Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu to Bring About Red Hat's Demise?
Tony Mobily has written a thought-provoking editorial for Free Software Magazine that makes the bold prediction of Red Hat's eventual demise at the hands of Mark Shuttleworth and Ubuntu. Calling on memories of Red Hat alienating their desktop user base to focus on their corporate customers and making money, Mobily states that many of those alienated desktop users are also system administrators who now feel more comfortable with Ubuntu and will make the choice to use Ubuntu Server over Red Hat now and in the future.
I really don't see this happening. Red Hat has a good presence in the server market, where as Ubuntu doesn't have that yet. I know Ubuntu is the "in" thing right now, but I don't see it toppling other vendors with established business models.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own!"
Feh. Lots of us abandoned Red Hat after the crappy RH9 and following carpet snatch. Red Hat didn't die then, and it isn't going to die now. Ubuntu's not going to change that any more than Gentoo did.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
One reason that Ubuntu will never be accepted: they don't offer the things that make beancounters sleep well at night. They don't have an "enterprise edition." They give it away for free - it can't be any good, right?
Ultimately, Red Hat targets corporate clients. Ubuntu doesn't. And it's not like that's bad!
Stop the presses! :)
I was one of those disaffected desktop users, but I still use RHEL (er...actually CentOS) for server machines that do real work. If you don't need bleeding edge desktop gadgets, it's still OK for desktop use as well. Ragging on RedHat because they had the temerity to focus on the part of their business that generated profit for them seems a bit harsh. There's plenty of other distros to choose from, including Ubuntu, if you want to live in the fast lane.
Cheers,
The article itself is a joke, and does not actually detail any valid reasons about why Ubuntu will displace Redhat in the market. The 5th and 6th paragraphs are nothing more than "I want to brown-nose Mark Shuttleworth" crap that also does not feed the main argument of the commentary^H^H^H^H rant. THe last two paragraphs which barely have any meat on them are nothing more than rants not backed by any citations, evidence, deep analytical thought, etc. The crux of the article revolves around Redhat alienating their desktop "not paying a penny freeloaders", which is retarded because a) redhat's revenue shotup when they mandated fees and b) umm, whats Fedora again ?
While I commend Ubuntu and everyone else for their efforts on the desktop front I think it is very important to note that beating Redhat is going to require quite the effort, skill and resources. Redhat still commands other distros in the areas of Income, Innovations, and the holy-grail-of-almost-everything: Marketing. SUSE has been trying to beat Redhat for how hard and how long ?
(Maybe this company is trying for the "Dvorak-angle", which is to write something dumb and generate lots of attention to a whole lot of nothin')
I think that he is wrong about the corporate market. There is too much momentum there. The corporate market needs experts when they ask questions like, "I'm running a 400 server farm, fiber switched, ..." As long as Redhat provides that expertise to corporate users, they will keep selling. Where Ubuntu will gain share is in the small office and growing organization markets, where choices have not yet been made, are made by newer system admins, or are strapped for cash.
Ubuntu was certified for IBM's db2: http://www.ubuntu.com/news/db2cert
However I think Ubuntu will only be used in small companies as desktops. Most people I know use either FreeBSD or Windows 2003 as their server OS.
My prediction is that Novell will gain significant marketshare in the enterprise OS sector. Especially after all those Netware servers migrate to SuSE.
Also, Novell seems to support the non-enterprise users more than Redhat (and their Opensuse distro is much more stable than Fedora).
Ubuntu is very nice. But it's server edition doesn't have the sanction of the interest of the rest of the world. Indeed for better or worse, RH has the attention of many entities, ranging from Oracle to IBM.
And to say that Ubuntu's server must be excellent because its desktop-focused distros are is like saying that Ford's trucks must be great because their cars are cool. Outwardly, it would appear that could be the case, but in reality market forces are completely different in cars and truck markets, just like they are in server and desktop distribution.
Ubuntu has done a rational job (and still incomplete) of making a viable desktop-focused OS. Yes, admins use it. Yes, they tend to use in one place (desktop) what they know for another application-- the server. Yet Ubuntu isn't that far away from RH. And the number of admins using strictly Linux is still very small, although growing a bit each day.
Summary: the lines don't join together in the logic. Yes, Ubuntu is cool, but it in no way spells the end of RH and it's juvenile to think so.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
if you love open source, I don't think you wish goodbye for Red Hat!
I'm using Ubuntu for desktop, Red Hat for server and Novell for workstation (collaboration), that the way they fits, Ubuntu being good for Desktop means only its good for desktop
plus! no boss will risk running a system no one certified to administrate
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
... is they live in a dream world.
I wonder when the last time was that any company got Microsoft to fix *any* bug they found in a released version of software?
It seems like even giants of industry can't get them to fix holes any faster than peons.
Why do so many people say that Ubuntu's not acceptable to enterprise because it doesn't have support, there's no one to blame, etc? Has no one ever gone to ubuntu.com and seen that big friggin' link at the top of the front page, which says "support"?
http://www.ubuntu.com/support/paid
Alternatively, has anyone ever actually used RedHat support? *I* wasn't impressed...
I don't know, I think it is fine how it is. You have Fedora Core for testing and for more desktop type use (things get updated faster) and if you don't want to pay for Red Hat then you can always go with Cent OS.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
One advantage Fedora has over Ubuntu is that Fedora releases a multi-disk set of packages. I work with computers that can't connect to the Internet, and I've found that the Fedora CDs almost always have all the packages I need. That's a huge benefit for those computers.
I guess I could be saved by utility that analysis the entire set of packages I'd need in order to install a given package on my computer. If I had a utility like that, I could walk over to an Internet-connected computer, download those packages onto a CD-R, and then install them on the computer that can't connect to the Internet. Or.... Ubuntu could start putting together CD/DVD sets that contained a larger fraction of popular packages than they can fit on one CD. Either development would let me kick Fedora out of the picture.
Interesting idea, but the wrong target. Red Hat have spent years and much skill building up their strong position in the enterprise and no other Linux outfit is likely to be dislodging them any time soon.
Much more vulnerable are Novell/SuSE and their rather hamfisted "me too" strategies and lesser distros like Mandriva. Those are the ones Ubuntu is likely to take market share from. SuSE could be especially vulnerable since their OpenSuSE "community" distro is arguably just a corporate sham with very little of a true community about it.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
and I might agree. For the past 3 years, RedHat's activities have aroused quite a lot of suspicion and consternation. When they had the Desktop market ready for the taking (specially after Lindows aka Linspire bailed out, again suspiciously), RedHat went in for some shady dealings with SCO and generally fizzled out from the Desktop and Home user segment.
Ubuntu has taken these segments by storm, they have drivers for most Big Brand PCs that come with the Built For Windows crap sticker. The laptop segment, which has grown faster than desktops, is again well-served by Ubuntu, and RedHat just doesn't have any mindshare / marketshare on laptops.
Microsoft... well, they seem totally confused with laptops since 2000. The Tablet PC was botched... so many broken standards and half-assed attempts later, nobody seems to know or care what MS intends to do with these things, come Vista. How many laptops are gonna have 128MB VRAM or 2GB RAM on the motherboard? My guess is less than 10% of the market.
While RedHat has carved out it's own space in the server segment and has cut off Microsoft's top-end, Ubuntu has encroached on the lower end Desktops and the Laptops segments. With Vista's hardware specs (let alone drivers) still unknown, with about 6 months left... lack of clarity on certified Vista drivers etc., I think Microsoft has more reasons for worry than RedHat.
My $0.02, of course!
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Did anyone actually find a defense of his central argument in that "editorial?" All I saw was a bunch of Mark Shuttleworth cheerleading. Now, here's why he is wrong:
1) RedHat is a large Linux vendor and gives business people someone to deal with reliably.
2) RedHat has an entrenched userbase.
3) RedHat Enterprise Linux is a good distribution in its own right.
4) RedHat has great support from "enterprise vendors" such as Oracle.
RedHat is threatened, but it's manageable. It's the sort of competition that will make them better, not threaten their ability to survive and thrive.
I've used Ubuntu and think it's easy to use and all-around great. That said, I use Redhat and Fedora distributions extensively. I like the amount of big-picture experimentation, cutting-edge tools/libraries, and directly funded improvements (everything from the kernel to eclipse) that make it into the Fedora releases, and I like the known quantity, high-end hardware support, and commitment to long-term maintenance of the Redhat releases.
Friendly rivalries should stay friendly, especially when core foundations of the free software development model are under attack from government mandated and enforced DRM in hardware, extortion threats to the north american internet infrastructure, and increasing attempts to tie popular hardware APIs to closed platforms.
You'll want to download the "Alternate Install CD" instead of the "Desktop CD"
The low end always wins (eventually)
PCs (nearly) killed mainframes. Windows nearly killed unix, until free unix came along. Linux is eating into windows server. Ubuntu is eating into Red Hat.
Eventually the mass market product overruns the corporate product, but it takes a lot of time.
Ubuntu is better than Fedora in Desktop Market? People keep saying, ubuntu is cool, but I really don't see why it is? To me it is torture. Worse than Fedora on default fonts selection, official repositories do not have recent versions of software. Fedora do not have meaningless patches for should be default and consistent interfaces (like nautilus, add panel dialog etc.) It's way easier to find rpm of a release than .deb version. Also what's the point of having something installed and waiting hours for internet download time, instead of downloading a DVD while you were sleeping, and get everything at once.
For me ubuntu is no more than a buzz word, which uses Debian as a source of fame.
1) Create Linux Distribution ...
2) Gather Community
3) Create Server Version
4) Slashvertise with 'Other Distros Will Die' Prophecy
5)
6) Profit!
Writers call it a self-fulfilling prophecy. For those unaware of the term, it means that if the prophecy had not been spoken, it wouldn't have happened. But the very act of speaking the prophecy sets into motion a chain of events that will eventually cause the prophecy to come true.
I was planning to switch my (messed up) Slackware server to Ubuntu server a while back, but I got lazy. This made me remember that, and got me a little hyped on it again. Until I realized that it was simply a slashvertisement. (Yes, for a free product. Slashdot has sunk low this time.) My fever has abated, but I will still probably work on that tonight.
I noticed ubuntu.com/server wasn't coming up... I'm guessing their own server didn't survive.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Coming at this from a SysAdmin-who's-never-quite-made-the-switch point of view, there are a lot of us that haven't taken the Linux plunge yet. We fiddle with it and have installed Linux a few times to see what the hype is all about, but at the end of the day we work in a MS World and so we haven't "crossed over" yet. But we know we have to and so we're going to find the easiest, most powerful, and troublefree distro we can find. I recently downloaded Ubuntu 6.06 at the behest of a friend just to see what it looked like and liked it overall. I might even install it and play around with it, which is saying something because I've seen tons of distros that haven't really caught my fancy.
It's a brilliant strategy...one that big bad Microsoft has known for years. Get them hooked on the desktop and they'll go for the server. Ubuntu is just starting out and has nowhere the time in game that Red Hat has, and as such doesn't pose as large a risk as the article might have us believe. But still...it's a deadly strategy they're using and Red Hat (among others) would be wise to take note.
Install from the "Alternate CD" to get text based install, and disable ACPI and APIC (Should be help in the options menu for those, I forget what they are) just in case.
/dev/hdc" to disable dma on your cdrom if you have lots of read errors in your dmesg.
You may have to go to a console and do "hdparm -d 0
For one I doubt that a project that has the financial backing of a one man band will knock RH from its throne. Even if the man made $500M (minus the considerable cost of his little trip into space). RH has ten digit assets, a ton of A list partners and it actually has solutions besides the OS. The Enterprise needs solutions. A new kid on the block with a DVD will not cut it with the Global 2000. You need the building blocks that help these players to achieve their objectives. That means professional services, training, 24/7 support, certified hardware and, again, partners that they need to integrate these pretty complex solutions.
Several of Tony's arguments seem to be creative at best and lack substance. Did the packaged version of RH flop? Looking at RH today I tend to disagree as their packaged offering was the precursor of the succesfull business model they now have. It's called Evolution. You try something, shave and mold and hopefully get to a point where it works better. And it seems RH got it right given the fact that they are the leading vendor in this space. Were they too expensive? Well, if something like $100 for a packaged version is too much for a company I think that company should reevaluate their existence. According to Tony the Fedora split was "underfunded and the "community involvement" was patchy and disorganised". Besides the fact that any new project will always have growing pains, in the end it's the result that counts. Maybe Tony should install FC5, subscribe to the mailing lists and browse the ton of helpful websites focused on FC. I did and I see a vibrant community that is delivering a distro that gets better all the time. So in what way did RH "abandoned its desktop audience, to focus on the more lucrative corporate market"? What do you call the free Fedora Core distribution? What do you call the commercial desktop solution that RH offers? Seems they have been successful in sponsoring and creating solutions that will cater to more instead of less.
Tony continues to be creative with his statement that Shuttleworth "divert tons, and tons, and tons of GNU/Linux users away from Red Hat Linux, and towards Ubuntu Linux". Looking at RH's latest quarterly results I don't see them loosing "tons and tons of GNU/Linux users" to Ubuntu. Googling around I found no supporting information about the mass defection of RH customers to Ubuntu like Tony suggests.
All in all Tony has not presented a single fact to support his statements. He only makes bold claims which border on unsubstantiated RH/FC trashing. His feable attempt at writing an "editorial" should be taken with a rock of salt of similar size used for Maureen O'Gara's poo.
Pretty myopic view there, muftak. Red Hat was popular because it was so widely available. By widely available, I mean to users who might've otherwise not heard of Linux (or Slackware, or Debian, or whatever). Red Hat makes money on corporate support, so it stands to reason that corporate users are interested in not only what they get in the box, but the support they receive from the vendor.
I'm one of those alienated system administrators. I've been working with Red Hat as my primary $WORK distribution since 1997. This year I started putting Ubuntu on servers and find it to be so much less hassle. Each Ubuntu server saves my employer probably thousands of dollars a year not just in licensing costs but TCO as a whole. And the sysadmin team here actually enjoys working with it rather than griping like "WTF did RHAT do it that way?!?"
Red Hat will still be king in some markets but Ubuntu is going to eat its lunch in the mainstream in the next few years if they don't make some major changes to their business model soon.
on Ubuntu, I won't be installing anything but CentOS and RedHat 4 on my servers. I installed Ubuntu on my brand new laptop and I run it on my desktop mind you.
Yes, IBM DB2, is certified to run on Ubuntu and IBM will support it. Same thing for MySQL but until something like Tivoli Storage Manager or WebSphere Application Server or BEA or any other host of products are certified and are listed as "supported configurations" by vendors, Ubuntu will only be for non-commerical applications in the corporate world.
Our model is RedHat for stuff that requires a support contract (WebSphere, TSM) and CentOS for development boxes or things like our Apache servers, CUPS servers and what not. It provides the same interface and knowledge as the RHEL stuff so there's no need to document something different.
I honestly think what's going to eat RHAT's lunch in the smaller markets is CentOS.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I am a linux SA for a fortune 250 company. We use RedHat on 500 servers, not cause I like that distrobution the most, but because its certified with our applications, jboss, oracle, webjet, etc. We can't do billion dollar database transactions and be SOX compliant with out being able to show certifications of applications. Thats just how it is folks
Redhat's enterprise support is a joke, they will find any excuse to not "support your configuration".
When I call Novell, I talk to actual engineers who can help me, not some dipship $5.15/hr college student who is reading from a queue card.
Generally I agree that RedHat is a crappy product compared to other Linuxes like Ubuntu and Suse. The flip side is that with Novell i.e. Suse AFAIK you don't have a project like Centos, which is binary compatible with the RedHat ES/AS product but is free and you get patches. This can be an advantage if you want to create a test setup for a product has been certified for RedHat ES/AS but are on a shoestring budget and don't want the hassle of dealing with the issues that can arrise if you try to install that same prodcut on Fedora or Ubuntu. Oracle products are a case in point. Installations of Oracle Application server, Database... the list goes on... that go without a hitch on RedHat ES/AS and Centos can be problematic on Fedora. Pracitcally every manufacturer of commercial Linux software certifies his products to work with certain versions of RedHat ES/AS so it is hard to avoid using Red Hat unless you are willing to put in the extra time it takes to debug an installation of your RedHat certified Linux software on an uncertified Linux distro.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
I meant a choice during the install procedure, when I finish a install of fedora I can have my system correctly installed with all the options I need, gcc, dev packages and etc.
:-D
Yes, because how hard is it to pop open a terminal and type the following lines to solve your problem:
apt-get install gcc-4.0
apt-get install make
apt-get build-dep gnome
There ya go--all the gnome-dev headers, gcc, and make. Just about EVERY program in the Ubuntu and Debian repositories honors build-dep.
Also if the program is already packaged I usually don't need to compile it, so the apt-get command you refered is not very usefull, but it is good to know it exists.
See above. Obviously build-dep would be useful in the very circumstance you mentioned in your previous point.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I'm a LONG TIME Redhat fan. I started at 4.0 and stayed on until FC4. There are several things that Redhat has stopped doing, owed to their business-school strategy that just doesn't work, here.
/etc/ldap and installs with enough "database" to get you started. Even without the nice LDAP GUI that Redhat made, I think this might be simpler and quicker. No complications, no stupid Java behemoth, just good native code like it should be.
:)
XCDRoast: the author of this program has his stuff together; he makes it available for many distros and in most places it works, but at Redhat they see fit to edit the code to get along with their SUID plan. It works, but are they going to shoehorn all packages like this? There are _thousands_.
LDAP: the OpenLDAP rpm that comes from the Fedora repo is at least 2 major releases old. Worse than that, it breaks. And it breaks in a way that leaves it completely useless. But I suppose that since they bought Netscape Directory, a bloated, oversized, shotgun-approach to flyswatting, they won't allow anyone to bring the smaller, tighter core product up to speed. In short, if you need LDAP, you use ND or recompile your own from a tarball. Hey, they've got a business to run!
And all those Linux games we *bought* hoping to keep Loki alive? You'll have to fight to make them work, and each time the libraries get upgraded, you'll need to fight'em again. Not in Ubuntu.
Ubuntu has some strengths that are surprisingly wonderful. Very little translation (if ANY) from author to end-user. Using a *better* package manager, rolling projects in, editing the configs, and rolling them back out are painless. No dependency problems.
LDAP lives in
Remember those Loki games? Check the docs for the details; it's, as they say in these parts, "Breezy".
Their DOCUMENTATION. It's a Wiki. Not stuffy paperwork that never seems to be complete enough, or out of date. It's a living, growing document that helps us all enjoy the experience. Reading these docs made the LDAP install close-to-instantaneous. It made the Loki libraries the same way. It showed me in far more simple ways how to deal with Apache, which I thought I understood before.
I think it's because Ubuntu has no commercial bias; no reason to do anything other than the author's intentions with their code. There's no reason to do something that you and I don't need, because they have to make a headline. THIS is the right way to do Linux.
I've tried telling them at Redhat, but won't hear me.
Just like TribalVoice with PowWow, just like PCNews or whatever it was, and just like SCO, before they were sold to a (now dying) entity. But the Redhat-of-old was a warm friendly place for many of us to get started, and I'm thankful for that. Now Ubuntu can truly take us into the future, to do even bigger, brighter things!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov