Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Sales Surge
head_dunce writes "Red Hat has reported earnings from its third quarter, and it did quite a bit better than expected. Even with the movement within the business by Oracle and SuSE/Microsoft, Red Hat came out quite a bit ahead. TheStreet.com reports on the company's $29.6 Million dollars windfall, and some of the tough times the company has had in the past year. From the article: 'CFO Charlie Peters said on a conference call with analysts that the company is "cautiously optimistic that competitive efforts by some of the largest technology companies in the world are actually expanding our opportunity."'"
Has the Desktop Linux Bubble Burst? Now this?
Well which one is it?
The weekend is coming and I need to know what to believe!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I hear membership is booming.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
I mean think about it folks, Christmas is but a few days away and sales of "red hat" are surging.
I think we're supposed to scream and yell about how they're a money-grubbing Corporation (with a capital C) that never did anything for Linux, while ignoring all the @redhat.com addresses on contributions to the kernel, RPM (which, like it or not, *is* used by other distributions), various config tools (which, while no one else seems to be using them, are available for other distros to use if they want), debugging, funding of various projects, etc.
But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans^W^WRed Hat ever done for us?
Those of us that work with the RedHat products will note that not all things are as they seem. Our company feels that we are not getting value for what is paid. Our loaded cost for a Windows machine is cheaper than that for Linux. I'm a die hard linux evangelist, but the numbers don't lie. Linux makes for better servers, and Windows for a better desktop (for now). Redhat changed their licensing for RH8 to RHEL3 right while many corporations were in mid-stream of adopting RedHat Linux. Corporations cannot change course that quickly so all this money RedHat made is from businesses following the corporate plan developed pre RHEL3. Our company adopted RedHat as our Linux standard based on RH8 and the costs at that time. Many company plans and projects began to be based on the use RedHat Linux. RedHat blind-sided us with their licensing change and it didn't make many here very happy. Corporations don't like uncentainty, thus the initial choice of RedHat instead of a less stable distribution. We really don't need the support. It's sort of like a security blanket. There... but really not needed.
We are a large enough company to be nearly self-supporting on Linux issues. Thus the RedHat cost per RHEL3/4 Workstation license is out of line for us. The only feature we need of the RedHat server is multiple CPU and memory capability. We don't use GFS or any of the other stuff. So the $1k server cost is WAY out of line. All the RedHat support we sometimes use are the updated RPMS for the distribution. Yet RedHat seems pretty oblivious to this until recently. We have bought more licenses in the last half year than all previous. Many of our data crunching processes are moving from Windows to Linux (Linux is fast and perl/python work better there.) Yet... we are unhappy with the perceived value. We paid RedHat enough last year that we probably should have just hired Linus to come work for us and gone with Fedora or Whitebox.
My point is this. RedHat is too expensive for what you get. Oracle and MS/Novell smell opportunity and have only begun their campaign. When Oracle comes out with their version of Linux, watch RedHat get completely ejected from corporate use as Oracle database servers (the $1000+/yr cash cow licenses for RedHat). When viable alternatives become available, will we evaluate them? Oh yeah.
This is not new to the business, or even the *nix world. Few years back I was part of a Solaris admin team. Before I joined, they already subscribed to a really expensive SMB server product for Solaris, which charged ungodly amounts monthly for even just a 2 concurrent client access license. I recognized that users were understandably upset over being 200 people who could rarely access their files from their windows boxes unless their department ponied up funds for a commercial nfs client for windows. I suggested samba as a viable alternative, but was denied because they couldn't possibly call for support at the time. I asked if they had ever actually called the vendor for support, and the answer was no, but they perpetually lived in fear of having to, so they paid the exorbitant fee.
It *seems* like they are selling an essentially free product hoping no one will notice, but the customers are mostly damn well aware of the free alternatives, and they make the conscious decision. Liability in a sense of the word is applicable. If IT uses their budget such that they have a couple more servers with money saved from not buying RHEL licenses, no one will notice or give them praise. However, if it hits the fan, even if the technical result ends up the same, if CentOS was installed, the finger pointing stops at the IT dept, if RHEL was installed with support contract in place, IT can redirect the finger to RedHat as not delivering on promises if it comes to that
As to your points: A) RMS/GNU will complain that Redhat is violating the spirit of the GPL by not providing 100% equal access to free-loaders and then change the GPL Not likely, CentOS is the perfect counter-example that RHEL is following the GPL fine and the license is working as intended without loopholes. RedHat hasn't been overly noisy, but some acts they've done clearly demonstrate they aren't keen on the existence of CentOS, but accept they can't do anything about it. B) One or several competing corporate entities will successfully be able to offer the same updates (so-called "support") by free-loading off Redhat's efforts... That is in essence what Oracle is doing. That's one of the scary competitors that RH has been talking about. If they were too successful in impairing RH's ability to fix the core stuff, they must either pick up the slack themselves or the product will perish (much like a parasite that gets too greedy will die when the host is killed). Too soon to tell if this relationship ends up parisitc (but perhaps mostly harmless) or symbiotic. C) Redhat will be forced to include some proprietary software that will truly seperate them from the free-loaders... At one point I know RH shipped with the package some extras, including a JRE. Don't think they've done anything serious yet outside of GPLed projects. That does seem like a reasonable path if Oracle or Novell start achieving overwhelming success and RH is finally forced to differentiate themselves from the competition on a technical level.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
RedHat has a release plan, and they won't deviate from it. In any case, RHEL 5 is already in advanced beta stage.
I really don't know what you mean about 2.6.9-EL getting in the way. True, it does use mostly 2.6.9 API/ABI, but not strictly (as anyone how tried to compile some external kernel modules, like ieee80211 and ipw2200 have found out), and also contain lots of updates. The only external driver I use is ipw2200, and that only because I wanted monitor mode. And, since I was already recompiling it, I went the upgrade path as well.
Many people see 2.6.9 and think: "OLD!". That is really not the case. Using the latests version on any production server is very dangerous. In any case, "STABLE" beats "NEW" every time in my book.
Lastly, please remember it is 2.6.9-EL, and not 2.6.9. They are very different beasts.
Please read "speaks backport".
morcego