Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM and Red Hat Sign Major Support Agreement

Posted by chrisd on from the red-fedora-on-a-blue-suit dept.

gnudot writes: "Red Hat announced this morning that they have entered into an agreement with IBM to provide support services for the entire eServer product line. This includes zSeries, iSeries pSeries in addition to the xSeries (What no qSeries? or 7Series?) which is already supported. Here is the story on Yahoo."

47 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. sidenote... by Misha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this sent RedHat shares flying, as well as some other Linux stocks, such as Caldera and VA Systems.

    --



    I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
    1. Re:sidenote... by selectspec · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this pretty much seals the deal with RedHat as the defacto Linux distro for the commerical OEMs. What do people think?

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    2. Re:sidenote... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Interesting though, IBM is down two bucks.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    3. Re:sidenote... by Misha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      that's because the deal is a big deal for RHAT but a far lesser deal for IBM.

      If you think about it, IBM could probably do better with AIX. The price drop simply reflects that in the short term there will be AIX to Linux migration issues which may cause IBM extra money spent. But in the long run, it is a better deal.

      --



      I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
    4. Re:sidenote... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well then you should be happy MSFT went down. That's like *making* money!

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    5. Re:sidenote... by nazgul · · Score: 3, Informative

      Red Hat's CFO was on CNBC this afternoon discussing the deal. He advised that the company is expecting strong growth for this quarter and re-iterated Red Hat's offer of providing software for every school in America if Microsoft would change it's settlement and provide all the hardware. Red Hat would also provide support and upgrades forever.

    6. Re:sidenote... by istartedi · · Score: 4, Funny

      You don't understand VA's business strategy:

      1. invest in idea.

      2. continue to invest in idea even though you are losing money.

      3. realize that idea loses money, stop investing in idea.

      4. stare dumb-struck when some other company that stuck through just a little bit longer actually starts making money.

      This is known in MBA school as the "totally out of whack inverse biorythm business strategy" or "the 180 degrees out of phase business strategy". Most MBAs are supposed to learn how to avoid it in the first few weeks.

      Amazingly, they are actually still in business with this strategy.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    7. Re:sidenote... by big.ears · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but the whole stock market was down today on news of consumer confidence or something.

    8. Re:sidenote... by The+42+Maniac · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not that sure.

      According to the IBM website IBM has 4 strategic Linux partners (Caldera, Red Hat, SuSE and Turbo Linux). Furthermore, I could find nothing in the news article (basically a Red Hat press statement) that this is an exclusive deal. Thus IBM is free to negotiate comparable deals with other strategic partners.

  2. not just support and services by tim_maroney · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The press release at Red Hat also mentions software solutions.

    I'm not sure what to make of this exactly. How many of these servers does IBM sell? If the services market here is lucrative, then why doesn't IBM keep it for itself? Still, it seems like it might be a nice little revenue stream for Red Hat.

    Tim

    1. Re:not just support and services by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      How many of these servers does IBM sell?

      Tens of thousands per year. More important still is the installed base of these machines, which run into the hundreds of thousands. To be honest, most of the installed base of these machines don't currently run Linux, being split among OS/390, OS/400, AIX, and (of course) Windows. But many of them might be willing to switch. Even more, if Red Hat does a good job

      As to why IBM would spin off Linux support, it's probably a good deal for them. Good S/390 and AS/400 people don't come cheaply in the best of times and many may not be well disposed towards learning Linux (which they rightly perceive as a less reliable and stable OS than the native alternatives). The Intel box guys have a hard enough time dealing with Windows. The training costs assciated with this venture would be hideous.

      Now, if you sell the software support business to Red Hat, you can still sell hardware support, still write software for the platforms, and still sell the iron. Plus, you've laid off the risk of Linux failing and the cost of hiring new people to an independent entity. Looks like a good deal to me, if I'm IBM. Looks like a good deal all around...

      --
      That is all.
    2. Re:not just support and services by MythosTraecer · · Score: 3, Informative

      A couple of years ago, there were 250,000 AS/400s in service. That market isn't growing, but it's probably not contracting, since those customers are a hidebound bunch. I seem to remember that average AS/400/iSeries customers spend $100,000 or more on their machines.

      I have no actual sales numbers on System 390/zSeries servers, but I seem to remember most customers spending at least $1 million for each of those.

      Between the iSeries and zSeries customers, we're talking about customers who have enough cash to pay extra for support and services. And I know these customers most often pony up extra for IBM support services anyway, so it probably won't be such a big deal for RedHat to get a nice piece of that pie.

      --

      --Mythos
    3. Re:not just support and services by tim_maroney · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Tens of thousands per year. More important still is the installed base of these machines, which run into the hundreds of thousands. To be honest, most of the installed base of these machines don't currently run Linux, being split among OS/390, OS/400, AIX, and (of course)

      I'm not sure of the source of your numbers, but let's take them as golden, and say 50,000. Now, I wonder how many of those new systems run Linux, and how many run IBM's OS. Would half be a nice optimistic guesstimate? As for conversion of machines already in the field, I'd have to say I'd be surprised if it were as much as five percent overall, and much less than that per year. For now let's ignore it. So that's maybe 25,000 each year.

      Now, how much are the support contracts? The Red Hat site doesn't really give numbers for all its options, but the Enterprise Edition comes with a pretty sweet support contract, and it's $2,500. A later message in the thread says IBM support can be about $10,000 per annum, so let's split the difference and say $6,250 per box. Let's further be optimistic and say that anyone who can afford one of these servers will get a support contract -- even though people running Linux may be inherently cost-averse.

      Yeah, I know this is really fuzzy. I'm just trying to get somewhere close to an order of magnitude here.

      So that would be something close to 25,000 * $6,250 = $156 million per year, increasing by that amount per year, and more than doubling Red Hat's current revenue in the first year. Not too shabby! But I'm not sure how real those numbers are, or what the cost of generating the revenue would be -- services businesses traditionally have pretty slim margins, and it looks like there's some R&D to be done before this even starts. Still, if this is even in the ballpark it could be pretty sweet.

      Plus, [IBM has] laid off the risk of Linux failing and the cost of hiring new people to an independent entity.

      That's the thing that concerns me. There's something about this that smells more like passing the buck than sharing the wealth. If the adoption percentages are significantly lower than my guesstimates -- like 25% of new systems instead of 50%, or a 50% purchase of support contracts instead of 100%, much less both -- it's not going to do that much for Red Hat. I guess time will tell. For now I'm happy to be confused on a higher plane.

      Tim

    4. Re:not just support and services by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2
      That's the thing that concerns me. There's something about this that smells more like passing the buck than sharing the wealth. If the adoption percentages are significantly lower than my guesstimates
      IBM have invested in Linux people. A kernel-hacking friend of mine was picked up by them shortly after the Linuxcare/Turbo Linux merger. It makes sense for them spend resources to get the kernel and other pieces of software to work better on their hardware. It doesn't make a great deal of sense for them to attempt to get across the vast diversity of generalised support issues.
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  3. Red Hat Stock by BgJonson79 · · Score: 2

    Look at how much the stock went up according to Yahoo!

    (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=rhat&d=c)

    --

    There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.

    1. Re:Red Hat Stock by Micah · · Score: 2

      Not just yesterday. It's way more than doubled since September.

      As for this kind of a price jump, normally I'd be tempted to buy short term puts in anticipation of a correction. But in this case it's genuinely good news that will help Red Hat. They're probably worth this much, and may well keep going up.

  4. Now *this* is the way Open Source should work... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    IBM is doing what they do best... making damn good hardware.

    Redhat is doing what they do best... making a damn good server OS. Apparently, it's better than AIX. At least it's costing IBM less, which is a good goal as well. IBM gets Free software to run on its high price enterprise-class servers. Redhat gets paid a lot by a huge company for support, and incidentally for further development. They also get a lot of prestige... and more penguins spraypainted on sidewalks, I'd imagine.

    Everyone else gets the fruits of IBM's and Redhat's labors in the form of GPL and other open-license software. Win-Win-Win

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  5. But did you read the fine print? by The+Slashdolt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Redhat will also be responsible for cleaning up the linux graffiti ads that IBM did in SF. That's not my definition of "linux support"

    --
    mp3's are only for those with bad memories
  6. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by flynt · · Score: 2, Funny

    You should abstract this concept into a general theory, you could name it like comparative advantage, that sounds cool. Add some other stuff, and make a whole college major out of it, we could call it...i don't know....economics??

  7. IBM Marketspeak conversion by MythosTraecer · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those of us still not comfortable with IBM's new eServer marketspeak, here's a simple conversion chart:

    eServer Name == Real Name
    iSeries == AS/400
    pSeries == RS/6000
    xSeries == Netfinity/PC server
    zSeries == System/390 mainframe

    --

    --Mythos
  8. Ooops by PhilLong · · Score: 2

    I wrote those covered calls a bit too early. Serves my lack of faith right :)

  9. And I STILL say IBM should do a Linux distro! by PRR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IBM's support of Linux has been great, and I realize they've said they won't do their own distro, but I STILL say they should! They could probably buy RedHat outright, which already seems to have close ties to IBM at RTP.

    An IBM Linux distro would become sorta like the "IBM PC" in that it would be a quasi-standard that everyone rallies around, but IBM doesn't really control. This already happened with the PC. The GPL would ensure it further. (IBM's hardware-centricity would also help ensure impartiality for software) In other words, it would create a sort of "majority-defacto" Linux API that developers could at least shoot for instead of the current bit of fragmentation. A (relatively) standard API has worked to M$ advantage for attracting developers.

    IBM's good name would help Linux acceptance with the PHB's :) This already happened with IBM's name on small PC's which were seen as curiosities by management types when they first appeared years ago. Linux is in a similar place that the small computers like Apple and RadioShack were in then. Once you get this kind of corporate and overall acceptance, the momentum builds, more folks get involved, and things get even better.

    1. Re:And I STILL say IBM should do a Linux distro! by 3am · · Score: 3, Insightful

      IBM's already had their anti-trust difficulties, and entering the desktop/workstation/lower-end server OS arena probably wouldn't look good from that perspective (different (imho) from creating their own proprietary OS, but....)

      anyway, i understand you point. personally, i'm torn between 1.) having IBM create/buy their own distro and create a huge chunk of legitimacy for Linux with huge/rich customers of IBM (and in turn attract more developers) and 2.) that an IBM distro could be disastrous for Debian, SuSe, et al. - most businesses that have a choice between IBM products and non-IBM products would choose IBM if they had the $.

      (i totally agree with you about management fascination with all things IBM - have you ever seen one looking at a decked-out ThinkPad? although, honestly, i get a little misty eyed myself :) )

      --

      A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
    2. Re:And I STILL say IBM should do a Linux distro! by finkployd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      IBM has possibly the most impressive history on Earth of "Bad Marketing for Good Operating Systems". I mean, think about it, AIX rocks (although I see Linux passing it in x years), OS/2 ruled, and OS/390 defines stability in a way that no other OS will even approach in decades. Yet they cannot market them at all.

      Now hardware, IBM knows hardware. They can make it, they can market it, and they can make money off it. Let them stick with what they do best and leave the rest to others. If they happen to be able to sell more hardware by helping someone else develop software for it, then it's better for everyone.

      Finkployd

  10. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by RobL3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Apparently, it's better than AIX"
    No.

    AIX will still run on clients high-end mission critical servers. Linux will run on small to midrange servers.

    If you think that a Fortune 100 company like the one I work for is going to switch >1000 AIX servers to Linux, You Are Nuts. We want IBM reliability, IBM support, and IBM accountability.

  11. Rock on! by uslinux.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is precisely the sort of thing that will help ALL Linux-related companies. IBM wants to dethrone Microsoft. IBM still supports NT/2k/whatever for their customer base, but they increasingly recognize they can't win at this alone. RedHat wants to sell software - not just RedHat Linux, but things like Interchange and Stronghold. Being able to sell hardware with packages like Stronghold ready to roll right out of the box is a major boon for IBM and RedHat. It also helps IBM because they don't have to roll their own Linux distribution to sell their hardware. Big Blue has finally seen the light.

  12. What about the other distros? by DJFelix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whatever happened to IBM's statement that they will support any Linux distro on the planet on an IBM eServer?

    I was just about to order a whole set of those little guys and was planning on running Debian GNU/Linux on them. If it won't be supported, I'll have to buy something else, or dog forbid build them myself.

    1. Re:What about the other distros? by brunes69 · · Score: 2

      Why would you build them yourself (more time, money) when you can just BUY then from IBM! Just because it isn't supported doesn't mean it isn't possible. Debian would run fine on them.

    2. Re:What about the other distros? by DJFelix · · Score: 2, Informative

      A dude from IBM just e-mailed me and told me that they would still support the system running Debian, but that they just couldn't help me if I had trouble configuring/maintaining it.

      That'll work for me.

      The main reasons for me behind purchasing an IBM server is their support and service. And their unflinching support of Linux!

  13. As if this sort of thing would actually affect IBM by John+Harrison · · Score: 2

    While this deal is a BIG deal for RedHat, it probably isn't exactly a huge thing for IBM. I doubt that the $2 drop in IBM's stock price had anything to do with this deal. It is more likely related to the fact that blue-chips in general fell today due to weak consumer confidence numbers that came out today.

    --
    Lasers Controlled Games!
  14. Let's not get to excited yet... by wls · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The real test here is going to be time, and whether or not IBM decides to stand behind this instance of Linux for a substancial period of time..

    What this does buy the linux community is the fact that Linux has support by a big name, rich company. IT managers should feel more comfortable with this knowledge.

    In the past I've seen IT departments lean toward Microsoft in their solutions, even knowing the product was defective, because they honestly thought they could get individual attention and support.

    IBM certainly knows how to deliver better support than Microsoft, especially since IBM will come on site.

  15. Re: not pissing off by mughi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Why piss off Redmond when they don't need to?

    One might be able to argue that IBM has been doing things just to piss-off and beat Microsoft. Open-source labs, linux for iPaq, and their whole jump behind Java...

    IBM seems to have gotten into a situation where they can benefit the public while at the same time take a swipe at a long-time 'enemy' (remember IBM getting the short in with DOS, OS/2, etc.). Seems like a win for consumers, and an example of open-source and the free market together benefiting consumers.

  16. And details? by HeUnique · · Score: 2

    I don't see any details here..

    If I buy tommorow a pSeries machine (I wish!), where is Red Hat coming? do I sign a support contract with them or with IBM? and who do I turn if I have a question? to Red Hat or to IBM?

    Lots of details missing........

    --
    Hetz (Heunique)
  17. What about priorities and RT apps? by imrdkl · · Score: 2
    Forgive my ignorance, I never worked much with IBM boxen at all, just a few SPSS routines that were required in college. But I've heard several claims that the *ni|ux OS's can't really compete with the original IBM operating systems, because of better prioritizing capabilities in the old OS. According to these claims, mission critical apps running on IBM, such as accounting software, could never run properly anywhere else.

    Is Linux kernel-level stuff (threads, forking, etc) sufficient to the realtime needs of larger IBM apps now? Or, perhaps these machines wont be used for those type of apps when running RH?

    I am quite curious what folks do with this sort of a configuration in the real world.

    Sidebar, I heard Sun converted all of their acctng apps to Solaris awhile (96?) back too. But I never heard much more about it.

    1. Re:What about priorities and RT apps? by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have worked with various IBM system off and on, including the System/390 and RS/6000, but not AS/400.

      RS/6000 is a Unix system basically. Probably still with more high-end features than Linux, but when building really big Unix systems, my company used HP or DG instead.

      System/390's have several different operating system choices. My experience was an unpleasant one with the oldest and cruftiest option (VSE), but I'll try not be too disparaging.

      My opinion is that they seem faster because they don't do as much. If they seem better at prioritizing, you should consider that they don't have the usual Unix load to deal with (e.g. 20-odd daemons, local and remote X-sessions, command-line users, and a couple big applications). The 3090 terminal does updates a screen at a time, not character-by-character. That's similar to a text-only 24x80 browser which doesn't have to build and tear down the http connection each request. If you just want to put some accounting app on it, fine. You won't have any downtime, because that is the only thing running on the system.

      The little I've read about AS/400 suggests that it's an innovative system, but operates with the mainframe mentality.

  18. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apparently, it's better than AIX.

    I doubt that it's better then AIX (technicaly) all around, but what it is an OS with growing marketshare and way better compatablity, which means more software. AIX is never going to do anything to microsoft, Linux is.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  19. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 2

    We want IBM reliability, IBM support, and IBM accountability.

    And you can get it, with IBM eServers running Linux.

    --

    --
    Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again

  20. what about.... by garett_spencley · · Score: 2

    the abcdefghjklmnoqrstu and v Series?????

    They don't get linux?

    --
    Garett

  21. Speaking of the 390 (a very obscure pun) by fm6 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's the current sequel to the IBM System 360, the first computer with a byte-oriented architecture. Previous systems used word-level addressing. This meant that different kinds of users couldn't share computers, because the same word size (and thus data precision) doesn't make sense for all applications. The various 360 models had different word sizes, but all used byte-level addressing. So word size became a matter of efficiency, not compatibility.

    Thus IBM marketed the 360 series as the "all-around" computer. Which is why its logo was a compass rose. And, of course, the punny name...

  22. But how do you get True Blue backup of Redhat 7.2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    One of the most desirable features of Red hat v7.2 is being able to do a non-destructive upgrade from Ext2 to the journalling file system Ext3. As soon as the upgrade is completted, IBM's prefered backup "solution" will *PURPOSILY* stop backing up the file systems as if they no longer exist!

    Rather, the needs of the Linux user is secondary to the needs of IBM's R&D. File systems that most Linux users have never heard of such as GPFS and Episode are accepted as valid file systems for IBM backup while more frequently used file systems such as Ext3 and xfs are ignored. Even more common true blue file systems such as jfs and AFS are skipped by the IBM backup "solution."

    So... IBM is now enlisting the help of Red hat? So what?! At the end of the day, will I be able to restore the latest files from my Red hat v7.2 Ext3 fs which *should* have been backed up to TSM? Will Red hat be able to assist me in getting TSM running on a pSeries F50 running Linux?

    The bottom line is that several departments of IBM such as Tivoli are still treating Linux as an expiermental operating system (not production) and treating IBM R&D as the only supported users. Real users, production users of ext3, xfs, jfs and afs as opposed to users of expiermental file systems are finding that True Blue does not care about the integratity of their daily incremental backups. Those that listen to Red hat about the advantages for a non-destructive upgrade to Ext3 during an upgrade to v7.2 will still find that the same file systems that used to back up fine before the upgrade are now being purposily ignored. Users that listen to IBM DeveloperWorks that JFS is now at v1.0 and is production ready are also stuck in the same sinking ship. And while YellowDog Linux runs fine on some pSeries RS/6000s, Tivoli has yet to provide a single client for Linux PPC.

    So, now that Red hat is contracted with IBM, what type of improvement in support for IBM departments such as Tivoli should we expect? NONE. True Blue PATHETIC support. It isn't up to Red hat to get Tivoli support into shape, it is up to IBM and they continue to do a half ass job of it. I'm putting in just as much work, if not more, in monitoring TSM failling backups as I did when running ADSM v2 under Linux emulation of SCO. Nothing has changed and it is still up to the individual Linux users to make choosen true blue "solutions" truely "work."

    Give me the source code to the TSM client. Then we can discuss your "support" options. Until then, IBM is the last company you want to do business with for Linux. "LOVE-PIECE-LINUX" isn't going to get your files back when you figure out that your Red hat v7.2 server was never backed up since you upgraded! "eServers from IBM running Linux" will NOT save you a bundle of money when you need to recreate all your lost work that wasn't backed up since you upgraded to Red hat v7.2.

    Backups are a *BASIC* part of supporting a Linux server. Until you get that part right, all that is being done is hot-word compliant marketting, not *support*.

  23. Ironic situation. The enemy of my enemy is my... by vbprgrmr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's an ironic situation that the people (myself included) who are cheering any success Linux has with IBM, also cheered the past day the micro-computer came home to hopefully free us from the tyranny and centralized power of the main-frames from IBM, and the blue suits, the corporate mentality, and the whole IBM philosophy.

    It's incredible that Microsoft has fowled up things so badly that it causes us to cheer the success of our former adversary.

    Long live IBM and Linux!!
    Damn. This old hippie can't believe he just said that.

  24. Does this mean... by sporty · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does this mean they'll have red ibm logos or blue redhat logos' on them?

    --

    -
    ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

    1. Re:Does this mean... by jdfox · · Score: 2

      Does this mean they'll have red ibm logos or blue redhat logos' on them?

      IBM actually did fret about this when they first started reselling NetWare in the 80s, which comes boxed all in bright red. Some suggested purple as a compromise. In the end they shipped it in a box with the art laid out exactly the same and the stripey Novell "N", except it was done in bright Smucker's-Blueberry-Syrup blue.
      I never did work out whether this was meant to be ironic humour or not.

  25. this is great news for the linux community by ultrapenguin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's nice to see great companies such as IBM and RedHat cooperating together to bring linux to the masses. Finally our vision of Linux on every desktop is getting closer and closer.
    With latest release of 2.5 kernels, Linux is the best choice for both desktop and server.

  26. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by ajs · · Score: 2
    AIX will still run on clients high-end mission critical servers. Linux will run on small to midrange servers.
    Absolutely. I can assure you that you are correct (for the most part) because I've been working in a company whose job it is to take behemoth companies running ancient software on IBM mainframes and convert their production operations over to our software on farms of small Intel/Linux boxen.

    I don't see anyone running Linux on huge hardware. They're all converting to farms of tiny, redundant, replacable, damn-near-disposable servers. Of course, in our case tiny means dual-processor boxes with 4GB of RAM, but for our customers that is tiny.

    So, as with the mainframe vs. mini and mini vs. midrange arguments of yesteryear, you will begin to see a new trend in corporate computing: the micro-farm. It will not simply replace larger systems. It will become the standard by which the next stage of hardware downsizing (remember when that didn't mean layoffs?) will be judged.
  27. Re:Ironic situation. The enemy of my enemy is my.. by Balinares · · Score: 2

    Also, don't forget that IBM was on the receiving end of a long and painful trial over anticompetitive practices. And THEY got punished over it. My, my, could it be what made them a friendlier company now? :)

    --

    -- B.
    This sig does in fact not have the property it claims not to have.
  28. Re:Now *this* is the way Open Source should work.. by ajs · · Score: 2

    You've never seen the support costs for an IBM mainframe, have you? Suffice to say that our customers are quite happy with the cost differential, but they do it more so because of the access to modern technology in terms of software, networking and support.