserf)

    1. Re:Where's the value in a linux distro? by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 2

      I question how much value there is in big names -- after all, I don't think Mandrake has any behind it, or didn't when it got started -- but certainly the reputation and QA are important.

      In general, it's easier and probably cheaper to use something that already exists as a launching pad than start from scratch. So if Compaq wanted to get into the Linux business big-time, they might find it easier to start by buying a distribution that already exists, or at least using it as a starting point.

      Just for example (and this is straight off the top of my tiny little noggin, so don't flame me), let's say they made a deal with Corel to buy all the rights to Corel Linux in exchange for cash that Corel either desparately needs or could certainly use, depending on who you listen to. THEN they hire someone like Alan Cox, GPL whatever parts of Tru64Unix they need to and add them to their distribution, and release Compaq Linux. Suddenly they've hit the ground running with a 64-bit Linux that benefits eveyone involved. Compaq sells a pile of Linux servers and gets some credibility for the 64-bit stuff they've added to the mix. Corel gets a cash infusion and a platform for WordPerfect sales. Linux users get a 64-bit version of Our Favorite OS. And presumably Alan Cox-or-someone-like-him gets a good-paying job.
      --

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
  9. Introduction to M&A by iritant · · Score: 3

    The article makes some very good points, but doesn't go into detail about the fundamentals of M&A, and how they would apply in this case. No doubt there will be consolidation in the Linux market.

    Here are four key points for mergers:

    1 Size Matters

    The hardest mergers are those of companies of equal size. These mergers require both companies to grow by 100%, and usually outgrow lots of internal processes. In addition, there's a lot of duplication of functionality within the new company that needs to be resolved (and that's painful).

    How does this apply to Linux companies?

    Some of the companies out there are very much home grown, and use home grown processes meant to get them through startup phase without large expenditures (read: they hacked something together). If two such companies merge, they are in trouble, and they will be absorbed by a third company later.

    2 Physical locality matters

    The article points this out. If you have two units that have their engineering staffs in the same location that's a lot easier to get them to work together and communicate. On the other hand, two former competitors separated by a continent could end up continuing their competition internally, especially if management doesn't lead (this is commonplace).

    3 Nitch Functionality/Coverage

    Again, the article mentioned this, and it's most easily understood- the smaller the duplication the easier the merger. The Red Hat/Cygnus deal looks good from this perpsective. This means, however, that two linux companies that have divergent source code bases are going to have a hard time. Watch for this as the deals come together.

    4 Cultural Fit

    On the surface, people who work in the OS world have some basic philosophies in common. But that's not enough by itself. Other issues include coding and reviewing style, customer support paths, patch philosophy, functionality vs. reliability (when do you release?). How many *nixes are out there because of disagreements amongst smart people?

    Anyway, just some thoughts...

  10. Silly Names by mickwd · · Score: 3

    I hope Turbo Linux and Red Hat never merge.

    I'd be too embarrassed to run anything called Turbo Hat.

  11. What does it bring us? by Raffael · · Score: 3
    Two years ago the big open source hype started. The managers of IT-companies now intrinsically wanted what their techies told them for years. The problem is, they didn't understand that open source thing. They wanted to make money out of it as fast as possible. But they forgot the free software aspect in open source. They applied their usual business tactics to this new thing. That's the point we are now at.

    If we compare the "open source companies" we find a fundamental difference between two types of companies: The ones, like Red Hat, that were there at the very beginning of the Linux thing and the others, like Corel, which came later on. A look at Corel Linux is very interesting in this context: they try to supply a distribution for J. Random User. The interesting part is, that they do this with their old-style marketing tactics applied. They use the advantage of a technically excellent OS and hide it under their Windows-like modified KDE. What they are trying to do is establishing a brand name. They are selling a better Windows from Corel based on Linux. That's how the commercial software world works, but I don't think that works for Linux. The result is the thing with the stocks (I'm really not an expert with that stock things; I prefer stacks :-).

    So what are these companies now trying to do? Well, as you might have already guessed, they once more try to apply their old-style marketing tactics. And that brings us to the topic. Consolidation is good for getting big, for making more money in less time, for branding and so on. But I don't think that consolidation is *that* good. Even in traditional, non-open-source economics. I think it fails in the long run.

    The real question here is: What does it bring us hackers, geeks and users? Does this provide us with new Linux-preinstalled toys or is it just a big bloating up of open source companies? I think it won't really help them. It didn't work that well in closed source world, why should it work in a new world with "open source" stamped on a retail package of a commercial Linux distribution? Companies are trying to get big in open source world. One example is the RHCE of Red Hat. There are better ways of (unified) certification programmes. So, RHCE is nothing more than a business strategy, a method to establish a "brand name".

    So, what is left if they all fail? Well, Linux will be there. Free software will be there. And we. Let them play their marketing games. Use their products if you just need one of them and don't care about all the other things. Just keep an open eye, so that they don't walk away with all our free software.

    In the meantime, let's concentrate on real things, use Debian and all the other *real* free things and have a good time hacking. Companies come and go. What lasts is freedom. Raffael Stocker

    1. Re:What does it bring us? by Arandir · · Score: 2

      "Just keep an open eye, so that they don't walk away with all our free software."

      Uh, how can they?

      "...use Debian..."

      Why did I have a suspicion that this would be the conclusion of the post?

      Everywhere I go, from the FSF, to OSI to even Debian's own social contract with its developers, I keep hearing "it's not free beer and it's okay to sell free software". So why does the Debian crowd always piss on the commercial distros?

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:What does it bring us? by kkeller · · Score: 2
      Everywhere I go, from the FSF, to OSI to even Debian's own social contract with its developers, I keep hearing "it's not free beer and it's okay to sell free software". So why does the Debian crowd always piss on the commercial distros?

      Partly because many of the commercial distros are selling non-free software (by bundling non-free software on their CDs with GPL/BSD software) right alongside free software. The Qt incident a while back is one example.

      --keith

  12. Best merger possible.. by verbatim · · Score: 2

    I personally can not wait for the Mandrake Infomagic Caldera Redhat Openbsd Slackware Openlinux Freebsd Transmetta merger... heh.. that'll be a good one.. yup.. the MICROSOFT linux distro will 0wn j00! ;) Bah.. Are free software groups turning into the very corporate image that they have shuned from the beginning? FSF people don't merge... we think of a GNU way and code-share... bah.. flame on..

    --
    Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
  13. Corel would be better matched... by jpowers · · Score: 2

    With a hardware vendor, more specifically Compaq. Word Perfect for Linux already runs on RedHat, but with Compaq's acquisition of Digital, this would be perfect for Alpha hardware:

    "Come to Compaq for your small business/legal/research/government needs! Get a super-fast Alpha server and Compaq PCs, all running the same OS, customized, configured and supported by a company you trust! It's your total small business/legal/research/government solution!"

    By developing Corel Office (it's more than just Word Perfect) as a "total solution," Compaq would have the opportunity to compete with the IBM/Lotus setup. Think how easy the support would be at the IT end: everything looks shiny and bright (KDE, WordPerfect 9, Netscape 6), but underneath that, the IT people know it's really just Linux, GNU, XFree86, Mozilla and probably IMAP/SMTP.

    We've all tested WP 8 for Linux (used to be a free download), you know it's no different than fscking Word or StarOffice, really. Tons of legal, government and research (like mine) offices still use the MS version, so what ties them to Windows once Compaq slaps their seal of approval on it? The other IT people where I work LOVE Compaq, and they'd jump at it.

    -jpowers

    --

    -jpowers
  14. Re:They should all merge by cburley · · Score: 2
    Which is more important, competition or efficiency?

    Compiciency, of course! Or effetition, maybe?

    ("It's a dessert and a floor wax!" ;-)

    --
    Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
  15. Re:great thing by Fishstick · · Score: 2

    This is facinating. Moderators are being fooled by these signal 11 impostors into moderating up posts that, had they been from the real signal 11, would be just as lame and off-topic -- but would be moderated up just the same because of signal 11. When they realize the post is by one of the signal 11 copycats, they moderate it down.

    Hmm... wouldn't have thought moderation points should be awarded or subtracted based on who the poster is?

    --

    There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
    Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.