Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red Hat Not Seeing Microsoft, Ubuntu as Threats

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the keeping-a-stiff-upper-lip dept.

Ian Price writes "Red Hat is shrugging off Microsoft's entry into the cluster computing space after Microsoft announced that it has completed the code for its Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003 targeting high-performance computing. From the article: 'Scott Crenshaw, general manager of enterprise Linux platform at Red Hat, dismissed Microsoft's entry into cluster computing. "They're playing catch-up," he said. "Linux is often associated with high-performance computing, but Windows has never achieved that on a large scale."' Crenshaw also commented with respect to Ubuntu: 'Their user base is still small, so we're not seeing the impact of it [Ubuntu] so far.'"

29 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Famous last words by HeavensBlade23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think Netscape was quoted as saying something similar shortly before Internet Explorer utterly destroyed their marketshare. If nothing else, don't underestimate Microsoft's ability to leverage their monopoly into new markets.

    1. Re:Famous last words by strider44 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure how they're going to leverage their monopoly for cluster computing... It's not as if they'll be giving it away with Windows Vista... More likely the purchasing officers with major enterprise vendors of cluster computing will get many free lunches in the next few months, and perhaps a free car or two.

    2. Re:Famous last words by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful
      In fact, that's the most historically successful Microsoft business strategy.

      You'd think one of the things about having a company is that you'd be able to take the talents of all the people in it and create an organization that could both innovate technologically, and bring those technologies to market competitively. But over the years I've come to doubt this. It's rare to have a company that does both; perhaps Google.

      Microsoft has consistently waited to for other companies to prove that a technology is feasible and that people will buy it. Then they step in and outmaneuver the technology innovators with their superior marketing.

      Examples:
      • PC Operating sytems/Digital Research
      • Network operating systems/Novell.
      • Disk compress/stacker.
      • GUIS/Apple
      • PDAs/Palm.
      • Web browers/Netscape.

      It's a very successful strategy. Somebody else takes the technical and marketing risks, then you move in steal their lunch money. Catch up is an expensive game to start, but if you can see the end it's a very safe investment. And it takes a set of attributes that are probably, in sum, unique to Microsoft: a keen eye for watching technology trends, a vast customer base, a large and talented engineering force and the resources to pour cash into a money losing product through rev 3.

      I think the rest of the world is on it's own revision 3 of "How to deal Microsoft".

      Revision 1 (ca. 80s) was treat them like an ordinary competitor (e.g. Borland). Darwinian evolution pretty much puts a stop to that, although the mutation does crop up now and then on a brand new evolutionary dead end.

      Revision 2 (ca 90s) was to tiptoe around them. You either tried to partner with them (bad idea, they take and don't give), or you tried to create a product and hoped you could get your money back before Microsoft crushed you (or if you were lucky they bought you -- patents as defensive armor). After Stacker, there was a sense that it almost wasn't worth trying

      Revision 3 (present day) is to compete with Microsoft by exploiting its cultural weaknesses. Slowness and stupidity aren't among them, but paternalism and philistinism are.

      Paternalism is deeply rooted in the MS world view. There are multiple ways this can be demonstrated, but none more iconic than the infamous Clippy, who earnestly wants to help (good) but thinks you're a rather helpless person (bad). If you can look at human/computer interaction on a scale than runs from software tools to intelligent agents, MS is firmly in the agent camp. They want the tool to do, not just the heavy lifting, but the heavy thinking for you. Cheerful and slapdash facades pasted over grotesque and ugly complexity abound in Microsoft's products. Microsoft would put smiley faces on an oil refinery and expect you to find it jolly.

      Google is an example of a rev 3 MS competitor, that thrives on Microsoft's culture of paternalism. One of their "innovations" hardly seems like an innovation at all: stripping the tool down to its bare essentials. It's very hard to resist the temptation to do a bit more; to juice things up a bit and call attention to things you want the user to pay attention to, not what the user wants to pay attention to. That's why people don't mind Google advertising; it's just there off to the side if you want it. And while most people never are aware of it, the truth is that more intrusive advertising doesn't do much better. And it does not work at all if your customers are on Google instead of your site.

      Philistinism and paternalism go hand in hand. Microsoft may not be a technical innovator, but it is definitely a technology company. It judges things along purely measurable parameters: how many bullets you can check on the punch list. Gestalt is not in their vocabulary. Therefore their products are messy, inelegant and ugly. The compound the ugliness by the aforementioned fondness for smiley face facades, tr

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Famous last words by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      More interesting is whether Vista will be capable of cluster computing: AS the legacies of DOS have fallen out of Microsoft support, and its core more moved towards the NT built by David Cutler with his stolen work from DEC's VMS, it's actually become more of a seriously powerful OS and could conceivably be up to the task.

      How do you steal something you invented ?

  2. Just like MS by Umbral+Blot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    'Their user base is still small, so we're not seeing the impact of it [Ubuntu] so far.'

    I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat.
    --

    Philosophy.
    1. Re:Just like MS by afaik_ianal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mind you, the article title is a bit misleading. They said they are not seeing the impact of Ubuntu yet. They didn't say that they do not see them as threats.

    2. Re:Just like MS by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat.

      I don't think RedHat and Microsoft see themselves in direct competition to each other -- RedHat's focus is on the enterprise Unix market and competitors like Sun. That pisses Microsoft off because they were waiting for UNIX to collapse and the customers to come running to Windows. But RedHat hasn't done a thing to MS's existing markets.

      On the other hand, Ubuntu is very much potential competition to RedHat because the software is more-or-less identical, and Ubuntu plans to sell similar support lifecycles.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    3. Re:Just like MS by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "I am sure Microsoft said the same thing about Red Hat. Pride goes before a fall Red Hat."

      I would take this more seriously if Red Hat were beating Microsoft on any significant measure. At best they might be winning the server OS market, which Microsoft never had. Microsoft has considerably more revenue and profit (something like a hundred times more).

      Anyway, there's no evidence that Microsoft and Red Hat compete. Red Hat mostly competes with unix providers (Sun, HP, etc.). Xandros and Mandrake are the ones targeting Microsoft's markets.

  3. Red Hat doesn't need to do much. by tapo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I remember when tech websites were clamoring over the latest Fedora release as much as they're clamoring over Ubuntu now. Red Hat almost got it right, except for one thing.


    Fix your package manager!

    I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.

    I switched to Ubuntu, even though it had less polish and was so deep in development, simply because application management actually worked, and things were in a logical order (supported, unsupported, universe, multiverse).

    Maybe it's not practical, maybe I'm talking out of my ass having not used a Red Hat operating system since Fedora Core 3, but it's the only thing that prevents me from using Fedora at home or on a server, and the only thing that prevents me from recommending it to friends.

    --
    "Joy is contagious," he said, peering into the microscope.
    1. Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. by mok000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember when tech websites were clamoring over the latest Fedora release as much as they're clamoring over Ubuntu now. Red Hat almost got it right, except for one thing.

      Fix your package manager!

      I am sick of downloading packages from weird websites, version conflicts, and typing this stupid and overly long command into the shell over and over, hoping - nay, praying - that RPM won't spit out another conflict error this time. YUM seems tacked on, and I've never gotten it to work properly.

      I have worked with both dpkg and rpm, and there is no question: rpm is vastly superior to dpkg, when it comes to building packages, checking what package a file belongs to, or verifying the installed software (can't do it with dpkg).

      Apt-get has been available for RPM for years, it works perfectly, it contacts the repo and installs whatever you need. And, there are other similar systems like yum, smart, and rhupdate. All are actively developed. If you can't get YUM to work it says more about your ability fo manage a system than it does of YUM and RPM. All you need to do is to edit one configuration file. And "tagged on"??!?? YUM is no more "tagged on" that apt-get. It's Unix, everything is "tagged on"!

      The big advantage of Debian (and Ubuntu) is that they have a centralized repo of thousands of packages (I think ~12000), and a set of strict guidelines for packagers to follow. Redhat does not distribute many packages (2000-3000), so you have to rely on third party repositories to go outside Redhat's vanilla selection. For example RPMforge.

      Wrt, Fedora, it is meant to be a playground for geeks who want to play around with the newest bleeding-edge versions of all the major packages. It is not for amateurs. It's for people who enjoy getting into the latest stuff and solving the problems that are there. So it's kind of silly to critizise them for not being completely without wrinkles! Having said that, it runs surprisingly well out of the box. If you want something really stable and well tested, you should go for CentOS or any of the other RHEL rebuilds.

    2. Re:Red Hat doesn't need to do much. by Jussi+K.+Kojootti · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Now, can we get over this Debian snobism "dpkg is soooooo much better than rpm....". It does nothing but shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
      You know, I really liked this conversation and learned new things. What I don't understand is the bad manners: why did you feel you had to say that? Let's see what happened in the conversation:

      mok00 starts with a good reply that shows some real knowledge. He also includes the comment "...rpm is vastly superior to dpkg when it comes to..."
      dondelelcaro replies with pretty good counter arguments to several points. He doesn't say that dpkg is necessarily better, just points out that "these things can be done fairly easily using dpkg"
      mok00: Now, can we get over this Debian snobism 'dpkg is soooooo much better than rpm....'"

      Where did that come from? As far as I can see you are the one making claims about "vast superiority"...

  4. Re:In related news... by afaik_ianal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Keep in mind this is just a PR piece. I'm sure Redhat is all too aware of the threat from their competitors. But they'd be idiots to go to the media and say, "Yes, we're really worried about the new Microsoft offering because it is superior to ours in so many ways." They will (and should) always talk down their competition externally. It is internally that they need to react to and manage the threat.

  5. indeed, ubuntu is unlikely a threat by nlago · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While I think ubuntu is really, really great, I don't see it offering any more of a challenge to RedHat than debian does; quite on the contrary, in fact, since ubuntu focuses on the desktop while RedHat and debian focus on the server (I know debian doesn't *officially* focus on the server, but still...).

    As for MS, well, they are usually able to strike a balance between "does not suck TOO much" and "has microsoft on the name" that appeals to a lot of people, even on corporate servers etc. Still, maybe the HPC market has people knowledgeable enough not to be impressed by branding alone.

    In that case, they will have to have a real appeal on the quality/performance front and, even in this case, will be fighting an uphill battle against the "established" systems. Maybe they will learn how it feels to be on the other side of competition?

    1. Re:indeed, ubuntu is unlikely a threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Don't underestimate a billionaire with too much time and money on his hands.
      pun intended, I mean Mark Shuttleworth.

      Ubuntu is still a new distro and just published their first LTS version.
      Way to go, but they're going the right way. Sooner or later Red Hat will see the impact considering the momentum Ubuntu currently gains.

  6. Microsoft's buisness plan by ThePengwin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Copy, Create, Conquer.

    They absolutely done it more than once. Im suprised how microsoft keeps getting away with it.

  7. Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat by layer3switch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For instance, they need to achieve a "critical mass" of users before hardware and software vendors certify their products against any Linux distribution, he explained.

    Ubuntu market and RHEL market is totally different. Ubuntu is "now" heading toward Enterprise desktop environment with support, but Ubuntu had and always has been about average joe's Desktop PC while RHEL had and always has been about heavily toward Enterprise customers. So I think, by reading the article, it looks like RH is taking Ubuntu as not a competitor, but rather as a grassroot movement trying to reach that "critical mass". And to be fair, Crenshaw did point out a very good point here. That is, popularity doesn't count for the vendor certification which is the industry embracing OS distro with hardware and software for better customer support and that is what Enterprise customers look for.

    Microsoft being in cluster market so late in the game, it's fair to say that MS had failed to grab the market share early on. So the statement in the article is accurate. Who knows if MS will monopolize cluster market share in coming years? But this statement is on the bull's eye.

    "Linux is often associated with high-performance computing, but Windows has never achieved that on a large scale."

    This has been the case for Microsoft. When Win2k Data Center edition was coming out, I was hoping better support for complete cluster suite, but wasn't satisfied with MS's offering with half baked solution and limitations. Besides, call me crazy, but 200+ cluster nodes, there is no way single Windows cluster node installation will be easier than a kickstart/NFS/bash script of RHEL cluster node. I don't know, maybe there is similar thing for Windows... I'm not a Windows guy, so I'm not sure. Please do correct me.

    --
    "Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
    1. Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ubuntu market and RHEL market is totally different. Ubuntu is "now" heading toward Enterprise desktop environment with support, but Ubuntu had and always has been about average joe's Desktop PC while RHEL had and always has been about heavily toward Enterprise customers.

      Ubuntu right now is your classic dotcom strategy -- blow through venture capital to get "eyeballs" and then figure out later how to build revenue out of that. And if Ubuntu can't figure it out, they end up just like Mandrake and Corel and all the other Linux Desktop business failures that have been forgotten about.

      The thing is that RedHat has "been there, done that" -- they survived off an enormous amount of VC for years as the "first mover". And after a decade, they eventually figured out you can't build a business off free downloads and $50 boxes -- there's just no profit in mass-marketing Linux. So they gave the finger to a lot of their loyalists and went Enterprise, and it worked. So, unless something has changed in the last few years, Ubuntu is going to have to do the same -- go where the money is (corporations) or die.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:Microsoft and Ubuntu not a threat by OneArmedMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      **but RedHat, SUSE, and Solaris are all established products. Ubuntu still has to figure out how to find customers that want to pay for it.**

      While this is true and i do agree with you. you still need to pay for those products up front.

      unless i am missing something the support service offered by Ubuntu / Canonical ( spl ) are support contracts .. the products are still free to use up front, and you only pay for support if you have a problem or want support for a large project.

      this still leans towards comunity based support for most ppl , but gives the PHB's that nice warm feeling they get when they have someone to call on / point the finger at

      and at $250USD for 10 cases, that doesnt seem so bad , specially when you compare the cost of getting an Real Live MS Tech on the phone... you do have your credit card handy right ???

  8. ubuntu is getting stronger by the day by WinEveryGame · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who has used Ubuntu lately on a desktop or a laptop can tell you that it is a strong altnernative to Red Hat. Red Hat will ignore Ubuntu at its peril.

  9. How Google trends see the situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Google trends on "Debian, Red Hat, CentOS, Ubuntu" Conclusion: Red Hat is in deep trouble.

  10. Microsoft? Not a huge market.. by Liquid-Gecka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I run Beowulf Clusters for a living.. Three to be exact. Two run Gentoo and one runs Mac OS. I see Mac OS as a far more likely product in clusters than Microsoft. And even then Mac OS is missing huge chunks of functionality in the cluster world. Checkpointing is broken using Condor and there is no third party apps for Grid Engine. Most programs fail to compile without some massaging. Often programs attempt to compile against native libraries rather than X11. This prevents remote users from using the apps.

    Even with all of this though programs can be made to work. I have something like 100 custom programs that needed installed on my clusters. NCBI tools, Bio apps, stuff like that. All of them are coded to Unix environments. Compiling them on windows would be a total pain in the butt! I keep hearing that new programs will be made to work but I don't see that happening all that much. Most new programs are forks of old programs. (At least in the Bio/Geo worlds.) I still have TONS of fortran stuff out there. Lots and lots of stuff that only compiles against GCC 2.95. These things need modified in order to work with a newer version of the SAME OS.. you think a total change is going to happen?

    Plus.. The cost of the OS can be killer. When you are talking $1200-$3400 a node an added $500 is huge! Our Mac OS cluster cost us $50k in software licenses. And its 50 nodes. Even if Microsoft drops the price to $100 a pop that is still REALLY expensive. $100 a pop across 50 nodes pays for a bunch more nodes!

    So I guess what I am saying is that unless Microsoft starts writing tons of its own apps it won't break into the cluster world very fast. They will be luck to grow as fast as Apple has (%1 of the top 500 list in 4 years).

  11. One thing I find commical.. by pavera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok, MS just released Cluster Server 2003... Um is my clock set right? It is 2006 right?

    What now in 3 years they are going to release Cluster Server 2005....

    And we're supposed to be worried about it? Their software is admittedly at least 3 years behind the times right there in the title of the software it says so.

  12. Even more strange... by ModernGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is the fact that Red Hat had been quoting Ghandi with the "First they ignore you..." stuff in some of their flash ad campaigns. Talk about practice what you preach. Seems like RedHat is turning into a big group of hypocrites. *hugs apt-get/debian*

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  13. This is silly by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Try it the other way around

    Microsoft Windows is often associated with desktop computing, but Linux has never achieved that on a large scale.

    So RedHat is basically saying that (RH)Linux will never ever be able compete on the desktop. Then why are they putting all the effort in it?

  14. Except that by DrYak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This time RedHat != Linux.

    If RH starts loosing market share, it'll more likely be to other Linux distributor or other opensource os, like suse,ubuntu,debian,openbsd,etc.
    It's not the whole Linux community of developppers ingoring they adversaries, it's only *a* specific solution vendor.
    You can kill distribution, but it's much harder to kill Linux as a whole.

    Netscape Navigator almost disappeared back then, because it depended on a sinle company and that company failed to notice the threat and lost market shares. ...

    That and I'm sure Microsoft will manage to build something that sucks in terms of scaliability, reliability and above all : possibility of customisation and reasonnable per-CPU license price.
    Some labs build huge clusters, this new Windows flavor must cost less than the "Windows Beginners Edition [a.k.a. 3rd world edition]" (*) and provide impeccable service, otherwise it can't compete with opensource softwares.

    Plus, unlike in the browser case, Microsoft can't try to leverage its desktop OS monopoly : you can bundle a browser on a widely deployed OS, but you can't "bundle a cluster" inside the OS - that sentence doesn't make sense.
    Clusters are mostly custom build to specific needs, by people who have enough technical knowledge to assemble whatever they need. Windows Cluster-flavor must attract them by its qualities, not because laziness drives them to choose whatever option came with the box...

    (*): ...hum... wonder if this windows flavor could be subverted as an even cheaper Windows to be installed on desktops. (I don't mind missing all "wonderful" features available in other flavors like the ActiveX-bugged IE or the DRM-laden Media Player. Just want a kernel that is compatible with games. I'll fix the gaps with OSS and stick to linux for the rest)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Except that by dwandy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Some labs build huge clusters, this new Windows flavor must cost less than the "Windows Beginners Edition [a.k.a. 3rd world edition]" (*) and provide impeccable service, otherwise it can't compete with opensource softwares.
      You're working under the false assumption that price is the sole/major factor when organisations choose products and services.
      If that were the case, Windows would have been wiped out by Linux 5yrs ago. Not only has it failed to wipe out Windows, we're still having the "is it ready for the desktop" debate.
      And you can't even argue the 'back-end vs desktop': the latest numbers show IIS is chipping away at Apache...

      There used to be a saying (maybe still is?) "You won't get fired for choosing IBM". Today this can easily be stated as: "You won't get fired for choosing Windows". There's plenty of CIO's that would rather pick the devil they know aka:Windows and have predictable and known problems that everyone else in the boardroom understands (and sadly expects!), than strike out into an 'unknown' platform with unknown risk for the sake of a coupl'a hundred grand -- and more importantly: risk their job.

      --
      If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
  15. yum is no help for RHEL by asv108 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yum works pretty well, it may be slow, but its a huge improvement. The problem is that yum is useless with RHEL. With RHEL customers are stuck with up2date, which is completely lacking. FC5 is solid distro but your inclusion of a long FAQ showcases my issues with Fedora and many other distros. People should not have to read a FAQ to play movies, visit flash websites, and use Java applets. It should all work out of the box..

  16. Ubuntu is biggest threat to RedHat and Microsoft by smilindog2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've made a few very long-term predictions that have come true... like the unilateral pullout from Gaza and the security fence/wall.

    Here's another: RedHat and Microsoft will both be seriously damaged by Ubuntu.

    Reasons why:

    - Opensource is the only trend Microsoft can't fight with money. As technology progresses, some applications (such as Netscape, Office, and Windows) become mature, old technologies, with little money left to go after. That's when open-source takes over. I'm a Microsoft fan, but I see the writing on the wall.

    - RedHat, who is practically in my back yard, and who powered my machines for the last five years, has really messed up. By splitting into Fedora and Enterprise, and then failing to support Fedora properly (actually sabotaging it), they've PO'ed the open-source community. By trying to control ALL software that their package manager can install, they've bitten off more than they can chew. By forcing their control over the entire distribution, and ingnoring many inovations being incorporated into distributions like Debian, they've lost their lead, and are now a poor overall distribution. RedHat still has a chance, but the long string of very poor decisions from RedHat are a solid indicator of more to come.

    --
    Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
  17. Is Red Hat Relevent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I have to keep asking this... given the incredibly high prices, very few places can afford to run RHEL. Fedora's not designed for servers or long term stability. An awful lot of us small-business and ISPs completely dumped Red Hat as soon as they implemented that. Nowadays, the closest thing to Red Hat that we're running is CentOS, and many went to SuSE or Debian or anything else, and now with Ubuntu offering a great alternative to Fedora, I don't see why anyone should care what Red Hat thinks.

    At one time, Red Hat was almost synonymous with Linux in eyes of many people. Can anyone realistically say that today?