Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Walks The Linux Tightrope
Brainsur writes "ZDNet reports about Redhat : European marketing director Paul Salazar admits there have been plenty of screw-ups along the way but that Red Hat is now working hard to please the open-source community and investors alike. Making money from open source is a balancing act. While your underlying product is forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism, the success of your business means striking pleasing postures for the investment community."
I have mixed feelings about RedHat. One one hand, they were one of the first that set the Linux snowball rolling, and have given a lot to the OS comunity. On the other hand, their Linux distributions were subpar, even with the amount of support they offered. For a while options like SuSE have been much much better. Anyway, everyone is entitled to fuckups. I hope they get on their feet again and do better!
I have yet to understand their licenses, I pay $349 pr. year to have a ES server connected to their update network or what?
While your underlying product is forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism
I think this guy has it all wrong. The GPL isn't about altruism, it's about selfishness, and that's a good thing.
I must admit, I'm a bit cynical, and thus I have some trouble believing in altruism. I think Richard Stallman had a brilliant idea with the GPL. It was a way to turn the selfishness of every programmer, that desire to be able to look at how something was done, to both his advantage, and the advantage of people around the world.
What he's done is to create a system, whereby people with that programming itch (and you know what I mean if you've got it), will give away access to the product of their hearts and minds, just to be able to satisfy that itch when it comes to someone else's work, or someone else's improvements of their own work.
As a programmer, I think there can be no greater boon than to have people who want to use your software, and, even more so, people who want to see how it's written, and possibly improve it.
I manage serveral servers for a small sized ISP. Mod me down, but over the time since RedHat released their Enterprise line, I have felt that RedHat was going into the dark. People have become skeptical over their support schemes which they blatantly charge for. Their packages and applications have become too "closed" and again, somewhat dependent on RedHat Enterprise, period. We now prefer OpenBSD and FreeBSD over Linux. We call it simplicity over formality, not that it is all that is to it. Distributions like slackware or debian and the BSD flavors out there works just great and they are more flexible than RedHat Enterprise is. Besides, setting up and maintaining RedHat Enterprise is simply not much fun either!
This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
I have a number of my servers on Reh Hat & Fedora. I just put SuSE on my personal work station to learn the little where do they put what in which directory that is different routine.
Well, I really like SuSE, REALLLY.
I think I will be switching all the servers to SuSE.
One thing I really like is console based YaST over SSH. It does everything the graphic based one does and works over slow connections.
Well, I am another convert
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I think this is what it will boil down to:
Rehat vs. IBM + Novell/Suse + Sun
1) Sun's JavaDesktop is based on Suse Linux, and provides a very good mechanism for updates, for just one time cost of $50 (includes Star Office).
2) Sun and Novell(parent company of Suse) are the 2 top contributors to Star Office / Open Office.
3) IBM and Suse have been working with each other for a while. Especially in the Lotus Notes area.
4) Novell's new directory services can be used on Suse Linux.
5) Suse can be a cluster resource in the Novell Clustered environment.
Where does RedHat fit in this picture????
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
your underlying product is forged in the white-hot fires of online altruism
Redhat is competing with Sun, IBM, Microsoft, Suse (Novell) and dozens of other firms in the OS market and you're describing its big challenge as surviving the marketplace for altruism? I don't think Linus cooked up GNU/Linux just so it could be run on the machines of geeks for the benefit of other geeks. He must have known that when he tossed that source code out onto the Internet that there was no telling where it would end up. Redhat's focus must be the blue-white fires of the business computing marketplace or it will be as passe as the "Nifty Fifty" of the 1970's. Where are they now? Ever check out the list of the Dow Jones Industrial Average components in 1960 versus now? Today's Microsoft is tomorrow's Litton Industries or Penn Central Railroad. Compete or die.
If you want to look deep into the future for Microsoft, this site tells all.
In principio erat Verbum.
Actually I think that many companies don't have to keep their reputation in the open source community in mind. It seems that more and more companies realize that open source programmers are plentiful and frequently addicted to exposure. An example is the GPL rape by Sveasoft: Whenever the community uses the redistribution rights under the GPL, Sveasoft changes the license in an attempt to avoid giving back to the community. After the most recent confrontation, there are rumors that he will try and separate his code from the GPL code in a way which permits him to make the code which he is forced to give back useless (without his copyrighted code). I think you could hardly find a company with worse open source karma, but does it hurt business? No. The users and reviewers don't care. They just want their firmware. Now what is the open source community going to do? Stop developing Busybox, Squashfs, Linux? No. Sveasoft simply has no reason to care about his community relation. This was different when Linux users where mostly technical people and contributors themselves. In a common user world, marketing trumps karma.
Umm... I don't really know if I understand what you mean to say. I think what you are saying is that they say it's free but then expect something back.
It is free -- you are not required to give anything back.
And the balancing act is in providing free software while still staying a profitable business. That's called the free market. If giving back to the community will let you make more money -- then you should do it. If just taking software and never trying to give back and manage to cause people to not want to buy your software then sucks for you.
That's the free market. You have to deal with reality. Companies that have a better public image make more money. This is true with OSS business and with other businesses.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
A couple of things
1) the idea of a consumer economy and a free market is that the public decides what they want to pay for and what they are willing to pay for it. if people can't fill that desire then they don't succeed as a business.
in a truly free economy -- which Free Software is doing a good job of ensuring -- the profit margins are always very thin. that's what competition is supposed to do. if another CEO is willing to live in a barrel so he can beat your company by offering service (or whatever their source of revenue is) then you had better do the same.
2) we have rule of law for a reason. that's how anarchy (not socialism) is prevented.
3) are people angry when they find out that kfc's chickens are being abused by the workers at the meat factory (throwing them against the wall, etc)? yes. does it affect kfc's business? yes. it's the same thing but in the OSS marketplace. in some markets you have to make sure you're not abusing your employees or else people won't buy your stuff. in this market you have to make sure that you're not seen as a leech or people won't buy your stuff.
THE RULES ARE THE SAME.
and none of this has anything to do with socialism. come on.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
man you're an interesting cat.
we're not going to a violent force-led market. redhat has contracts with its customers. they agree on what redhat will provide and they agree on what redhat will be paid. if the contract is breeched by either party you can take it to court.
the relationship we were discussing is that between redhat and the public. specifically the OSS-aware public.
do you think companies shouldn't have to think about what the public thinks? a lot of these companies are publicly-owned. they fail if the public doesn't like what they are doing. it is a balancing act for any company. if any company steps too out of line then the public keeps them in check. the public is the consumer and the public decides what they want and what they are willing to pay for.
what do you want? companies to be able to do whatever they want and have the public either not know or not care?
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
Red Hat dropped our "consumer" product because it was a money sink. We couldn't afford to sell 100 licenses and promise support to 100 different people. Now, our enterprise customers usually funnel their support through a few people. We get better bug reports, they get better service.
We sell a Desktop flavor of RHEL3, and we will with RHEL4. It's quite nice.
But the fact is, GNU/Linux isn't ready for the "consumer" desktop - there are far too many things that don't "just work" and nobody has fixed them yet. That includes Debian, SuSe, Mandrake and all the rest. We'll be a step closer when ACPI is reliable and users don't ever have to unmount a filesystem manually.
Also, a lot of the importance of RHEL is that it is certified by ISVs. That costs a lot of money. If Debian was certified, that would certainly help.
Red Hat has in my opinion had alot to do with bringing Linux to the main-stream. It was my first nonwindows OS (5.1) :) and has alot of sentimental value.
What we have to understand and accept, is that while the core of linux and alot of good apps remain free, and that there will still be alot of free distros, a company has got to make money and do the whole corporate thing. This does have advantages, like getting commercial software, drivers, etc.
There are 2 issues here.
1) The life/death of "Open Source"
2) Having an OS of choice on one's comp.
Redhat has done much to improve both in the past. And at least they're not sueing us or shoving their os down our throughts and making us pay for it. (no names mentioned.)
While the core system and many apps will still be open source, I say let them make and sell a professional system, that may not be completly open source, but that has the potential of loosing the stigma of "garage OS" that linux seems to have. (by no means do i think that, but it is a myth that floats around.)
All I want is more drivers and software.
I want my linux games section back in Frys and gamestop. If Redhat has to sell its soul to The man, so be it. ( all you OSS zealots can install Gentoo )
This type of setup is nothing new, McDonnalds, for instance, has ronnald mcdonnald house, for helping families; you think there doing that because it was a contractual obligation, no. There doing it because it, indirectly, makes them money- the goodwill it generates twoards the company helps cause potential customers to get them instead of others when they want fast food. Open source is not a fast food joint, but simmilar rules apply, if a company wants to earn the goodwill that will cause it to be chosen over another company, it needs to establish that goodwill; with contributions to the community
Part of those contributions, as well as establishing some 'good will' to allow you to be chosen above others, also establishes your level of credibility; like it or not being an open source company is still 'wild west'- lots of fly by night opperations come in and say ther open source, install things, and disapear overnight, sometimes with horribly mismannaged instalations; if your contributing code/bug reports, or setup documents, then you establish a reputation for your coders abilities with that code; a reputation that will show up in google when potential employers are looking you up.
This is not in any way different from the traditional buisness world; if I am simply a company that sets up microsoft systems and administers them, or makes modules for microsoft products, I had best have something that makes me stand out from the crowd as an expert, this can take the form of making free microsoft utilities avalible to all for download, waiting for the few that will be interested in your other services (winzip), creating in depth manuals for use by those who want to do something interesting with there systems (again to attract them to your website to buy your real products), etc.
You don't HAVE to do this, and you can still suceed, if only temporarily; espically if no one else dose what you do, if your a company that deals with open source GIS systems and complete integration with electrical grids and existing setups (or something else very much needed and rather rare) and your very good at what you do, you can give nothing back to the comunity- the lack of 'goodwill' that would cause people to turn to you is irrelivant, your the only one offering that service, however, eventually someone else will come along, and give more back, generating that goodwill, and getting the free development/upgrads/purchases from users/potential customers that that goodwill generates; and they will eclipse you-
And guess what- this is almost exactly what is happeneing to windows; they give very littel back to the 'comunity', and therefore do not have the goodwill to attract the type of people who will simply donate there work: Linux may still be rather immature, but often people WANT to use it, because it's 'feel good software', the linux comunity; though the GPL, free distrobution of code, etc. has generated a great deal of goodwill that makes many people want to use it- even if it's not the best product for the job; and then they help it grow, so that it will be the best prodcut for the job- once again for that goodwill.
Side note:
It is of no co-incidence that many closed source companies are 'open-sourcing' a lot of there stuff now; it's for this goodwill effect: The EXACT same way that companies like Mc-Donnalds fund charities, but in computer and software terms.
-Millions of Monkeys, Millions of typewriters, 6 hours of sorting through faeces encrusted pages to find: This post