Slashdot Mirror
Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat?
An anonymous reader writes "Various news sources including ZDnet are today reporting that Microsoft is considering buying out Red Hat, speculating that 'Microsoft could see Red Hat's acquisition as a nice way to undermine IBM, but might not consider that a sufficient reason to do it,' adding that Red Hat is however '...a company that wants to be Microsoft and, like Microsoft, makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas.'" That description seems to miss the key point that Red Hat releases the software they package and sell as Free software, and that both companies pay coders to create and improve software in the first place.
1. It would be seen as an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be, and be read by the market as such. The immediate impact to the server business would be significant, and it is the only segment at Microsoft that is growing.
2. It would be seen as an admission that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities, something that the Executive team at Microsoft has been avoiding at all costs. Just like Hertz and Avis, #1 should NEVER acknowledge #2 in the market.
3. It would dramatically confuse the market at a time when Microsoft is trying very hard (read $100M+ marketing) to win the server space and defend the desktop.
You may not like Microsoft, but they don't tend to make really stupid mistakes, and this would be one. It just ain't gonna happen.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
I seriously doubt the courts would approve such a purchase.
Buy him out boys!
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
First off - the link goes to someone's security blog - Here are the links to the Zdnet/News.com stories -
5 ">ZDnet story
r end/2100-7344_3-5701700.html?tag=nefd.top">News.co m story
9 &tid=136&tid=88&tid=123">they just delivered their evidence to SCO, what would the point be in settling. The blog continues to state that most other distros (Linspire, Debian, SuSE) are largely irrelevant now, and goes on about how IBM would sell Linux/Cell-based workstations and servers. How close are we to cell processors? I thought we were still some distance from seeing as widespread use as the blog seems to state.........
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?p=27
http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+t
The ZDNet blog states the biggest problem posed to RedHat would be IBM settling with SCO and developing an OS for the new Cell processor. Why would IBM settle now? After http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/22420
My MythTV HowTo
Only this and nothing more.
While the articles make a case that it might be beneficial for RedHat, what's in it for Microsoft? Plus, what are the chances of it clearing anti-trust hurdles?
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Doesn't red hat sell support?
Two blog entries.... not what I would call reliable sources....
I can't help but be quite distressed that I see a blinky ad for Microsoft right below this story.
-- Rachael
How DARE Microsoft think they can take down Red Hat?!?
They cannot control Linux by buying one distro, and at the same time a buyout would make it look as if Microsoft sees Linux as a threat, or that Microsoft is finally accepting Linux as valid.
-Cnik
Imagine the stock price if they held out.
Yes, 50 times over.
Would Microsoft Buy Red Hat? Doubtful.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Begin "We will integrate your technology and culture into our own.. --insert more Borg jokes here--..
Welcome our new blue screen over
FATAL EXECUTION IN PAGE X003FFFX3333333....
IF THIS ERROR OCCURS AGAIN PLEASE CONTACT YOUR VENDOR.......
Gates: Your Internet ad was brought to my attention, but I can't figure out what, if anything, Red Hat does, so rather than risk competing with you, I've decided simply to buy you out
Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
The financial experts think a bidding war will break out. ... or buy a new house ... or something.
These guys are always right and stock rumors are almost always true. Better load up now so you can retire tomorrow.
Not red hat, red herring.
If Microsoft bought Red Hat, wouldn't this mean that Microsoft would be under the GPL when it comes to releasing software?
"Until Longhorn is fully operational we are vulnerable. Linux is too well equipped. It's more dangerous than you realize."
"Dangerous to your OS division, not to my Office line."
"Linux will continue to gain support along with OpenOffice as long as Red Hat continues to..."
"Red Hat will no longer be of any conern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has purchased Red Hat and has ordered a completely new version of Linux that will be released sometime in the near future... IE not at all. The last remants of Unix have been swept away."
Bill Gates responds by saying all he really wanted was a cool looking red fedora to match his new blazer and didn't know what all the hubub is about. Upon further questioning, Gates admits to picking up an apple fruit basket and maybe a pet tiger direct from Thailand later that night.
A MicroSoft distro of Linux!!
People here on Slashdot wouldn't know who to hate!!
This is just the sort of theing MS would do to drive everyone here (and in the Open Source Community) crazy....
I was reading this with a 'this just might be' attitude, until I came across "This combined with the the fact that the single biggest threat Red Hat faces right now is that of the possiblity of IBM could settling with SCO and then release its own Linux, (...)
IBM settling with SCO while they seem to be holding them at their balls? And then releasing their own linux distro? Yeah, right.
This 'article' is nothing, ziltch, nada, nop. No new facts, no reasoning, no nothing.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
It would definitely hurt the Linux community at large, but I don't think IBM would be particularly troubled. While IBM is supposedly distro agnostic, I've seen a definite bias towards Suse when dealing with them.
There is no way that this is remotely even feasible. Why would Microsoft want to buy Red Hat? Those with their tinfoil hats on would say so that could shut down Red Hat and thus, rid the world of a primary Linux-powered rival. However, think about it - someone would simply take their place - Novell, some corporate entity supporting a Debian or Gentoo distro - and they'd be right back where they started.
Others might think that Microsoft is ready to get into the Linux biz. For those, I have a large iron structure in Paris that I'm trying to get rid of; perhaps you'd be interested in buying?
If Redhat bought out Microsoft...THAT would be something.
not like Red Hat isn't already basically a digital-whore. It's perfectly logical that MS would buy them out from where I'm sitting; it would give MS the perfect excuse to start making *nix apps for $, and the guys over at RH would get rich real fast, which seems to be the goal anymore....
ooh, scary-- code from microsoft coders in a linux distribution.
oh, wait- aren't they the ones who can't release source code because of some comments in it? Seriously, microsoft will never release code that their coders right, a prerequisite to owning a distribution of linux.
The Paul Murphy fellow in the zdnet blog seems to be implying that IBM's Cell is vastly faster than the x86... which is true, for floating point number crunching. But in the server market, the Cell will be a total waste of so many good floating point units. Why would Red Hat worry about that?
And it's not like Microsoft needs to buy Red Hat to get their hands on this new-fangled linux IP. Are Red Hat haters just trying to get the community even madder at Red Hat, or is something stupid brewing in Redmond?
but if this happened I'd shoot myself.
In two words, No Way.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
If they did...what exactly would they be getting? a Duplicate company called...say "Blue hat" could pop up in a couple of weeks with a duplicate copy of everything Redhat sells (besides the copyrighted red fedora) and start selling copies just like before.
Redhat's profits are primarily from service contracts and their automated patch udpates.
Remeber...everything is GPL'd...so buying out Redhat would at most just give MS some time (against Redhat ONLY)....there ARE other LINUX distros out there....like Mandrake...SuSE.....MEPIS...debian......
I don't think the community at large would really accept this buyout, and both companies' philosophies are quite different (at least the way I perceive it).
AC comments get piped to
So we should then have a "true" version of WinLinux :D
I can't believe no one else posted this yet...
MS Linux
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
If I had 'em, you would get 'em.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Not only would this not be likely to be approved due to antitrust rules and such, what would be the point of such a purchase? Paying a large chunk of change for a competitor to do...what exactly? Microsoft isn't going to suddenly say "WinServer 2003 blows, here's RHEL 4" to all its customers, undermining the last 5 years of FUD. A purchase like this would contribute nothing to the MSFT bottom line. Not to mention that this completely ignores the efforts of Novell and SuSE. If RH went out, someone else would line up to take its place in a heartbeat.
But if it does it would be a hostile takeover as they say. I don't think Management is in this for the short haul but rather the long haul. Selling out to MS right now would only give Management short term gains.
On the other hand, stockholders are nearly always short term junkies and would probably want it to happen if the price were right.
Should Microsoft actually manage to acquire RedHat they would have more than a slight problem on their hands.
First, the question quickly becomes, "What do we do with this?" Do they kill it, embrace it, let it stand on its own? Those are management questions that will take years to answer much like the way the same questions are lingering for all of their ERP acquisitions (AXAPTA, Great Plains, etc.).
Second, if they decide to integrate it, develop it or otherwise keep RedHat Linux alive they face all of the challenges of dealing with the various licenses and requirements imposed by Linux. They can't simply swipe code and keep moving. They've already used a variety of open-source code so this is a non-issue.
Finally, they would face no-less serious competition in the server market than they already face. With many other server operating systems to choose from, eliminating one will only lead to another challenger rising. Perhaps it would be IBM as suggested or Novell or the Fedora folks.
Who knows what this means if anything but I promise that it won't result in anything but heartache for the boys from Redmond.
Of course we torture people, we need the information --Gen. Pinochet
Microsoft could buy up Red Hat and renamed it "Rainbow Hat" to show that it was an all-inclusive distro that embraces both Windows and Linux. The right-wing religious zealots down the street probably won't be lashing themselves to get a copy.
With Star Wars III coming, I couldn't help but offer the idea that an MS buyout of Red Hat would create a huge "disturbance in the Force". MS would end up owning the leader in Linux software packages, but I think that a MS branded Linux would not be particularly well accepted by current Red Hat customers or current Windows customers.
MS would benefit if they wanted to move the next-version-of-Windows-after-Longhorn to a Linux codebase, but they don't need to buy Red Hat to do it.
Instead, MS would simply create a vacume in the Linux world which would be quickly filled by another distro vendor.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Isn't ZDNet a company that packages and "resells other people's ideas" in its news reports? And didn't it try to become a news monopoly, like every other Web news rollup play in the 1990s? I guess that makes them an authority on monopoly abuse plagarism. Red Hat, of course, gives away its packaged ideas for free, and doesn't even have a monopoly to abuse.
--
make install -not war
Red Hat DOES sell... they give out Fedora but they actually sell Linux distro's now (you can't download "Red Hat" as of version 9). I also don't see any mention of Microsoft attacking Linux so why are people jumping to the conclusion that Microsoft is trying to take over linux.. you're right! It's not possible! It's like trying to shut down BitTorrent and P2P stuff. You can't shut down what you can't control. Lastly.. even if Microsoft did stoop to buying Red Hat, sorry but they won't learn a thing. They wont include any features from Red Hat, they won't be under the GPL (what kind of dumb comment is that...) and it will be nothing but a positive move for the Linux community! Talk about publicity for the "enemy"... which is why I doubt any of this is worth worrying about.
Wasn't it just last week we were talking about how Microsoft was going to begin hyping their products using a paid blogger 'grassroots' campaign?
You don't suppose a bullshit story like this that ends up on someone's blog could simply be testing the waters to see how effective the online rumor mill is, do you?
If you're half as beautiful naked, you'd be 4 times as beautiful with twice as many clothes on.
Now we know why.
But leave the Wise to Wrangle, And with me, the Quarrel of the Universe let be; And in some corner of the Hubbub Cou
Huh?
Other than that IBM is winning against SCO and that the cell architecture is intended for game machines and embedded applications, what's wrong with this picture?
Also, if Microsoft tried to buy Red Hat, even Bush's out-to-lunch antitrust enforcement unit would have to do something.
If Microsoft wants a linux distribution, they can (probably) just put one together themselves. Heck, if they want a Redhat Distribution they can just nab that and change the little redhat icon, to a flag and the words "start".
Everone would quit and form a rivial company. Microsoft would have just accquired an empty shell of a company with lots of support obligations and no way to meet them.
The new company,"Brown Bowler", would take a few years to rebuild their distribution chanel. Them maybe go public and let Microsoft make them rich again.
The only thing owned by Red Hat is the company name, support contracts, distribution channel, some office space and hardware, and the logo. All of the real value would just walk out the door.
You might not have a say in the matter.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Everybody would drop Fedora like a hot rock and move to a distribution that isn't just a free development vehicle for Red Hat to make tons of bucks.
Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Ubuntu... They'd all be the biggest beneficiaries of such a move, and Microsoft would be left with a worthless property.
I dropped Red Hat after Red Hat 9, because it started to become clear to me that my customer space wouldn't be able to afford Enterprise and that Fedora was (by design) too fast-changing to support. I now run all my servers and desktops on Gentoo and it's working great for me. The main advantage I see is that I can control and minimize the dependency hell that Red Hat was and create tighter servers with less subsystems loaded on them to update in the first place.
Overall, though, this is just pie in the sky - it'll never happen. It definitely must be a slow news day in the IT world if this is even a valid topic to discuss.
Would this mean a native version of MS Office for Linux? Or more probably a fork of linux that gets the MS seal of approval taking over since all the PHBs will read Infoworld and see that whatever MS makes is good for their business.
Here's the scenario:
1) MS buys RedHat, puts out a huge advertising campaign championing RedHat Linux as the Better Linux
2) MS puts a lot of work into making sure the new MS RedHat Linux is more "business friendly", as in making specific driver APIs incompatible, but now supported among many vendors "Linux compatible" only means for MS Redhat Linux.
3) MS does the same to create a new, incompatible binary format for executibles
4) MS "solves" some problems with Linux installers for commercial apps by creating a closed-source, cryptic installer requiring keys to make sure if you want a Linux compatible app to work on your system, you better be using MS Redhat linux
5) MS returns the code to all the GPL apps it has modified, but uses a MS compiler instead of GCC, with so many incompatibilites and changed code, that it becomes useless to the specific projects.
Essentially, MS would break Linux, gain marketshare, and be within the GPL without any significant legal issues. If it wanted it could either continue to sell RedHat Linux (without the MS name) or rebrand it MS Linux later on. They would not kill it for fear that Linux momentum would get started again and compete with the new RedHat Linux.
Instead of Red Hat, MSFT would be better off buying Sun- they both sell propriatary systems, both dislike linux (not Sun so much, but they do) and it would be an extension of many of the deals they have struck recently. I don't see where RH makes sense, but I can see a better story with Sun given the slump in their stock, etc....
# nohup
This is probably more realistic...
MS Linux
versions 3.1 and 5.0 iirc. and i sold copies of it to a couple of local companies and got repeat business to support the servers they used it on. its turned out to be a very good deal for me. i think microsoft should buy debian instead though. thats what i use on all my servers these days.
872835240
Whats to stop IBM from making thier own distro then. besides, they could probably make it freely downloadable and just charge for support (u know like red hat used to be?). So M$ would only be fanning the flames and spreading the fire so to speak.
What will they do next by Novell and IBM... even if they could buy IBM.... How do you buy Debian??
I mean that strategy worked for them in the past, buying smaller companies with competing products and then either rolling them into windows or just squashing them. But how do you buy linux?? Then whats next BSD???
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
As cowardly as they are, I really doubt that the FTC would allow this to happen. Aside from Apple (and OS X won't run on x86 hardware), Linux is the only real competition to Windows. I cannot fathom any circumstances under which Microsoft would be allowed to buy out the competition like that. Granted, there are other Linux distros out there, but Red Hat is the only real player when it comes to Linux in corporate America.
Another reason to buy Sun - Microsoft likes preaching about security, and Sun actually has a server line that can deliver there -- with even higher government certifications than any of today's linuxes.
. . .they might learn something about OS design . . .
They already know plenty about OS design and the core architechture of NT/XP was designed by one of the best in the business.
The problem is that MS is not a design company. They are a marketing company and this "informs" their end product to its detriment.
Anyone out there ever had the experience of crafting something really fine, and then having the marketing department get their hands on it and turn it into a steaming pile?
Well, that's Microsoft all over.
KFG
Gates: What you think I got rich by handing out checks?
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
As I recall, when Microsoft sold their version of Unix, XENIX, to SCO[1] back in the early 80s, they agreed to not compete in the Unix market. If this is this still in force, than Microsoft is on soft ground buying redhat. Course Linux isn't Unix, so the agreement might not apply. Then too, most agreements like this only last for a few years, and that was 20 years ago.
[1]Not 'that' SCO, but 'that' SCO has roots in the earlier one I'm talking about. If you can figure it out you are doing better than me.
YES, I suppose Microsoft could buy Redhat. But wouldn't that be an odd move, sort of like saying "Yeah, our entire business model is outmoded and rather broken. We concede the point..."
But really, Microsoft already had their fun with UNIX. Back in the day they marketed a *NIX for PCs called Xenix. This was before they decided it didn't have a future and sold it off to SCO.
I'm pretty sure redhat would want to sell before microsoft could buy them, so it's not likely to happen anytime soon anyway.
Do they have the resources? In their petty cash drawer, on a bad year.
Would either Microsoft's or Redhat's shareholders entertain the idea for even a microsecond as adding value to either company? Not a flippin' chance.
I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
With the GPL, it seems all the RHAT people could simply take Fedora, run, create RedWhiteAndBlueHat and make Microsoft buy them again and again and again.
Could Microsoft buy Red Hat?
- So-Incredibly-Boneheaded-we-all-may-as-well-go-hom e-and-watch-their-embarassment-unfold-on-TV day.
Yes.
Will they?
No.
This is just the product of fevered imaginations, fantasizing what they would do with Bill Gates money. Gates has so much money precisely because he doesn't do stupid things like this. Microsoft is not going to buy a service business, which is pretty much valued at annual revenues. They're going to buy companies with IP, which are valued several times higher.
They're certainly not going to buy a service business where many of the customers suspect that they are mortal enemy of the platform being serviced. Far from undermining IBM, this would be like the day Coke announced they were ditching the old formula. Pepsi gave it's employees a holiday to celebrate. They probably could have called it Our-Fiercest-Competitor-Makes-a-Business-Decision
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
just do your job. MS and RH have nothing to do with it.
I know I have a red hat somewhere around the house, I wonder how many billions Microsoft will pay me for it.
Hmm... Maybe this letter to Bill is a reality
t .html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/microsof
Just a thought.
Hey - Maybe it was brought back at the time traveler convention.
http://web.mit.edu/adorai/timetraveler/
I know the dates don't match up, but if you can travel in time...
...Sun having a linux strategy.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
Could there be a successful argument of an anti-trust case here? I'm not so sure. There's nothing actively preventing consumers from opting for any of the other linux packages out there.
More so, there's nothing to stop the average consumer from building and selling their own linux package.
If anything, it could be seen as a perfectly legit and strategic purchase regardless of what they would actually DO with the company and assets.
:::: the insomniac's digest
this sig is my best one.
Maybe that's part of why they objected to the use of Lindows.
They wanted it for themselves for the next generation. Actually, I think that "Windows TNG" would be more likely.
MicroSoft's Red Hat becomes OS X to MicroSoft's Windows Classic. Could they make it work?
For all of the insane articles that percolate to the surface on /., this article is impressively insane.
So what "various news sources" are cited here?
"News source #1" is Paul Murphy of ZDNet, who basically says "gee, I suppose it's *possible* that M$ could buy RH, but, um, not really."
"News source #2: is "whitedust," the well-known... er, well-respected... er, who are they again? Anyway, the quote from "whitedust"...
"On the surface of it, the concept of Microsoft buying out Red Hat does indeed seem rather humorous. However as commented in the ZDnet article; Red Hat is a company that shares much the same business model as Microsoft in that essentially it makes it's (sic) living packaging and selling other people's ideas. That alone is enough to give some credabilty (sic) to the notion of some kind of thoretical ethical union one that would perhaps be less likley (sic) with any other open source developer."
So, to recap:
Coke-snorting "whitedust" website claims that Red Hat and Microsoft are a perfect pair, editorializes that purchase is imminent!
Really, truly, impressively insane.
It's true that dinner between two important personalities can result in developments, but...
r end/2100-7344_3-5701700.html
See http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+t
"Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Red Hat's Matthew Szulik met for more than an hour at a McCormick & Schmick's restaurant in New York in late March"
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
This will be a huge acknowledgment that linux is vialble. There are still hordes of clueless IT managers out there that think buyinh MS will not get them fired. MS buying a linux company will make many conservatives, that formed an opinion on linux long ago, have to revise there opinion. They will no longer have a black and white division between MS and Linux.
It does not matter what MS would do with RedHat, sales people from other linux vendors will have a much easier time selling linux, because the will not have to battle the MS==good inertia.
Seen from MS's point of view, it is highly unlikely. Any edge they'd gain over IBM would be quickly lost to a competitor that has no MS ties.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
This makes sense. How do you get people excited about MS products again? Also how would you protect against viruses, and security issues? Build windows on top of linux. Apple did it with OS X and BSD. I think this could be why they would want to do such a thing.
Microsoft's UNIX in the 1980's? Based on AT&T's license and they basically killed off the product a few years down the road.
Is it "at their balls" or "by their balls"?
Either way, it's an amusing visual . . . ;-)
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
1. It would be seen as an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be, and be read by the market as such. The immediate impact to the server business would be significant, and it is the only segment at Microsoft that is growing.
Being that Linux is Open Source. Buying redhat, just to gain Linux technologies seems like an expensive and needless task, and they still have to keep what they added as GNU. Also being that Linux and Windows are more even on the server market it is seen as a way to control a major competitor. Not that their products suck. It is like IBM buying Sun. And having people go AIX must of sucked because IBM bought Sun to gain the technologies in Solaris.
2. It would be seen as an admission that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities, something that the Executive team at Microsoft has been avoiding at all costs. Just like Hertz and Avis, #1 should NEVER acknowledge #2 in the market.
Well Microsoft has already admitted that Linux is a threat. They have done so for a while. They still underplay it but they have admitted it. Anyone except for the mentally retarded who know about Linux knows that there are some redeeming qualites over Microsoft, they also know that Novell Netware has some redeeming qualites over Microsoft, and Solaris...,...,... . There are a fiew application I have seen that don't have a redeeming quality over a competing product (being they are producted at around the same time)
3. It would dramatically confuse the market at a time when Microsoft is trying very hard (read $100M+ marketing) to win the server space and defend the desktop.
As the market will see it they are buying a competitor. This is what Microsoft does and what they have always did. If they cant squash them then buy them. Also being that IBM has been doing a big Linux Push away from windows, Microsoft probably still want a piece of that action.
Is Microsofts Mac unit hurting them, No, Is their Unix unit hurting them no. They know that they will never get 100% market share. But they might as well get a piece of the action of the other 10%.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
How many of Redhat's employees would walk out if Redhat were to be purchased by MS?
MS no longer has the latitude to generously grant options to prospective staff (and in fact Bill G. regrets giving out stock options in the past, or at least questions its impact). True, some RedHat senior level staff will benefit tremendously, but many staff may question the wisdom of joining up with their true arch-enemy.
Would you work with a firm that will, in all likelihood, take your work and, well, corrupt it? Do you want to see your efforts to support Linux be converted to an attempt to destroy it? Truthfully, do you trust Redmond?
I think that they could lose many more good people than they think - and those people will go to IBM, with their contacts, connections, and knowledge.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Remember all the IP Microsoft licensed from SCO? Well, it seems there's mounting evidence that SCO didn't own all that stuff they claimed to own. Perhaps Microsoft thinks that by buying RedHat they could get access to the magic IP that makes Linux better than Windows.
I once read that Microsoft has enough cash on hand to buy all of Major League Baseball and the entire airline industry, with plenty of money left over. I don't think the question really is "could they buy redhat?" (an obvious, YES) but rather "will they buy redhat?"
Red Hat has been begging Microsoft to buy them for a long time. It also makes sense for Microsoft because as customers outgrow linux it'll be easier to step up to Microsoft Server.
I can't help but to compare things like Linux and Windows to the music scene.. you have your musicians like Metallica that think their music is this wonderful piece of history, and it MUST be paid for.. then you have musicians that love the fact that people are actually listening to their music in the first place, and really enjoy giving away their music for free.. linux is by far the more "passionate" OS rather than MS simply because as Stallman always says, knowledge is supposed to be free.. if you really want to help out the world, why they hell do YOU have to benefit in some ridiculously selfish way??
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
musta been running on Windows Server 2003...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
"Being that Red Hat is one of the largest financial contributors to Linux and open source"
Red Hat as add money contributed to it. But did the create or entirely manned Gnome ? They arenot even participating at all in KDE , did they create Apache ? Do they do the GNU/Linux kernel by themself or they only have 6 Kernel developper ?
I hope you dont give Financial advice , because you dont do your reasearch and dont know crap.
Admittedly, I don't know much about the Linux/OSS movement, but a quick look at Red Hat's website tells me that they charge for most of their stuff now.
Taking out Red Hat would unify the market around Novell/Suse. At the end of the day the long term outcome would be the exact opposite of killing Linux. So it's a great way for MS to shoot themselves in the foot. Fire away ...
TCAP-Abort
All they would really be able to buy is the 'VAR' components.
The core is all open, so all that would happen is someone else would step up to the plate.
It might ruffle some feathers and slow the corporate Linux world down for a few months, but in the end no real damage.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Not so fast.
The RHAT board of directors could easily adopt a policy that states that any attempt to buy X% of the shares (for significant values of X) must be approved by the board. (I've worked in companies where X = 16, and this prevented hostile takeovers during the Wild West atmosphere of the dot-com era.)
Or issue preferred stock with restrictive covenants.
Or take on a dog-choking amount of debt that would make the MSFT takeover a Pyrrhic victory at best.
If you can keep your shareholders in line, you can keep the bullies at bay. Michael Dell, who just plunked down $99M of his own cash for RHAT shares, knows this too.
Relax....
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Is it just a coincidence that Michael Dell just invested $100 million of his own money in Red Hat, or could it be another case of insider trading?
Are you kidding? A Bush FTC won't do diddly-squat regarding enforcement of anti-trust laws.
My suggestion is you guys re-examine your options regarding increasing your support of Debian.
Microsoft supporting linux which does not directly compete with windows, is not that strange as Sun has a linux strategy (use solaris when it suits, use linux when it suits) when the products are much closer and much more in direct competition.
Maybe that is it, Microsoft wants to wipe out solaris, cheap at the price.
Be Free: Free Software Tuition
The moment I read that headline, I felt like something important might be about to die.
But giving myself a few minutes to calm down and rationalize, I realize that even if that were to happen, I would adjust and move on still... in fact, I've been kinda slowly motivated to SuSE since at work they are moving in that direction anyway what with the whole SuSE/Novell thing and being a Netware house and all.
But more than that, Microsoft cannot own or control Linux. They could package it any way they like which is what they might be inclined to do with it, but they don't need RedHat or their permission to do any of that.
What they might be inclined to buy are the people behind RedHat. Those experts in their fields are potentially invaluable when it comes to making special things happen with Linux. But even then, it would only slow things down... not stop them.
Even Microsoft doesn't have enough money to "buy" Linux or the people involved. There is potential for serious damage if they did, but like me, the rest of the community would adjust and keep moving...
But it's not Tuesday. Leave the trolling to the pros. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I hate to start a flame war, but how would we recognize when the assimilation was complete? How would Redhat conduct business differently? Don't MSoft and Redhat already answer to the same master?
Bah!
I have a controversial response to the part-line 'ain't gonna happen" comments.
1. Both Microsoft and Red Hat are under a great deal of pressure to deliver profits.
2. Currently, innovation is not coming at the pace that it did in the 90's. In any publicly traded industry, this leads to consolidation. (AdobeMedia anyone?)
3. Price of both companies shares has stagnated. This generally fuels consolidation because shareholders demand high profits.
4. Red Hat is not as cash-rich as MS, but they are the -clear- leader in enterprise linux.
The acquisition would be good for Microsoft.
-They buy the undisputed leader in the segment
-Make Red Hat the red-headed step-child in terms of price and service to Winblows server. This crushes the Sun and Novell Linux strategy and puts them in-play versus IBM.
-Fire most of Red Hat's engineers to keep the business profitable at rock-bottom prices, maintain the distro and stifle competitive innovation.
Now, the humans running MS would likely be mortally opposed to it as many have pointed out. And from a common-sense perspective it should qualify as anti-competitive, but the legal world doesn't run on common sense.
From a Microsoft business perspective, it is a -great- idea.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
"he biggest threat Red Hat faces right now is that IBM could settle with SCO and then release its own Linux along with workstations and servers based on the Cell processor. "
Why would IBM have to settle with SCO to release Linux Workstations and servers on the Cell processor? Is there evidence that the SCO suit is having any impact on Linux deployments?
-Nuke the moon
The elephant in the room here is Sun Solaris.
Microsoft and Sun have been doing a lot of deals recently. Think about it.
Stick Men
My customer base is primarily engineering design firms - CAD. CAD software companies love Redhat, apparently, and they won't talk to you unless you're running it.
It seems weird until you think about it, but many of them support Redhat 7.2 and all of its problems, but not Debian and its etched-in-stone stability.
Blech. Sometimes I want to drop all this computer crap and sell strawberries or something.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
If Microsoft buys Red Hat, then will Fedora Core get better or worse?
[o]_O
I agree completely. That comparison is completely off-base and ignores completely the contributions that Red Hat has made BACK into the community. Red Hat does not simply repackage the innovations of others like MS does (and as hinted to in that article). I hate it when people spread such lies.
It would make far more sense for Microsoft to invest in Red Hat than buy it outright. Look at their investment in Apple if you'd like a precedent. The idea has several advantages:
I'm not saying this is likely, but it would make a lot more sense and with as much cash as MS has, they can certainly afford either option. However, investing in an established rival is behavior Microsoft has exhibited before, and they do seem very much to not learn any new tricks.
MS typically likes to buy everything they work with. I don't think they would feel comfortable adding to a codebase they didn't own. Also if they acquired red hat specifically they could screw with other companies which they also like to do.
Yes it sure looks that there is no substance at all to the blogentry apart from some whatif's.
It appears they used the olde MS vs linux formula:
combine MS and linux in one headline and you are guaranteed to have slashdot come over and look at your ads.
Let's see what else I can come up with:
MS hates Linux: for hash words on some conference
MS denies Linux: same event, please tear me down version(but still give the attention)
MS fights Linux: MS will make better product (in the future) then linux (as it is now).
MS defeats Linux: newsgrab pointless statistics.
MS buys Linux: Pie in the sky line this one.
MS Improves linux: MS trying to drive a wedge in Linux by releasing a binary-only kernel module.
MS embraces Linux: will make extensions later.
MS Loves Linux: but only for that strict niche.
MS acknowledges Linux: so what but will make MS seem realistic.
MS sells Linux: to the highers bidder after gutting it from customers?
MS verb Linux: the central theme that gets you good catchy headlines.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
And in other news, Nike might purchase Birkenstock. Don't get me wrong, I've got no reason to think that'll happen, but hey, anything's possible, right? That's a good enough excuse for a story!
Seriously...where's the evidence here? This guy just throws out this outlandishly wild conjecture, and has absolutely dick to back it up. What an asshole.
Of course, that's not the only abject idiocy here...anyone who thinks IBM might settle with SCO has totally lost his marbles. And IBM won't ever release its own version of Linux under any circumstances....if AIX didn't prove to them that nobody wanted an IBM operating system, OS2 did. Those guys are shouting from the mountaintops about open systems and standards, and are making big money selling the services to go with them. They don't want to own the distro.
But the big thing from my perspective is that this dickhead just totally made this story up based on some wild acid hallucination he had...there isn't a story here, but that's not stopping ZD.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
If Microsoft buys RedHat, three things will happen:
(1) Fedora and all the good will of open source developers towards RedHat will dry up.
(2) The expectation is that, RHEL and Fedora will be gutted or hobbled (no matter what Microsoft says), so current users will look to alternatives.
(3) RHEL clones (see http://lwn.net/Articles/129698/ ) would recieve the bulk of the community behind RHEL, and Fedora's community would migrate to Ubuntu or some offshoot of Ubuntu that has a focus similar to Fedora (e.g. multiple CDs, SELinux ported, Fedora tools ported).
I'll eat my (Red) Hat!
I also think that's what they'd do.
One thing missing in their new company, though, is the huge IPO warchest Redhat won during the late nineties tech IPO craze. I'm guessing these folks would have to turn to IBM for funding or absorbtion.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Red Hat has name recognition which is worth alot. True, the hardcore Linux crowd would flip out and run from Red Hat - yet there is an emerging wave of late adopters coming around. Having a well established brand gives you quite an advantage with the low tech plebians. Some of these people who who might be wanting to try Linux may be hesitating on their perception that they couldn't get decent tech support for it. This may or not be the case, but the perception IS there.
/. crowd usually misses is the perspective of the "average end user." This group couldn't give a rat's ass about who makes what Linux distro, that's part of what is preventing them from adopting it - it's too confusing to them. If you can convince the less informed that you offer up all the greatness of Linux, with the ease of installing Windows (come on, it IS easy), then you have positioned yourself to be the first choice of adoption by those who don't know what they are doing. Microsoft also has the resources to change RH to include the drivers for everything under the sun, that alone is huge.
The existing Linux community has done such a good job touting itself that it is now garnering the attention of the "hapless end user market." There is alot of money there, and Microsoft can smell it. Microsoft can curb the loss of its userbase by offering up its version of the alternative. Add some marketing spin and viola!
What I think that the
There is also the outside chance that Microsoft could be really benevolent with this and begin releasing a version of Windows that comes with the ability to dual boot to it's flavor of Linux. I'm not holding my breath there, but it could happen. Or not.
Wow, this could give Microsoft a usable operating system.
Except they have no experience selling stuff that works. this could be very disorienting indeed.
And what about the customers, what are they going to think when they stop getting all those cool viruses,? Of course, I would expect MS to add the official MS viral operating environment right on top of Linux, since that's what the users need. because at MS, they are all about those users, and what they need and shit.
GrokLaw readers will recognize Paul Murphy as the SYS-CON writer who likes to defend SCO. The statement from the ZDNet blog that should raise a red flag is this:
Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that F/OSS business are supposed to sell support with their Free licenses, not the other way around. The only rebellion I see against traditional software vendors like Microsoft, not RedHat. This guy is just spreading FUD.
Seriously, the man has so much money, why doesn't he just do it?
Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein
Please. This whole article is just wild speculation on a closed talk between the two companies.
Wasn't it about a week ago now there was a Slashdot story about Microsoft trying to talk to the open source community about opening standards and interoperability? Could it be this was talk about that? Maybe all they were talking about was their favorite flavors of Benn and Jerry's Ice Cream.
Point is we don't know what they were discussing. Everyone is crying Chicken Little before it is really neccessary.
Deep from an obscure unlisted URL somewhere in the slashdot FAQ:
:-)
Q: Many of my article submissions on slashdot seem to go unnoticed. How can I generate more interest and responses--even if they're a bunch of flaming retorts?
A: While the interests and levels of expertise on slashdot cover their entire respective spectrums, one sure-fire way to get guaranteed attention on slashdot is to post anything with the words "Microsoft" and "Linux" in the same subject line. You're likely to receive more attention if the submission implies any of the following:
1. Microsoft does anything superior to Linux
2. Microsoft wants to buy/cheat/steal anything from the Linux community.
3. Microsoft makes any business move to check Open Source/FSF initiatives.
Submissions that point out the obvious will be appended only with posts of the "Me too" nature. Be sure to punch it up with a new spin or a repeat of a post that is at least 30 days old.
It should also be noted that any submissions or posts that are PRO-Microsoft will be rejected or modded down respectively. Be sure to bash MS thoughtfully and thoroughly with disputable data, imaginative spelling, and ambiguous grammar.
SEE ALSO: Flaming, Linux Bigotry, Open Source Zealotry, and Mac Fanboy posts.
[big, cheesy "I-just-bonked-your-daughter" grin]
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
If they don't re-brand it as their own, they could buy them out and kill the product. Why not? It happens in the corporate world every single day. Buying Red Hat would cost Microsoft very little, and would actually give them exactly what they need...the insight into the Linux community and development process that they need.
I don't like this idea, but I can't discount it.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
MS Bob for Linux?
01/20/09
This just in... Microsoft breaks linux...
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Micosoft went into someone else yard (in this case the browser market,) and ended up using monopolistic, illegal anti-competitive marketing tactics until they dfecimated the opposition.
They are planning to do the same thing with Linux. (They already tried to scare Linux users with SCO and it didn't work out too well.) They are going to 'improve' Linux until its dead as a door nail.
If it not RedHat, it'll be some other player. Starting with RedHat is easier because they have the biggest client base.
Then they'll go after the next biggest one.
I'm not too worried about the FTC and neither's Microsoft. There are enough accounting scandals out there to keep them busy.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Also, no self-respecting Linux user would continue to use Red Hat if it were owned by MS; they know this, they would just run it into the ground. This is not all bad for MS except that they'll solidify SUSE's place at the table. With Mandriva/Mandrake trying to redefine itself and RH part of the evil empire, there would be one distro to rule them all. Suddenly all the support/money being spread among the major commercial distros is focused into SUSE. That's traction MS won't want to give anyone.
I'm not taking anything away from the other Linux distros, just being realistic about how much weight SUSE currently has among the commercial Linux world.
SEO Firefox Extension
/. readers would remember the viral code FUD. Most end users and a fair portion of CIO's just want THE BIGGEST NAME IN THE BUSINESS BECAUSE IT IS the "cya" choice. So they would forget last years FUD.
As others comment, this proposed buy-out cannot be for Red Hat's linuxness...that is unownable. But RH is at the moment, in the Linux market, the biggest name in the business. They know something microsoft hasn't got the culture to learn: making a little money out of the value-add of packaging OSS. Microsoft reads their own FUD and has willfully been blinding themselves to what Linux really means to users and administrators...until now. What others have commented about this being Microsoft's admission about the merits of Linux vs Windows is true but it is not a valid conclusion to suppose that people who were dull enough to be content with Windows in the first place would suddenly be sharp enough to be put off by Microsoft's about-face.
On the other hand, I agree that FTC really should whack Microsoft if they try this.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
... I mean, what, buy RHAT for its business relationships? The code is _poison_ to Microsoft since it can't be integrated with anything they have without the threat (legit or not) of having legacy stuff 'tainted' by GPL.
Unless MS is planning something much bigger than I think they have the imagination for, the idea of RHMS is facially stupid.
Besides, IMHO, not a big fan of RHAT ever since the RH9 debacle. SuSE is looking better in terms of corporate desktop support, and I'd prefer to build new businesses off Gentoo anyways.
Apart from the fact that it less than 2% of the cash reserves (reserves) none of the board have as much clout as Bill G.
If he wants it, it will come to pass. Its only money after all.
Look at the XBox. Now Microsoft's getting into hardware, in direct competition with the chumps who used to be their 'partners.'
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I'm treading on really uncertain grounds, so please clarify wherever I'm confused.
Right now, Red Hat is able to pay salaries, etc. through its cash holdings generated by the IPO and its modest revenue. If Redhat sells to Microsoft and the principals leave, the IPO cash stays with Microsoft and the only people getting paid are the shareholders. For the principals to start a new company, they'd need to get a huge investment to be able to pay salaries until it went public or enjoyed profitability. I suppose the principals could fund it out of their own personal profits from the Microsoft sale...
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Yes, M$ could buy RedHat and someone else would just step up to the plate.... As far as Distros go, it's kinda irrelevant in my world. I started building my own a relatively long time ago now and I manage the updates for myself and others that are interested.... Yes, it was originally based on Fedora and yes I would miss the extremely good work they are doing for the cause - but all that would be needed to keep going would be another corporate sponsor.... RedHat may be M$s most visible competition, but in reality *all* linux distros are competition and unless they are ready to pay everyone a large amount of money to *not* develop Linux applications, I dont think they would use this tactic to stem the tide... Perhaps they can get GW and the US government to pay Linux Distro Builders a subsidy not to build - kinda like the farming industry. Of course, on the other hand, actual creation of software products is now pretty much irrelevant in the "Great Marketing Department in the West" - the real hotbeds of activity are in Europe, Asia and Latin America - perhaps M$ can buy some governments to stem the problem there....
BTW, Bill G - Still waiting for my check....
For every good and bad reasons given by fellow ./ers I say we will never see such thing.
I, for one, welcome our new Microsoft Linux overlord.
It seems the common beliefs here are that a)MS will never buy redhat or b) they are just out to undermine IBM. Another thought is considering the level of grief (from this site and others) that Microsoft gets over continually providing backwards compatibility and thus exposing itself to vulnerabilites, performance problems, etc. maybe they are looking to take a page out of Apple's book (again) and take a stable OS and create a new commercial product from it.
A few hundred million dollars more in the pockets of open-source friendly people can't be bad. And the next half dozen distros to take up the slack are in the wings.
Red Hat is a company that wants to be Microsoft and, like Microsoft, makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas."
Boy, that's a really stupid comment - even by Slashdot standards.
Has our anonymous submitter ever bothered to look and see just how many of those "other people" that are doing the development work for Linux have email addresses that end in "redhat.com"?
#DeleteChrome
The Executive team at Microsoft is so focused on taking on and taking out Linux that this would be laughed out of the room...
Buying the company only to shut it down would nonetheless be consistent with your premises, don't you agree?
The biggest threat Red Hat faces right now is that IBM could settle with SCO and then release its own Linux along with workstations and servers based on the Cell processor.
IBM doesn't need to settle with SCO to release it's own version of Linux. All it needs to do is... release it's own version of Linux. Hell, they could download RHEL, rebuild, rebadge, and sell that.
Given that Cell outperforms x86 by an order of magnitude and doesn't have the security weaknesses built into the x86, this would leave them fighting to hold an ever decreasing share of a shrinking market.
What insightful commentary. Anyone who seriously believes the Cell processor outperforms conventional architectures by "an order of magnitude" for anything but specialized tasks needs to lay off the crack pipe. That big impressing 256 GFlop figure that's been bandied around is the theoretical "if you fill every pipeline" number, is almost entirely comprised of FP operations (guess what - most business servers aren't busy rendering pretty pictures), and is for a single precision pipeline which rounds in a non-standard way.
Know what the performance hit is for IEEE854 double precision FP? A full order of magnitude. There goes all that theoretical performance, and you lose the benefit of the industry dominant instruction set, and gain a whole set of programming peculiarities of the new architecture, such as the lack of a branch prediction unit even in the PPC core.
IBM, Apple, CA and other "large" or potentially more suitable/deserving suitor companies better band together to stop even another HINT of stories like this in which mshaft *might* be thinking of acquiring Red Hat. Red Hat, if bought by ms really WOULD "dead rat".
Not to mention: probably the entire community would scream and fight like hell and fragment like crazy. So, this could be one of mshaft's attempts, and if not an attempt, an eventuality if they fund and fuel the notion they will buy Red Hat...
Moreover, it would be utterly putrid, reprehensible, contemptable, and "votiminus" that mshaft would EVEN get it's bloodied, dirty hands on that much Open Source material and try to "own" or "innovate" it. But, then if others feel the way I do, ms probably would hope for a "mass suicide" or spiritual implosion of the Open Source community. Why? Because many of the licensing schemes designed to PROTECT Linux very well could be used in ms' favor of they buy Red Had lock, stock and barrel. Should that happen, then many devs would either struggle to come up with a new licensed designed to go totally proprietary, thereby undermining the FSF, Lessig, Raymond, and others, OR, mshaft would cause such fear in Open Source developers that they just quit the team out of disgust, thereby, mshaft "puts vinegar in the milk" or sugar in the gas tank.
Disgusting. SHould this happen, I dare say that IF there were to be another target struck in the US and votes were being taken, you KNOW where my ballot would go...
David Syes
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Anyone? Bueller?
Anyone know what the meeting was actually about, then, since everyone seems agreed that an acquisition is pretty obviously unthinkable?
you had me at #!
That's a great model. In fact, that's what Apple's doing now, selling NextStep!
And that's what Next did, selling Mach and PostScript!
Oh, your name might not be Bob, but do you remember Bob?
The difference is that when they make a mistake they have so much going on that they just cover it over. May be that is the longhorn to go. I mean long way to go, of course.
...embrace and extend.
Break up Redhat to disrupt the Linux market
Make Linux the core of MS' business model
The former would be lame, since IBM is in the position to pick up the RH Enterprise Edition business with SuSE. The latter would be too revolutionary, and MSFT share prices would see an unacceptable drop. It would be reasonable to assume that IBM might react with a bid of its own. If IBM absorbed RDHT, it would still leave MS customers, shareholders, and employees with lots of (for MS) counterproductive FUD.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Pshaw. The Pentagon wastes more every day.
The truth is an offense, but not a sin.------R. N. Marley
I for one welcome our new Microsoft overlor.......
Wait... ummm..... Wow. Deja vu.....
I think this article shows how stupid many people are.
/. (and that says something) ;-)
There is NO WAY this will happen. There is a MUCH better chance of Saddam Hussien being elected president of the USA.
Some people want sooooo badly for someone to pay attention to them, they'll say anything to get a little attention!
This may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
M$ would do it, Simply Buy out redhat, claim back the code used in linux that redhat contributed (even if it's illegal to do so) and sue the linux devs for using "their" code.
shut down linux and gnome, linux would have to go back to the days of yore, pre-1997, and microsoft would have no one to worry about competing with.
It could be that simple, Might be wrong, but this would allow them a grasp of power over opensource to crush it.
Let's hope this is rumor and hearsay.
or else your use of linux may be deemed illegal.
What you're missing is that it is a lot easier for regulators to block a proposed merger deal, than to try to convict and punish a company for being a monopoly. All they have to do is say "no", then Microsoft would have to go to court to overturn them. They don't even have to give an outright "no", they can hold up the merger indefinitely asking for more information about the effect on the market.
FTC regulators have held up far smaller software acquistions, even though they work for George Bush.
Simply put, Microsoft will not be allowed to buy Red Hat or Sun. Even with Bush in charge.
Full disclosure: I own a very small number of RHAT shares.
I see no reason for MSFT to buy RHAT, even for the purpose of shutting it down. If MSFT was dumb enough to start such negotiations, RHAT would just let the rumor leak and drag out the process while their stock soars. RHAT shares have been doing quite well lately, fueled by nothing more than an OLD revelation about Michael Dell and his $100M investment. An MSFT buyout rumor would further pump the price of RHAT without any need for increased earnings or expanded market share.
A real or vaporous MSFT buyout would be like tricking Al Qaeda into promoting US Treasury Bonds.
David, It's time to take your meds now.
Microsoft buying RedHat? I wonder when are they going to buy FSF and RMS, then :). Apocalypse is coming.
echo "getuid(){return 0;}" > e.c; gcc -shared -o e.so e.c; LD_PRELOAD=./e.so sh
Although Microsoft has access to Linux just like everyone else, buying Red Hat would put MS knee-deep in GPL code and give them employees who have intimate knowledge of how that code works.
While it might be difficult to prove, this would open Microsoft up to accusations of assimilating GPL code in to Windows.
Linux is GPL'ed, DOH... the code is there, they just have to download it.
and gives them an offer that They Can't Refuse.
Seriously...where's the evidence here? This guy just throws out this outlandishly wild conjecture, and has absolutely dick to back it up.
There isn't any evidence. And apparently blogs have been promoted to gospel. In other news, Rush Limbaugh might marry Michael Jackson, Usama Bin Laden might apply for US citizenship and Bill Gates might give all his money to charity and become a Buddhist monk. Yeah. Sure. I'd go with your LSD theory.
Making the world a better place, one psychotic episode at a time.
1. Shareholders like me - who own RHAT shares - would have to actually sell them to MSFT. So it would be a matter of large holders of shares selling out. Since I already own MSFT shares too, I'm not going to sell my RHAT shares to them.
2. This would open them up to severe penalties from the EU, that would make their former problems look like child's play.
3. They would have to become snappy dressers and wear Fedoras - red ones - and we all know that will never happen.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sheldon J. Plankton plots to buy-out the Krusty Krab from CEO Eugene H. Krabs, to obtain the legendary Krabby Patty recipe and establish a monopoly in Bikini Bottom's fast food sector. Oh wait... ;-)
Via la Chum Bucket !!!
Microsoft can buy whatever and whomever it wants...
I don't believe in sigs.
Using that theory (or more like zainy idea), wouldn't it make sense for M$ to buy up all of Apple, Redhat, IBM, Sun, Google, and whoever else is remotely close to taking them on?
First, it would send huge red flags to the DOJ regarding their monopoly, which would most likely result in a rejection + disastrous PR.
Second, why in the world would M$ want to make themselve larger a monopoly? Just so the DOJ can FINALLY break M$ up? M$ is smart. If anything they want to be in this position (intentional or not) whereby there's hardly any competition, but enough so that the DOJ leaves them alone.
eTrade SUCKS
So long as it's not a question of money I don't think Microsoft would ever have a look in.
Heheye, really... non-traceable, non-debilitating?
time ago (in another lifetime)... But, in any case, I'd rather have the fifth bottle in front of me than a fifth frontal lobotomy...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Man, I thought comments from ACs were bad, but story submissions from ACs REALLY suck.
I guess it's too late to Not Feed The Troll.
Anything is possible given time and money.
1. Access to RHEL patents (i.e. on their enterprise-level products and ideas). This could block other distros from implementing similar and crucial functionality.
2. Access to the internal records of the ultimate "Linux insider" and use that info to go after other Linux-centric businesses. They could make up false allegations and the market would do far more than think twice: They would drop Linux. Think of this as "SCO Botched It, We'll Do The Job Right Ourselves".
3. Getting intimate details on one of the most prestigious Linux customer-bases... an advantage for pushing Windows.
4. Pushing a DRM legislative agenda along with a Linux distro that has the only "DRM Done Right" implementation (which also happens to be propreitary code.
5. Acquiring one of the best "software rental" business examples in the industry (OK, RedHat is more about service contracts, but the congruence with renting cannot be overlooked).
6. "Open-washing" themselves the way Exxon green-washes.
As a legally recognized monopoly Microsoft CAN"T buy a competitor. The laws do not allow it.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
We don't let our marketing department write code, you do?
>> Red Hat '...makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas.'
We often see this assertion. It makes no sense.
Unless you buy or acquire your software directly from each individual developer, everyone cranking out Linux distributions is packaging and selling "other people's ideas".
You might as well argue that McDonald's got rich by stealing the idea of the hamburger.
Nothing more than simple opposition toward and envy of anyone that's successful.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
PAT
SEO Test: TIGI und SEBASTIAN - Online Shop - V
It's about money. Red Hat is an enterprise that exists to make money for its Shareholders. IF a deal paid a good premium to Red Hat shareholders, then, they would be foolish to sell out.
.NET, Office. Come on, if they actually had Visual Studio for Linux, KDE may as well just give up.
It's not unusual to have more than one O/S. IBM sells you more than one kind computer and more than one kind of operating system and has made a fair amount of money on it for years. MS could do the same.
It might save MS some money. They've got billions of dollars a year plowed into Windows R&D, and what are they getting out of it? Nothing? Where's the growth in Windows? MS could theoretically make a mountain of money simply by offering a migration path to Linux - everyone must migrate to their Linux Enterprise edition, and suddenly that's billions of dollars.
Finally, having control over the premium brand is an excellent way to hedge your bets. Microsoft would control the trump of Windows and the trump of Linux. Certainly having all of those Red Hat developers could make for better ports of things like
In short, Microsoft jumping on the Linux bandwagon is nothing less spectacular than IBM jumping on the PC bandwagon some decades ago. Remember then, they said that elephants couldn't tap dance? History has a way of proving rebellious pundits wrong.
This is my sig.
the article mentions something about suse being 'out of the picture'. this is a little off topic but i was just wondering why it see's suse as out of the picture... I must have missed something but suse seems to me to be doin pretty well under their novell overlords, and somehow found its way onto a large portion of the ibm notebooks at my college at least.... so somewhere it seems to be in the picute.
Haven't seen it mentioned yet, but...
what about the justice department and all of the various competition bodies?
Can't see this one getting the nod no matter how much money greases the skids.
That reminds me of the rumors in 1996 that Sun should/would buy Apple. See Sunworld or oreilly links for example. We know that Sun is in trouble and that Apple is doing well today. If MS does not recast ifself in a game company, I would not be surprised that RedHat will fare as well as Apple did, and that MS will dwindle.
Can someone out there who actually understands the stock market (that wouldn't be me) answer this: What percentage of Redhat is publicly purchasable right now in the first place? Even if they wanted to, could MS buy more than 50% of the company at all?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Luke, I am your father!
....Maybe MS would just go on and offer both OSes? Not saying stranger things have happened, but it's at least in the .1% realm of possibility if they bought them out. I get the impression that MS doesn't care as long as someone shoots them money for whatever they have.
BTW, small SPAM notice, Technocrat is back up after being down for a week.
I know it's been proposed before, but might they just build Longhorn on top of Linux? Maybe they already have some early code, and need an established source to really make it work and complete the picture.
Think of it as similar to Apple's Mac OS X. Darwin is open, but the Aqua/Quartz Extreme interface, built on Cocoa/Carbon/Java/QuickTime/OpenGL/WebCore isn't completely. Just for MS, it would be Aero/Aero Glass from Avalon/WindowsXP/C#/WMedia/DirectX/IE. Works out, doesn't it? Tho I don't think MS could pull it out of their arse. Apple just bought out NeXT. I suppose there's always BeOS...
Apple started with quite a few of the basic system segments still build on Carbon (many still are). QuickTime broke free as of version 7 (consider the non-modal export and live scaling, things Carbon wasn't designed for, but Cocoa/OpenGL are great at).
Lycestra
Moving team to China would just make linux stronge.
Private Sector Opensource developers still produce Opensource its normally in thier contract yep they code its Open Source.
Basicly Linux is stronger This will not weaken linux at all.
You kill redhat and Whitebox and Red Flag get a chance to rise.
Who pays for the larges percent of opensource software is the Free Software Foundation. And they can pass the hat around(grin) their members and make up any sort fall. Please Microsoft kill Redhat. Less infighting one less distro. Note Redhat is just a small part of the Free Software Foundation.
When it come to Dollars and Cents the members of the Free Software Foundation could buy Microsoft 100 times over and still be operational taking only 20 years to pay of out standing moneys.
Not even as a single IT company Microsoft is King of Dollars and cents Cisco Systems takes that title last time I checked.
There's a idea Microsoft takes over Redhat do a hostile take over on Microsoft. Each Member of the Free Software Foundation buys less than 1 percent when they have enough annonce the take over. I don't think you have to decare intent of a take over until over 10 percent. Free Software Foundation could be sitting on 55 percent before decaring. Ie its split between there members.
The advantage of a team over a single company.
M$ has more than enough money to buy the FTC and all the republikans it needs to insure passage of any required legislation. Lets face it, legislation nowadays simply goes to the highest bidder. He who pays the piper (or is it the rats nowadays) calls the tune. Why do you think Cheney met Gates prior to the M$ antitrust settlement? To share old Haliburton jokes?
M$ can always buy both RedHat and Sun and then throw a bone to the complainers, who politically don't amount to squat in a republikan congress anyway. Some added advertisment dollars to the press to ensure any fallout fades quickly from public view would also likely be needed as part of the total settlement. The legal stand will be that "in the end its good for customers". That will be good enough and if its not, they will pass on a few extra bucks toward "faith based iniatives" to insure that enough radical envangelists are enlisted to lobby the faithful.
My guess is they first see if they can pressure the stocks of both Red Hat and Sun before making a bid. That will save them money and assure that the corporate boards of Sun and Red Hat will be more willing to sacrifice their shareholders and customers in order to get their golden parachutes on the way out the door.
FTC will save us. You have got to be joking. Hell, the Hollywood lobbyists routinely rent these whores out several times a week. They are already known to be a cheap trick. Thankfully, I've heard they've all be castrated as a condition of appointment, so at least we don't have to worry about mutant progeny.
Up above, I rambled about why I think it makes good business sense (and could benefit linux as a whole). But I hadn't thought in terms of the stock market. Combine our two perspectives, and all of a sudden I'm wondering what's taking them so long to agree to a merger. :)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The fact that Novell bought SUSE changes nothing, and here's why:
Novell Inc. (NOVL) market capitalization: $2.24 billion.
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) market capitalization: $273 billion.
Could this have anything to do with the new Red Screen of Death? Are they planning to install this feature in RedHat, so that when you see a BSOD/RSOD you know what crashed (windows or linux)? What are they going to do to the distro to make it crash as often as windows? Are they going to rename the company DeadHat?
Go hug some trees.
Michale Dell's private investment arm has invested 100Million. So anybody who want's to buy REDHAT must shell out more than that to Dell alone and then think of other shareholders. Expensive BUY as Dell might move his investment into other Linux flavor to support his servers.
That's certainly the conventional wisdom. Everywhere but /., anyway.
But...
- OO.org is already an adequate replacement for MSOffice for many organizations, and 2.0 is getting close
- Crossover Office runs pretty much anything most corporate environments need, if OO.org doesn't cut it
- Mono is making excellent progress on Windows Forms
This year like many before it will not be The Year Of Desktop Linux. But I wouldn't bet large sums of money against Linux having a MacOS-sized marketshare in a few years.
bill will buy what bill wants.
M$ threatens to buy RH. RH baulks, resists. The merger comes ever so close. RH releases all proprietary code under the GPL. M$ winds up with merely a customer base they have to support.
Let's say RH doesn't release the code. Most of it is probably GPL'd anyway. RH is a services company by-and-large. At most M$ might challenge the GPL in court. All they would likely end up with is a customer base they have to support. Let's say they squash that. IBM and/or Novell pick up the pieces. Linux marches on. You've taken out 1 player but the OS continues. This is what Linux is supposed to do.
Of course having MS that much in the Linux community would most likely become an "embrace and extend", which would not be a 'good thing'.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
A troll? This was a funny post. I wish I had mod points.
Coke *did* announce they were ditching their old formula. Sort of. They announced "New Coke" (which everyone agreed tasted like Pepsi), and then in response to the backlash quickly introduced "Coke Classic." Within a few years New Coke was gone.
See the beauty of the plan? Tell the world, "OK, you win, we're going to make our stuff more like the competition." The customers howl in protest "but the competition tastes like sh1t!" You say "exactly," and switch back to business as usual with a much more faithful customer base. I think pretending to lose the cola wars was a pretty damn ballsy genius move.
I think the analogy breaks there, because if Microsoft pretended to embrace Linux and managed to torpedo a specific distro, others would just take its place. But Microsoft's tried something like this before (remember their attempt to hijack Java with a proprietary version).
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Somebody, somewhere, will be pushed too far and kill Bill. If Martin Luther King and John Lennon managed to attract their own screwballs to execute them, how has this asshole lived this long?
You're right: actual takeover is not necessary because the *threat* of takeover is good enough for their purposes. And, no, they would not be back where they started if Novell took the place of Red Hat, which they could not; in fact, Microsoft can only hope that Novell take over from Red Hat as the largest Linux vendor, in which case, they'd already be "in the Linux biz" because SuSE already sells a bundle that allows you to install Office. Actually, the whole thing is pretty sinister. Hang on to that iron structure for a moment; we may yet need it. 'Cause I think it's just the old Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt manoeuvre again. And it's a really clever one this time. They start by spreading the rumour that Red Hat could be taken over by Microsoft. If they do it well, this may shake people's confidence in the long-term viability of Red Hat as a provider of support for Fedora-based systems. If they do it really well, they may even cast doubt on the viability of Fedora itself by appearing to threaten a key corporate ally of the project. Microsoft chose Red Hat as the target of this rumour because Red Hat are true champions of the Linux cause, enjoying considerable and well-deserved goodwill credit with users, and losing them would deal a severe blow to morale in the free-software user community. And to whom would users whose confidence in Red Hat had been shaken turn? Well, many would turn to Debian, but many more still, I'm afraid, would turn to SuSE. That would be bad for free software and good for Microsoft. Here's why.
Historically, SuSE has been very friendly toward vendors of proprietary solutions. With SuSE's help, many non-free packages end up on the average SuSE Linux user's machine. At the most popular downtown bookstore here, you can even buy a SuSE bundle that allows you to install Microsoft Office on Linux. Recently, SuSE was acquired by Novell (a proprietary software vendor from Utah, whence the SCO Group also hails) and has gone even further in that direction. Now more than ever, SuSE has the mainstream consumer of PC software in mind when assembling its products, and their product development strategy reflects that: pile features up, lump binaries in, stick logos on, push colorful shrink-wrapped boxes out -- quickly, quickly, time's a-wastin'! Does this remind you of anything you've seen before? Maybe Microsoft already has its long, invisible tentacles in SuSE via Novell, who knows? In any case, this much is clear to me: Microsoft hopes to reign-in the long-term success of free software distributions in general by helping vendors like SuSE prevail over vendors like Red Hat; in other words, they want to bring the Linux distribution space, as a whole, to their arena, where they expect to win. Let me support that claim by indulging in a little thought-experiment. What happens when Joe Blow's first experience with a Linux-based free software distribution is almost indistinguishable from his experience with Windows or perhaps actually worse? In the worst case scenario, his misadventure discourages other would-be defectors and he is himself eventually recaptured by Redmond. And how often does this worse-case scenario arise? Too often, I fear.
Consider this: here, in Europe, the only Linux you can buy in your average store here is... SuSE Linux. And don't think for a minute that people are going to look for the nearest well-informed nerd and ask him what Linux distro he should get. No, people just figure SuSE must be the best and most professional, and that's why the big store sells it. And it's German, too, and Germans are known for their quality engineering, you know. Plus, look, it says it supports my brand-spanking-new cards and peripherals! So they buy it. Or they download it. Or borrow it. Whatever. They have decided to try to install SuSE. Then, often enough, comes the big disappointment. For example, the store-bought SuSE Linux my girlfriend installed on her computer after XP comm
The Honeywell-GE merger was forbidden by EC antitrust. How can you believe that they would let a convicted monopolist and abuser extend buy their most dangerous competitor ? Chances are absolutely zero and both Microsoft and RedHat know that.
You don't buy a company that compete with your own customers (HP, Dell, IBM...)
After all, what do you think Alan Cox does on vacation?
Linux Hacking!
... I dont see anything wrong with zealotry, but saying that Mac has none of the zealot attitudes is just a joke
He's trolled you for a third time! Ok, his special brand of FUD can be hard to spot, so it's forgivable. 'Paul Murphy' has mastered the art of masking bias behind a shell of hollow logic. Here's a sampling from various articles:
"Comparing the security implications of decisions to use Unix applications versus competitive Windows software can be both topical and technically interesting while offering real contributions to the Microsoft-vs.-open-source decision that go beyond simple technical analyses. For example, comparisons pitting Microsoft's peremptory approach to change against the somewhat austere consistency Sun imposes on the Java application model -- or the generally joyous abandon with which the PHP development community flings around ideas and implementations -- can contribute on both fact and judgmental levels to a strategic tools decision."
Wow! Is that good or what? Notice the barely-veiled praise for Sun, that's a recurring theme.
"One of the things that gives Linux its power in the public mind is that comparisons have historically been to Microsoft's Windows brand products, not to other versions of Unix. On all reasonable measures of performance, stability, and technical accessibility, Linux is well ahead of the latest Microsoft products and so shines in such comparisons. It is not, however, remotely a leading edge system in the same class with the BSD family of Unix products and Sun's Solaris."
You know, he's right. You really don't see that many 'Linux vs. Unix' comparisons. I wonder why.
"Remember too, that there are always other choices. It's true that at $23,549 (plus $1,295 for Linux), a dual processor (four-core) 8-GB system from IBM looks like a bargain. But you could cough up the extra $4,750 or so it takes to get the equivalent pSeries 550 with AIX or shave a few bucks off the top and get a Sun 440 with Solaris 10 preinstalled, a range of genuinely optional support options and no moral dilemmas or legal gotchas hiding in the relationships you get into when you buy the thing."
See what I mean? Now then. It is your geekly duty to calmly, quietly go forth to his website (winface.com) and familiarize yourself with the archived materials therein. I'm certain we'll be hearing from Mr. Murphy again in the near future.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3649/i s_199705/ai_n8761763
a lsID=842
_ 2.htm .NET Framework. ...
From : http://redmondmag.com/columns/article.asp?Editori
2. Brad Silverberg ?Silverberg is widely considered the man who launched Windows 95 and IE. He was lured from rival Borland Software, a move that incurred Borland founder Philippe Kahn's considerable wrath (nothing could be more grating to Kahn than a Microsoft limo showing up at Borland headquarters to whisk away a trusted lieutenant). After leaving Microsoft, Silverberg boarded his bike and pedaled around Canada for a month. Now he's a major force behind Ignition Partners, a VC firm that's a Who's Who of Redmond alumni, including Richard Tong and Cameron Myhrvold.
From: http://about.com/od/delphifornet/a/conspiracydnet
Do you know that the man behind Delphi is Anders Hejlsberg, one of the original members of the Borland company.
During his time with Borland he extended its' Turbo Pascal compiler. Eventually he became the chief architect for the team which produced the replacement for Turbo Pascal - Delphi. As a chief architect at Borland, Hejlsberg secretly turned Turbo Pascal into an object-oriented application development language, complete with a truly visual environment and superb database-access features. Once touted as the "VB killer," Delphi has remained a cornerstone product for Borland.
In 1996 he left Borland and joined Microsoft where he was the man behind J++ and the Windows Foundation Classes. More recently he has led the team which has created the C# programming language, and he's been a key participant in the development of the
According to the suit:?Among the defecting workers were Paul Gross, Borland's senior R&D VP, and Anders Hejlsberg, a major player in the development of Borland's technology.?Microsoft offered Paul Gross a $1 million signing bonus, stock options, and title to real estate near Microsoft's headquarters. He left Borland for Microsoft in September 1996.?Microsoft offered Anders Hejlsberg a signing bonus of $1.5 million and stock options. Microsoft doubled the bonus to $3 million after Borland made a counter-offer. Hejlsberg left Borland in October 1996.
Your paranoid rant forgot to mention that the Canopy Group (started by Novell founder Ray Noorda) has/had ownership positions in both SCO and Novell, and that Novell is now run by Eric Schmidt, who was Sun's longtime CTO.
I'm sure there are some other irrelevant connections that can be used to "support" moonbat paranoia, but these two are conspicuous by their absence.
It's rantings like this and the hatred of any sort of commerce (even if it *helps* the open source cause!) that will ultimately lead to the demise of open source, if we're not careful. Heck, Sun *invented* the concept of corporations making source available with NFS, and bought, paid for, and then *gave away* the world's only real Office alternative, but to hear people talk here, they're public enemy no. 2. Go figure. No, on second thought, there's no figuring required. Open sourcers, especially the virulently hatful GPL types, can never be thankful for anything. Like two-year olds, everything has to be *their way*, or they throw a tantrum. I'm becoming increasingly disgusted by this attitude as I grow older, and I know I'm not the only one...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
well itt happened with OS/2 ...... then all the development went into windows and OS/2 got 0 priority and just died .... the devil killed my favourite os ....
... so MS can part the linux users
.... but i swear i accessed it thru x2vnc and it is only a secondary screen on a secondary box for testing software :) realllyyy..... :)
I also see ONLY Redhat getting special drivers for M$-messed up protocolls
I also see that i do not give a damn !
because:
1. there is more flavours of linux, and i will go with a no M$ infected one
2. I hated redhat from the first moment for it's package management....
3. I love, kiss, lick, eat debian
4. If the linux mass get messed with I can still jump on an other unix flavour ((FREE)Bsd, or damn, even MAC/OSX is unix)
ps: oooohhhh hope you don't see my browser version, because then you know i am typing that on a windoz box
Looking at both the article and comments,
I can only think somebody launched a speculation, maybe just for the heck of it, maybe to try to feel the climate.
The trick why this move could (not) work, is whether MS and Red Hat would be looking for the same (or different) arguments, nicely stacked into the slashdot thread(s), to back an eventual decision on.
In a ludicrous world these days anything goes. Desperate companies make desperate moves, U turns, side-shifting and the like are happening at a rate when, if only cranked up one little bit, would stop making sense.
The fact is that the only really desperate player these days is SCO, with MS getting close to step in the line.
Others seem to be doing their businesses-as-usual and will only profit and then carry on if any odd moves take place.
Red Hat seems to be doing fine, but with the launch of Fedora and with new development in the F/O community every day, i.e. bypassing the java-trap I do not consider Red Hat being the main focus of anything.
If MS wanted to do a silver-bullet move (it goes without saying it will have to be against some of their past statements and strategies) it would have to to better than that and I'm definitely not the one to help them (at least not for free) out anyhow. Naturally, a moral aspect of victory is much more important in the FOSS world while the business pragmatism is much more of a virtue in the M$ empire, and that makes such speculation possible.
In my experience, such marriages of convenience take a lot more in order to happen.
Not to mention the biggest, obviously ignored obstacle in the plot: egos of the key players. What's next, in other news, Stallman leading a consultancy group in IBM?
Damn, will they AGAIN[1] relase real news instead of fake?
[1] First time: 1 place (at a certain moment of time) in google with "worst portal" keywords.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".