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 ..."

Comments

One Distro

[doublem]

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,

Re:One Distro

[dclydew]

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

Voodoo..

[technos]

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?

Re:Voodoo..

[speek]

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.

Maybe a new company?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Where's the value in a linux distro?

[Shoeboy]

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)

Introduction to M&A

[iritant]

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...

Silly Names

[mickwd]

I hope Turbo Linux and Red Hat never merge.

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

What does it bring us?

[Raffael]

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