Red Hat Invades Washington

Paul Coe Clark III writes: "I caught Michael Tiemann, CTO of Red Hat, in Washington yesterday and grilled him about the DMCA, the SSSCA, the Sklyarov case and the future of Linux."

Comments

Good points, but *how* is the market different?

[fiddlesticks]

The most interseting comment in that i/v -
that he thinks the PC desktop market is dead, and that other markets (embedded, appliance-led products, networked devices) are the way forward, was not picked up by the interviewer IMHO.

'...all show high projected growths, except for PCs. Tiemann taps the dismal PC projection] That is what I'm saying is dead..'.

How is RH addressing these markets? I am sure they are, but more clarity would be nice. I work with Interactive TV boxes in the Uk, and we dont care about the OS, and neither do the consumers.

It's the middleware that counts. Pace boxes running Liberate middleware run VX Works OS, but as a developer for the Interactive box I'm not allowed anywhere near that level of code. So, is RH gonna go for the OEM market, or is it going to what is the *equivalent* of the desktop and build OSs that fit nicely with higher level code?

Nope, I'm not making much sense, but as this is, after all, as he has said, an entirely different market than the one he's used to, I'd like to know more.

Re:Hat

[ImaLamer]

As you can see here, sometimes he does.

Quite dashing I think... but he looks like the devil. Maybe it's Gates' hat.

Good Interview

[krmt]

I'm impressed. Very good interview. I thought the most interesting part was about the PC being dead, and the question as to whether or not Microsoft has killed the market. It really is a good question to ask, and I think they are partially responsible. People don't feel the need to buy new machines because the old one does everything they think they want. But that idea ignores the fact that competition is all but ignored. Thank God Apple is doing such great things right now, I think they are the ones who will have higher growth than the rest of the industry simply because they are offering really compelling reasons to upgrade.

I think the other factor is that the machine itself doesn't seem to be a limiting factor anymore, it's the connection to the internet. Most people can't take advantage of their fast processors, because everything these days is focused on the pipes to the network. I've got to give McNealy at least partial credit for the whole "the network is the computer" deal, it's become very true. People seem to just use their machines as emailers, browsers, and muedia downloaders/players. True, all the other stuff like word processing is there too, but the fact that communication has become the real killer app of the industry shows where improvements need to be made.

I think he's right to focus on the devices that need embedded Linux, since those markets will continue to grow through phones, PDA's, and whatever niche devices people will come up with for specific industries. However, to say that the PC is dead is a little shortsighted. It's just stalled and waiting for the bandwidth to catch up.

Speaking of which, I think the big killer app for linux, if someone can come up with one, will be a new, or at least cheap and easy, way of communicating. Apache, PHP, and SAMBA are all focused on this, and they are the apps we always point to as big successes. I mean, the whole movement is successful because of the ability for us to communicate and cooperate to make an OS! Shouldn't the apps really reflect that? Maybe it's that we're all geeks and not so good at communicating (just browse -1 to see that ;-) but I think that perhaps we need to push beyond what's out there in this space.

I don't know, this is all pointless rambling. I'm obviously no better, or else I'd have some actual idea in mind rather than half-baked theories. Still, I believe that the PC is now a tool for communication rather than productivity. The productivity is still there, but it's not the primary purpose any more.

Re:Good Interview

[krmt]

So Microsoft is responsible because people are satisfied with their computers? I don't think that's really what you were getting at.

No, that's not what I was really getting at. I'm not saying it's a bad thing that Microsoft is making people satisfied with their computers. What I mean is that because they are a monopoly, people have nothing else to compare to (except Apple, which they don't even look at) to realize that they could have better. In that sense, their absolute domination has killed the market.

And I think that the point about set-top boxes is mistaken. He's not really promising on any of this, he's delivered a package that people can use. I'm betting most all of the devices that use embedded linux won't be consumer-oriented. They'll be for corporations and engineers and such, people doing highly specialized work who need something more than a palm pilot. That's where I think Linux will make inroads. It won't be something most of us see or really care about, but I think he's right to go there.

Re:Good Interview

[snilloc]

Granted that Microsoft has done a lot of bad (and some good) things to/for the PC industry. What they have not done, is kill it.

They may be in the process of killing it with their media convergence plan for the spawn of the Xbox, but nothing to date has done that.

What will slow (but not kill) the PC industry is exactly what has been said before... nobody wants to upgrade because their computers already to what they want them to. Anybody with a Pentium class machine can run Win9x reasonably well, email, Word, internet. If that's all you're doing, why the hell would you upgrade??

Microsoft, and in particular, Win9x, brought all of these apps to the masses. (And by that I do NOT mean that MS did all of these cool things themselves... more of a chronological and technological corelation.)

The PC hardware industry will eventually become like the Auto industry. The average person will buy a new one in X number of years depending on his budget and when the parts happen to crap out, but there will always be an assload of computers on the internet. Individual companies will die, but there will always be a few who provide new hardware when the old stuff isn't cutting it anymore. The differences between the 200x and the 200x+10 year models will not be huge in terms of basic functionality until significant AI and voice recognition improvements have been made. Microsoft's current OS monopoly will have little bearing on the future of the PC hardware industry (Xbox comments aside). Apple boxes on par with the original pentium will have equivalent functionality. If there were a hundred different major OSes out there, they would all basically do the same thing. (though some would crash less often than others...)

The future I have described may be more conducive to Linux as users will want updated software and not want to pay for it... as MS will eventually cut off support for products as they age...

In the end

[Waffle Iron]

Mr. Tiemann confirms what I've been suspecting lately...

All OSes are evolving towards the same ultimate endpoint: An embedded control system for TVs.

Somehow, I am disappointed. I had thought that computers had more potential than that.

Re:In the end

[Colz Grigor]

All OSes are evolving towards the same ultimate endpoint: An embedded control system for TVs.

Somehow, I am disappointed. I had thought that computers had more potential than that.

First off, this comment was moderated as "Funny". I don't think it's funny nearly as much as it's poignant and interesting.

And I'd like to make a counter-statement. I won't discredit Waffle Iron's opinion; it's a valid one that many people share. But my vision of the future of computing is different.

Nowadays, most of the family units with disposable income have a TV and entertainment center in their living room, family room, or den, and a TV in their bedroom. They also have a spare bedroom, office, or a nook in the same room as their TV that has a desk with a computer on/under it. Often, older children still living in the household will have their own TV in their room and a computer under their own desk. Most of the time, the home computer will be used primarily for entertainment, much as the TV is used.

That's a heck of a lot of devices devoted to entertainment in each household. In many of these rooms it would make sense to combine the units, but there are some primary issues that we, as consumers, can't decide on.

The question that needs to be answered is whether we would prefer to have the TV move to the computer, or the computer move to the TV. This is the same as asking whether we want to sit in a desk chair and watch our scheduled content and videos from three feet in front of a 17" screen at 1200x800 resolution or whether we want to sit back on our couch in order to type our e-mail on a 540 scan line CRT.

Time and technology changes all things. Over the next decade, most of these people will replace their TVs for a new one with 1080 or 1200 scan lines. That's adequate resolution for computing. And User Interfaces are much more accessable from the couch nowadays. But I can't ever imagine wanting to watch all of my entertainment from a desk chair three feet from a 17" screen.

In the end, there will be computers and TVs, separate, for purchase by consumers like Waffle Iron, because he represents a market that would buy such products. I represent the market that would buy a unified product, and I believe that my perspective will become more ubiquitous as time and technology advances, so eventually we will see all of our computing technology being built (modularly) into our TVs. I don't find this the least bit disappointing, I see it as an inevitable reality.

Re:Hat

[generic-man]

Maybe it's the fact that he hasn't brushed his teeth since 1985.

let's look at what he said

[Erris]

It is certainly possible to be successful using Linux on the desktop, as I do, but from a commercial perspective, as long as there is a monopolist who continues to behave in a way that violates antitrust law, I don't think there's much hope for an alternative desktop. The desktop market is not an exciting market. It has reached a point of saturation.

Translation: we could do it, but we won't make any money on it, M$ has effectivly blocked us there so we are going to look elsewhere.

He's wrong. Packaging a slick easy to install set of desktop software was a great Red Hat strength, and there is great demand for what they offer. They need to position themselves as the solution to the problems of propraitory code: programs that don't talk to each other, shifting "standards" that waste work, poor security, and massive IT budgets that churn junk all day without being able to fix anything. They have not done a good job of getting the word out about specific issues and how they have a solution. No one else in the US has the training network, name recognition and ability to do what they can. The market is there, you just have to make it happen. Think of Sony and the Walkman. The demand was there, despite a downturn in consumer electronics. Sony just created the product that people really wanted. Red Hat will only be defeated if they give up, or start acting like M$ themselves.

Re:Opportunity or opposition?

[krmt]

Building up to meet the UNIX-to-Linux migration or the migration to UNIX that is OS X? RH basically conceded the desktop in the face of M$ monopoly. Embedded is certainly the place for growth. But aside from that, is Apple the real competition?

No, when he said UNIX, he meant it. Like you said, Apple isn't really a competitor, they're a niche market. OSX Server ain't bad (used it plenty myself) but it's really going to be a minor player in relation to 2k (and whatever follows) and other *NIXes. Everyone knows Linux is a great server OS, there's no denying it,and that's where the meat of Redhat's income will be coming from for now. The way to make that income grow is to gather more of the server market, and the easiest way for them to do this is to make it easy to transition from their HP's and Solaris servers.

And as for rumors of OSX Server on other platforms, I'll believe it when I see it. There's no way, given Apple's past, that they'd do this now.

If OS X wants to compete...

[Karl Cocknozzle]

...with MS, Linux, and other Unices, it will have to change the following three things about itself:

1) Transparent filesharing with MS. Sorry guys, but it's not there yet. Opening the "Connect to Server" dialong in Finder and using the syntax smb://2kwksation/share to attempt to access my 2k Workstation fails. It does work with 2k Server/Advanced Server w/File Services for Macintosh installed, though.

2) Flesh out the OS with control panels to do functions that are currently available only via the command prompt. Specifically, there's no reason an Apple operating system shouldn't allow some configuration of the swap file from the System Preferences. The only method I'm aware of involves a trip to the terminal, something many novice mac users are wont to try.

3) Multiple desktops.

Additionally, Apple will need to motivate developers to move their biggest products into the new Mac OS. They would be wise to approach developers that don't currently develop for the Macintosh but do work with other variants of Unix or Linux. Games would be nice, and completion of OpenOffice for X would be nice, but any little bit helps.

Convergence... of what?

[_Sprocket_]

I represent the market that would buy a unified product, and I believe that my perspective will become more ubiquitous as time and technology advances, so eventually we will see all of our computing technology being built (modularly) into our TVs.

You're on the right path: convergence. But I think you've arrived at the wrong destination. Computing technology won't merge with TVs... its the other way around.

Convergence has been an occasionally surfacing buzzword for years now. Its been attempted by shoe-horning a PC in an entertainment center. Its been tried with internet appliances / set-top boxes. Meanwhile the technically elite have been changing the face of entertainment media and attempting to shoehorn better hardware in to their desktops to match. In every case, the interface ultimately fails. And its obvious why - all tasks do not work well with all interfaces.

This is why I believe you've arrived at the wrong conclusion. A "TV" does not make a good computing interface.

The folks at Moxi have taken a step in the right direction with their Moxi Media Center product. It basically becomes a central hub for entertainment media / data. Everything else (TV, speakers, etc) become satalite devices feeding off a wireless link. It even becomes a central hub for your data connection. So how does this solve the "computing from the couch" interface problem?

Moxi has made the first step. TVs will stop being TVs and become remote monitors. Strip out everything else. Slap it on a flat screen - a big flat screen. And then also create smaller versions of the device - webpads. The more personal size for handling email, taking notes, web surfing, etc. A slightly larger (something simular to the new iMac perhapse?) version provides an interface that's comfortable for desktop computing / work. Keyboards, pointers (mice, trackballs, etc), game controllers, and other such peripherals could talk to all such devices to create the right interface for any environment from balancing a spreadsheet to console gaming.

In short, computing (a centralized media server) absorbs all other devices (desktop, console game, TV, stereo, etc). Convergence moves away from the TV. And your experience is defined by what modular components you use to communicate with that central media server.

Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview...

[s390]

Not much meat on the bones here. It seemed the interviewer was lobbing softballs and accepting facile replies without followup or pressing any issues. Frankly, I was not at all impressed with either the interviewer or the RedHat CTO answers. He might be brighter than he sounded, but one could not tell it from these interview responses.

I mean, RedHat's not about the desktop, OK? Did this interviewer not know it going into this? Where were the deeper questions about RedHat's working with IBM, HP, Compaq-Alpha-et-al, even Sun in the server space? Where were the clustering, scaling, fault-tolerance, instrumentation (performance and capacity monitoring) questions? No question about RedHat's broken GCC 2.96 compiler and what they're doing to fix it in later releases? This was just a joke, a parody of a real interview. What a shame.