Sun's COO Pretends Linux Belongs To Red Hat

An anonymous reader writes "Ever mindful of minting phrases likely to spread virally through the Net, reports JDJ, Jonathan Schwartz's blogging gifts were used Friday to assert that "it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux." The article comes up with a new angle on one of the most-talked about members of the tech-exec digerati, saying of Schwartz: "He's the Winston Churchill of technology - he mobilizes the English language at least once a week, and sends it into battle against Sun's rivals." But Churchill would never have tried to pull a fast one by disingenuously describing Linux as "Red Hat's Linux" - the community will upbraid him, for certain. Churchill Schmurchill, Schwartz is a technology mischief-maker not a technology statesmen."

Comments

Could be worse...

[WillerZ]

At least he doesn't claim it's Sun's Linux.

Re:Could be worse...

[avronius]

I use this expression a great deal. Typically when describing variations of linux. Red Hat's Linux vs. (insert flavour here). Much like saying "This is Avron's car". It does not suggest that all cars are mine, rather that *this* one is.

It is amazing the way that people take a contextually accurate statement, and skew it to blow something out of proportion.

Stupid

[the_mad_poster]

Didn't RTFA, but when referring to the various Linux-based operating systems, it's not uncommon to refer to them as "Red Hat's Linux" or "Slackware Linux", etc.

It's just a convenient way of specifying a particular operating system with certain conventions and features. Maybe if you spent a little less time reading blogs and submitting stories to Slashdot and a little more time doing... oh... I don't know... something with Linux... you'd know that.

Re:Stupid

[Nate B.]

Or to be even more pedantic, he should have specified the GNU/Linux/XFree|XOrg/Mozilla/OpenOffice/etc. OS.

Ducks!

Re:Stupid

[Alpha27]

I think you missed the COO's point.

The reference isn't to say that Red Hat is the owner/maker of Linux, but more of a distinction in the plethora of linux options, as Red Hat stands out as the main company who is selling an O/S package, that uses the Linux kernel to Enterprises.

As a result, MS, Sun and RH would be looked at as competiting for the same or similar enterprise markets. That's where I see the reference of "Red Hat's Linux"

Also when someone is talking about enterprises and OSes, distros like Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, and others will not come to mind because of the lack of support the way someone who works for an enterprise would expect. A company would want something like a server contract where they can pick up a phone with the company who makes the product, and not necessarily have to dig through a list of consultants found on a simple listing provided on the OS's website. That's not to say the consultants are no good in anyway, but you have to think they way someone who works for an enterprise would.

If I order a product from Microsoft, Sun, or Red Hat, they offer support with that product. I go to Debian, I don't get that directly from Debian.

As for it being an OS war, it IS. Ultimately, you would have to pick a distro to install, and for many, it will be Red Hat. Remember it's not the company people are only picking, it's the product they sell as well.

As for Apple being an option in this, it has a small market share compared to the others. You won't find "many" setups with Apple being used for enterprise server applications (I know there are few, so don't attack me you Mac zealots). Apple is not competiting in the enterprise areas as much as the other three.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

Red Hat's Linux clearly in this context means Red Hat's version of Linux. Ok, it's ambigous but let's not get stupid with the nit picking.

Re:What's the problem?

[davecb]

He's speaking to businessmen who buy particular vendor's products. They didn't buy DOS, they bought MS-DOS, and ignored DR-DOS.

Similarly they buy Red Hat in the U.S., so he's obviously adressing U.S. businessmen. If he were adressing German businessmen he'd have said "SuSE's Linux".

In neither case would I expect him to say "version of". The listener is expected to get that from context.

--dave

Non-inclusive possessive pronoun....

[SuperDuck]

I think he meant Red Hat's "offering" of Linux, not necessarily implying that they were the only one, just the only contender at that level.

Mac OS X?

[daveschroeder]

There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). According to Apple, this eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of "UNIX-based"[1] systems in the world. (Probably over 13 million now, according to sales since then.)

"With the release of Mac OS X, Apple became the largest vendor of Unix in the world"

More...

[1] Please, whether or not Mac OS X is or isn't "UNIX" or "Unix" or "UN*X" or "UNIX-based" or "UNIX-like" or "not UNIX", etc., etc., etc., is the subject of another discussion, and really derails the essential, widely accepted concept (by normal, sane people, anyway) that Mac OS X is "UNIX"-based.

SCO's?

[Zentac]

or for that mather SCO's

Perhaps he meant something else

[oexeo]

He said:

"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."

Did it occur to anyone, that perhaps he just believes the Red Hat distro to be the only distro of any real threat to Windows, and Solaris (of course, doesn't mean he's correct). Why is that statement taken as him attributing the Linux kernel to Red Hat?

Re:Perhaps he meant something else

[WillerZ]

I just find it amusing that he thinks Solaris is a threat to anything.

The only damage solaris is going to do to any other OS is if you snap the CD in half and use the sharp edge to go on a killing spree among the target developers.

Phil

Re:Perhaps he meant something else

[Lxy]

Thank You.

It amazes me to no end what passes as "news" these days on Slashdot. One person misinterpreting something automatically becomes news, and not just any old news, "OMFG the sky is falling" news.

Of all the distros out there, Redhat easily holds the market share on the corporate end. It makes sense to bundle Red Hat in a corporate statement than Slackware or Debian. Sure, they're fine distros, but when it comes to market share in the corporate world, it's hard to deny that Redhat has the biggest piece of the pie.

At any rate, the sky is not falling, and Sun's COO is NOT implying that Redhat owns linux.

Semantic niggling

[sczimme]

Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux

It appears people may be reading too much into this. To my eyes it looks like a listing of commercial OSs along with their vendors: Windows from Microsoft, Solaris from Sun, and Linux from Red Hat. Yes, there are other commercial Linux distros. Yes, there are a lot of other Linux distros, period. The question is this: how many of these are viable contenders in the market[s] shared by Solaris and Windows? And of those, how many are as easily recognized as Red Hat?

The statement above just clarifies that Red Hat's Linux is the particular distro under consideration. I don't believe it is a plot to assign ownership of all things Linux to Red Hat.

Wazzamatter ? Post 1 is on topic!

[ehack]

Anyway, I think the comment applies to servers. With IBM selling its PC division, the company will be heavily committed to Unix-likes for survival - M$ may be the 300 pound gorilla, Sun sees itself as a raptor, but IBM is a tyranosaurus - no speed but lots of weight and sizable claws. It's a dangerous mistake to count out the animal that is too big to see :)

Re:Market Share

[Soylent Moose]

Okay, think about it from an IT manager's perspective. Say I'm an IT manager at a medium-sized bank and the applications we use are based on Oracle. I'm about the buy a bunch of machines so I can run Oracle on them. This is a production environment, so I don't want to just download some random Linux build without support -- I need to pick someone who will sell me real support, with guaranteed response times, etc.

What are my choices? Oracle on reliable hardware is a huge market for Sun, so that's obviously one choice. Which Linux would I pick? Probably RedHat to get their support offering. Oh, and yea, I could always go the Microsoft way.

I don't know, Jonathan's comment doesn't seem that bizzare to me.

Re:he's right though

[weileong]

I don't think too many people here have actually in fact read John Schwartz's blog.

Extracted from his blog (his words):

Red Hat does not equal linux, and linux is not evil. But, linux in the enterprise datacenter (that is, not your basement or startup or dorm room or gamebox) does equal Red Hat - and competing against a company is what we do for a living

http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20040721 #competing_against_a_social_movement

Reading the wrong way

[akaina]

You guys are really reading into this the wrong way.

All that he's asserting is that it's Red Hat's flavor stands the best chance of taking marketshare.

That's actually MORE tech-savvy than just saying the L word like everyone else. When you read the quote, think in terms of the COO and marketshare, not in terms of Richard Stallman.

(puts on fire resistant suit)