Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?

Posted by timothy on from the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished dept.

RadioheadKid writes "This article featured on eWeek asks the question 'Red Hat: Next Redmond?' It quotes an IBM VP who says, 'There is a backlash against Red Hat from many consumers and government agencies, who fear it is increasingly becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world with respect to its dominance and attitude,' while Red Hat states: 'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.' Is this just some pro-UnitedLinux spin, or a valid concern? What do you think?" Such characterizations are nothing new, but a response on NewsForge from Red Hat's Jeremy Hogan supplies a counterpoint to make the eWeek article worth reading. (Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?)

24 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. They will never have the money.; Money == power. by RoundSparrow · · Score: 5, Insightful


    They don't have the money that Microsoft has, and given that they aim for low prices... and not to "lock in customers" then

    Can't you guys accept that RedHat might want to make money and still have _some ethics_?

    MODS: We were ASKED what we thought!

  2. No, no, no... by 1010011010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RedHat pretty religiously releases its code under the GPL and works with third parties to make sure standards get implemented. They will be LSB compliant, for instance, in their next release.

    Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.

    --
    Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    1. Re:No, no, no... by WhoCouldItBe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can tell you why they're popular, at least in the corporate sector - support.

      Where I work we're gradually moving some of our systems to Linux. Mostly just clients at this point, but some backend servers are being ported too.

      But we need someone to point a finger at if something breaks. I've never actually used RedHat support, but at least they have some! There also needs to be some sort of indication that the company won't die tomorrow. And RedHat's doing better than most other Linux companies out there.

      As for personal systems...I dunno. It's easy to install for newbies, and it's still customizable like any other distro. I've run pretty much every distro at one point or another, though at the moment I'm running RH, just because it's what I use at work.

      And now that I have it set up the way I want, I don't want to change it. I'm lazy like that :)

    2. Re:No, no, no... by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Red Hat probably isn't the best distro, nor is it the worst. Still, there are a couple reasons why it is the largest:

      They offer a version of Linux that works right out of the box. Remember that while much of the Slashdot crowd likes to customize everything to the limit, most people are happy with most defaults. Redhat isn't the most secure, or the most powerful. However, it can set things up without asking too many questions; which is often a feature for someone new to Linux. In fact, I point Linux beginners to Red Hat or Mandrake for this reason: They are probably best off learning by poking around on a system with reasonable defaults, not having to make random choices when they're asked a question over their head.

      They're a fairly large company. They certainly don't have the cash of someone like Microsoft or even Apple, but they do have enough money to appear large and "stable". To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  3. Loyalty is paper-thin by koreth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I like RedHat's Linux. It does what I need, it's organized sensibly, patches are usually released reasonably quickly, and I can look at the source code. If one of those things stops being true, I'll switch to another distro with minimal pain and keep using the same apps I was using before. That ability alone means RedHat will never be another Microsoft.

  4. Sensationalism by GreenPhreak · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is sensationalist journalism. Just because RedHat is in the OS business, and it happens to be somewhat successful does not automatically mean that it is becoming the next Microsoft. Journalists that have little idea of the architecture and licensing behind the two OS's are the only one that could propose this specious metaphor.

    --
    I drink to prepare for a fight; tonight I'm very prepared. -Soda Popinksi
  5. Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupid) by hagbard5235 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I switched from RedHat to Debian about 2 years ago, largely because of a series of technical decisions that RedHat made that I didn't want to have to put up with anymore ( gcc-2.96 anyone ).

    I did not switch from RedHat because I question their ethics. To the best of my knowledge they have always opensourced anything they've done. They have eventually open sourced anything they've acquired. All under the GPL. I don't see how we can fault them for that.

    RedHat has done things that I feel are stupid ( gcc-2.96, recent behavior towards KDE ). But NONE of these things are in anyway unethical. Some of them have been handled badly from a PR perspective. But I have yet to see RedHat do anything that even slighly had nefarious intent.

    RedHat provides a very valuable service. They provide a familiar interface to the commercial world. Large companies want a standard distribution with support contracts to help them sleep well at night. Large commercial software producers who right rather overly rigid software NEED a platform to implement to ( because they can't implement to standards, or deal with minor variations ). RedHat provides all of these interests with what they need.

    People should really leave RedHat alone on the Microsoft comparison front. Kick them around over some of the dumb technical decisions they make if you like. That's fair and decent criticism, but don't FUD them.

  6. How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? by VistaBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Red Hat is a Linux distribution. It must follow the free software licenses that it is built on or it can easily be taken down for copyright infringement. Through the GPL and other licenses thereof, we have Red Hat by the horns. If it ever gets out of line, (not releasing source code, etc), we can slap them in the face with the GPL. Also, nobody is forcing you to use Red Hat. If you don't like what Red Hat has to offer, use Debian, Mandrake, Slackware, etc.

    The main point, though, is that if Red Hat tries to become a closed-source deal, it will have thousands, if not millions of hours of code to rewrite.

  7. Uggghhh by bogie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1998 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
    1991 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
    2000 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
    2001 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
    2002 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?

    How many times can you ask the same stupid question and how many more years can you be wrong?

    Redhat continues to put out GPL software year after year and like it or not is the poster child for linux. Which commercial linux vendor from back in the day would you have rather have won out? Suse, Caldera, Turbolinux?

    Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible. Now maybe they will be the leading commercial linux in the corporate world, but dam it they have earned it.

    I know I like many other long time linux users have always wanted linux to make it big. World domination was always the joke, but really there is a bit truth in there. Why oh why did anyone think that all 450 linux distros would equally share in the fruits of commercial linux's success?

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Uggghhh by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Interesting


      10 or 15 years ago I didn't see MS bullying people, most didn't. I don't believe RedHat is now either but how much do we really know?

      First off, I don't believe RedHat should get a carte blanc pass to avoid criticisms. If they do something worth being criticized, then by all means. But the key point here is if they DO something.

      You have yet to point to a single action.

      Microsoft is financially successful. Microsoft is in the IT industry. Microsoft is a monopolist and a bully.

      RedHat is in the IT industry. RedHat is showing success. Thereforce RedHat must be a bully.

      Oh please. How about some proof and substance?

      If RedHat starts to use licensing terms as a method to lock out other operating system vendors, call me. When RedHat uses FUD and Vaporware to create confusion in the marketplace and defend their sales figures, spread the word. When RedHat begins to use hidden, proprietary technology as a method to lock in their customer base, raise a shout. The list goes on.

      In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
  8. Do writers make accusations just to get attention? by back@slash · · Score: 5, Funny

    I guess so. Not much back up in the article but the headline is sure catchy.

    The situation remains that changing between Linux distributions is like changing your underwear while changing from Windows to Linux (depending on what services you are running) is like a sex change. I know this i've done both. Changed a small server farm between linux distros and changed over from windows to linux that is, not a sex change. I do change my underwear though. I'll just stop typing now....

    --
    This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
  9. My opinion by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless they stop selling GPL'd Linux, and move to their own blend of proprietary Unix... In my opinion it seems that the GPL's main purpose is to keep software vendors from doing the MS shuffle. Just because RedHat is seen as the corporate Linux solution does not make them MS. MS got that way by being the only solution due to their marketing juggernaut. I just don't see this possible with open source products. RedHat sells services, and last I checked there was no monopoly on services... Not even MS can do that. But the business world can't seem to function without finger-pointing...

    --

    Shift happens. Fire it up.
  10. Some ways to tell the difference by r_j_prahad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist?

    2. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist yet again, after ignoring the court the first time?

    3. Has Redhat's license agreement recently morphed into legalized extortion?

    4. If Dell and HP and Compaq stop pre-loading Redhat will Redhat be able to drive them out of business?

    5. Does Redhat force end-users to agree to license audits as part of their EULA?

    6. Has Redhat ever descended on an end-user demanding unnecessary and duplicative license payments the way the BSA has?

    I could go on, but there is just no comparison, none at all, there is no similarity whatsoever, by any stretch of the imagination. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Microsoft is in a league by themselves here.

  11. Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... by pnelson · · Score: 5, Informative
    When MS was sending out audit letters to schools in OR and WA the first phone call I got was from Red Hat to see if they could help. When Eric H. was having trouble hacking RH's install code to modify their distribution to make it easier for schools he called RH and got all the help he needed. I'd like to see what would happen with a call like that to Redmond! RH has helped send us to conferences and provides free support to schools using Linux.

    Time will tell if other distributions will be as well managed and forward thinking but for now I don't think we should slam RH because they got off to a good start and hired some smart people. They are working hard to produce free software for us and just happen to be doing it very well.

    At K12LTSP.org we base our distribution for schools on RH for all of the above and the fact that over time, it's been one of the easiest and most stable versions of Linux for us to use in schools. They have been 100% supportive of us hacking their distribution and redistributing it to schools. That's about as far from Redmond as you can get. There are some good folks there in NC! Let's give some credit where credit is due.

  12. I have always been happy with RedHat by Kiwi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I don't much to say besides what the articles already went over. Basically, RedHat, unlike SuSE and Caldera (and some other distributions) is 100% free. There is no difference between the RedHat ISO images that anyone can download off of various FTP sites and the CDs for the core distribution which come from official RedHat. Unlike Mandrake, RedHat also makes official ISOs of the source. Mandrake only offers binary ISOs; people have to make their own ISO cd images from their source directory.

    Unlike Debian, the stable release has recent libaries and binaries; they also have a much more formal SQA methodology than what Debian has (Debian testing works, of course, but it just takes longer for Debian to declare something stable). Unlike gentoo/sorcerer/etc., no one has to wait while all of the programs compile. While this is an excellent learning experience, a.k.a. Slackware (another great platform for learning the internals of Linux on a very intimate level), it is, in my opinion, not necessary for daily production usage.

    I like knowing that I can buy (or download; the two are 100% identical) RedHat and not have to upgrade my system for a year or two; RedHat will "freeze" on a given release and release only critical bug fixes (mainly security updates) for a period of two years for a given release. This is very useful; it allows people to use systems without having to be on the constant upgrade treadmill.

    I am very pleased to see RedHat merging KDE and Gnome; having different applications on the desktop having different user interfaces looks, IMHO, unprofessional and I am glad to see RedHat resolving this.

    RedHat has always strongly belived in free software. They took a stand aginst the old Free/Qt licensing by strongly supporting Gnome; their actions undoubtably contributed to QT's decision to allow the free versions of their libraies be GPL'd.

    If you don't like RedHat, you are free to make your own fork of RedHat which fixes the things you don't like. Mandrake did this because they wanted a RedHat with KDE five years ago; they are a RedHat fork which still exists today (knock on wood; I hope they get past their financial problems). I think the person at tummy.com is still selling RedHat-derived distributions (RedHat + whatever updates he feels are needed).

    I have been using RedHat for over five years, since RedHat 4.2, and have been very happy with RedHat. I feel that they have made an excellent compromise between making the settings configurable with a GUI or with a text editor--I happyily use a text editor to configure my RedHat box (currently only one: A laptop with 7.2). Some old Sun greybeards (too lazy to learn a new tool) complain about Xinetd; I think RedHat is remarkably conservative about intorducing new things which force users to relearn; I think replacing the old, crufty inetd.conf with Xinetd is perfectly reasonable. Now, if only Microsoft were so reasonable about keeping the UI so consistant between releases.

    Speaking of Microsoft, RedHat, as the articles pointed out, can not be the next Microsoft. The GPL protects us from that.

    - Sam

    --

    The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.

  13. Re: When is the last time that you checked? by sharph · · Score: 5, Informative
    http://www.redhat.com/download/mirror.html

    nuff said

  14. GPL should keep Red Hat in check by pbryan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Make no mistake, Red Hat is a commerical organization, whose sole purpose is to make money and increase its value for its shareholders.

    However, what could keep RH from devolving into another-business-that-has-achieved-market-dominanc e is the GNU General Public License. RH was founded on the GPL, which places significant constraints on distributors.

    I'm sure if RH finds a dangerous loophole, it'll be quickly shored up by RMS, and unless RH decides to fork all of its packages and take on development itself, will be obliged to adhere to the terms of the software it distributes.

    Finally, there is a bellweather I would watch to determine whether RH has become too powerful: Alan Cox. Cox seems a man of principle, and wouldn't stand for too much BS from his employer.

    --

    My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

  15. Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi by X · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Actually, your whole critism about RedHat is why I love them, and why I love the fact that they GPL/LGPL their work. Personally, I was REALLY glad to have 2.96. It was the best, most stable g++ at the time. I'm not saying that people were wrong for hating it, I'm just saying that it suited me. And that's the great thing.... if you didn't like 2.96, you could do one of several things:

    • Install kgcc and just don't use 2.96 at all. Don't worry about the C++ issues.
    • Use another distribution... remember they have access to the same software
    • Build your own version of RedHat from the SRPM's and compiling it with gcc/g++ 2.95.x.
    • Do #3, but SELL your distribution.


      • Much like what happened back in the day when RedHat didn't bundle KDE and Mandrake did, the open source nature means that when RedHat fucks up (or more accurately makes choices that don't suit your needs), you can go with something else. The switching costs are minimal. How can you NOT be happy as a RedHat customer?

        The day this stuff stops being true is the day I'll stay up at night worrying about RedHat taking over the world. In the mean time, I think the risk of say Gillette taking over the world is much more significant. ;-)
    --
    sigs are a waste of space
  16. RedHat is a simple install, period. by toupsie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    RedHat's default install is not the one I use, ever. However, if I want to install GNU/Linux on a computer, I use RedHat. Reason? I can pop in a Net Install floppy, boot the box, and choose a mirror site for Redhat. About an hour later, I have the basic building block on the server I need. I do this both for x86 and Alpha -- never need to remember to bring software. A couple of trips to RPMFind.Net, a tweek of rc3.d and an update -u...that's it. You have a functional, decent performance server for your need...NFS, Samba, AppleTalkIP, HTTPD, WebDAV, FTP, POP3, SMTP, RTSP, X11, etc. Just go nuts tightning down the default install and you have a box that can stay up 365+, no problem.

    RedHat has good name recognition for a reason, they make getting Linux on your box simple. I am sure you can on and on again about your favorite distro and you will have valid points. I just love quick and simple net installs--free of charge--Microsoft ain't never gonna do that for me!!!

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  17. RedHat: The Starbucks of Linux by ukryule · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From Jeremy Hogan's reply in Newsforge:
    It seems like a week can't go by where someone doesn't fling the "Microsoft of Linux" accusation at Red Hat. ... Why not "The Starbucks of Linux?"

    Now *that* is a much nicer analogy:
    • They have a recognisable brand
    • You can buy from them almost anywhere nowadays
    • The cost of the ingredients is a tiny part of the overall price
    • It isn't much better than the competition, but it's nicely packaged
    • If you know what you're doing you can make a much better version yourself
    • I can stop using them anytime I want (hah! At least I tell myself that ...)
  18. Those dirty rotten bastards! by jpl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let's show those evil (evil I say!) bastards at RH. Everyone post an ISO image of their software on the internet! Make copies or said ISOs and sell them for profit! Ha!

    Then, use their software on *all* your machines at work, and don't pay them a red cent! Ha!

    Oh, wait a minute...

  19. Some leverage by rhysweatherley · · Score: 5, Interesting
    RedHat does have some leverage here. For example, giving preferential positioning to icons for their own applications in RedHat 27.2. MS got slapped for that just recently.

    But there is a difference. MS used contracts and stand-over tactics with OEM's to prevent the icons from being changed. In RedHat's case, the GPL acts as a counter-balancing force.

    While they continue to GPL everything they do, the license makes it legal for an OEM to apply a "mod kit RPM" that modifies the RedHat distro however they want.

    Also, unlike MS, RedHat cannot say "fine, we will withdraw your license". The minute they tried that, the OEM's would fork the code and tell RedHat to get lost.

    RedHat will only survive so long as they provide a useful service. They are dead the moment they stop.

    UnitedLinux would be better off copying RedHat than trying to re-invent the glory days of proprietry Unix where vendors lorded it over users and _all_ Unix distributions sucked.

  20. This is Just Getting Rediculous by GroundBounce · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of glib: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat plans to release a distro with another new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    When Red Hat changes a few icons from two GPL'd Linux desktops: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!

    This is just nonsense. Red hat certainly has a large share of the corporate, commercial, and boxed Linux market, but they are far from a monopoly, and they have contributed everything they developed that goes into their normal distribution back to the open source community.

    They host and support many open source projects, they regularly oppose bad laws like the DMCA or the latest Hollings drivel (including putting money where their mouth is via lobbying), and they champion Linux in schools.

    Are they competing for market share? Sure. Are they trying to annihilate all competition with FUD, dirty marketing, embrace-and-extend, and illegal manipulation the PC distribution channel? Definitely not. Have they made some stupid mistakes? Of course they have, who hasn't?

    I personally use Red Hat on some machines, but I use several other distros as well. That's called choice, something you don't get at all with Microsoft operating systems (unless your definition of choice is Win98, Win2000, WinXP, WinNT,or WinME).

    Red Hat is definitely about competing for customers, but even if they had 90% of the boxed Linux market, they would not really have a monopoly because of the licenses which allow anyone else to produce a similar product for free. If Palladium ever succeeds, then there may be an advantage to companies who produce commercial versions of Linux, but we are still far from this situation at the moment, and it's not yet clear that business or the public will even accept it in the long run.

    If you don't like Red Hat, then don't use it, but calling them the Microsoft of Linux everytime they freakin fart is just pure paranoia.

  21. They already are LSB compliant by FooBarWidget · · Score: 5, Informative

    Checkout the LSB website. RedHat 7.3 is LSB compliant.