Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat?

Posted by timothy on from the sure-they-could dept.

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.

13 of 572 comments (clear)

  1. I don't think so... by bananahead · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is just not going to happen. The Executive team at Microsoft is so focused on taking on and taking out Linux that this would be laughed out of the room for the following reasons:

    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.
    1. Re:I don't think so... by l2718 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This is just not going to happen.

      Couldn't agree more. The Linux market offers little opportunities for complete domination. Moreover, could you really imagine Microsoft distributing software governed by the GPL after all the "viral code" FUD?

    2. Re:I don't think so... by justanyone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be

      1. This could be viewed as a 'strategic acquisition' so as to provide 'leading edge technologies' from wherever they were. Then, they could release brain-dead and damaged versions of RedHat Linux that failed under certain conditions; ...that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities...

      2. Admitting that Linux has redeeming qualities is not a problem given that the marketplace has already proved that. Like NASA's mantra, "Buy It and Kill It" (tm) would be an easy operation to undertake.

      It would dramatically confuse the market

      3. Dramatically confusing the market would work in Microsoft's favor. further, they would offer "upgrade paths" that start in Linux and go towards MS Server 2k3 in short order.

      As a way to reduce competition, this might make total sense. Yes, it would be profoundly evil, and the antitrust authorities might look at it that way, too, but given the Bush administration's justice dept., any challenge to (potential or actual) big money donors seems unlikely.

      --
      Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
    3. Re:I don't think so... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder if the Novell purchase of SuSe doesn't have something to do with this.
      Putting an old, familiar name on a distribution like Novell legitimizes the idea of using a Linux distro much more than reading, say, "polychromatic platypus" on the disks, especially when it all works well with Netware.
      Also, with Novell sponsoring Mono, and the threat of OpenOffice, seeing a C# port of MS Office to run on Mono would be an obvious way for Mr. Softy to keep the cash cow spouting the milk of currency.
      Recall, Redmond's only ideology is money; they leave the fanaticism to the FSF.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    4. Re:I don't think so... by team99parody · · Score: 5, Interesting
      One more reason - They're much more likely to buy Sun first.

      Why?

      • Sun has valuable patents that fit Microsoft's new IP strategy.
      • The can get their 2 billion back from Sun that way.
      • Sun and Microsoft have a good working relationship; could be rephrased as McNealey makes Balmer Smile
      • and most importantly, it seems like McNealey wants to sell
      Buying RedHat wouldn't hurt IBM at all considering that they're at least as much a SuSE/Novell partner as they are a redhat partner.
    5. Re:I don't think so... by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Exactly... people dont realize how much Red Hat does for the community. Most distros just package up pre-existing software and bundle it in an easy to use way. Red Hat actually writes the stuff and pays a lot of devlopers a lot of money to do it. They've contributed far more code then any other entity in the kernel, they also nearly completely coded all of Gnome except for a few tidbits here and there (they even host Gnome.org) They've done wonders for Open Office on linux, including coding GCJ so that all the java components for OO.o could be compiled natively and distributed without a JVM.(They also played a big role in getting OO.o to use native widgets) Red Hat coders also do a hell of a lot of coding for Apache and make major advancements in all sorts of areas like File Systems and enterprise stability. They were a key force in getting SELinux into the kernel, as well as coding most of the drivers that are used in your hardware, and are in large part a reason why linux is considered business ready today. Now they are pushing major advancements in Linux's graphics capabilities and giving it a modern day desktop with modern day capabilites. The list could go on for quite a bit longer but I think I'll stop there. For all the knocking that people do of Red Hat, they sure as hell do alot for the community.
      Regards,
      Steve

  2. Huh? Links to the stories - by thewldisntenuff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    First off - the link goes to someone's security blog - Here are the links to the Zdnet/News.com stories -

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?p=275 ">ZDnet story

    http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+tr end/2100-7344_3-5701700.html?tag=nefd.top">News.co m story

    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=05/05/05/224209 &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.........

    --
    My MythTV HowTo
  3. No Publicity is Bad Publicity by shrapnull · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You really have to wonder who comes up with this information. That's not even a believable story yet it gets replicated and gives Microsoft another 5 minutes of exposure all over the blog media.

    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.
  4. Better sense to buy Sun by rihock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 ./start_sig
  5. On MSFT buying SUNW by team99parody · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Wow. by gdek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:Oh, please.... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    After a while, yes. Let's play Devil's Advocate, though - I'm Microsoft and I can't get Longhorn out the door and Linux is catching up too fast.

    I need to slow down Linux.

    OK, who pays for a large chunk of Linux development? (it's easier to whack one big mole than several little ones) RedHat. RedHat contributes a heck of a lot of code to the open source community. IBM and Novell et.al. couldn't immediately take up all the slack if RedHat vanished tomorrow.

    Steps:
    1. Buy out RedHat. Announce no immediate changes.
    1.a. Some percentage of RedHat quits same day on principle and starts a new company
    1.a.I. It takes at least two years to get that company off the ground, with all the subscription management software, infrastructure, sales force, channel partnerships, certifications, etc.
    1.a.II. It takes 5 years to be back to the strength RedHat was at.
    1.a.III. These guys are out of the way.
    2. Announce all kinds of linux/microsoft synergies and interminglings
    3. Start a new .NET for linux project, and put most of the RHEL guys on it. Mono won't work for [fill in the reason].
    3.a. some of the team quits.
    3.a.I. Novell absorbs some of them
    3.a.II. IBM aborbs some more
    3.a.III Others get private sector jobs but have less time for open-source development. These guys are out of the way.
    3.b. Some of the team stays due to not wanting to move, etc. These guys are out of the way
    4. Repeat with other Microsoft technologies
    5. Ship Longhorn
    6. Cancel said projects. Disparage Linux as the reason. Move team to China.
    6.a. These guys are out of the way.

    There, another 5 years of market dominance achieved for a stock-leveraged RedHat takeover. The math is good. This is the right thing to do for Microsoft stockholders.

    Don't look at it as a long-term strategy, look at it as literally buying time. The Open-Source community may be able to out-code and out-architect Microsoft, but when it comes to dollars and cents Microsoft is king.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. No deal, but big fun for RHAT at M$ expense by dcavanaugh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.