Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source
arashtamere writes "Red Hat president and CEO Jim Whitehurst predicts the enterprise open source software business will emerge from the economic crisis stronger than the proprietary market. 'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs." And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ... I think we'll know in about six to nine months but there is no question that open source will come out of this in relatively better shape than our proprietary competitors,' he told Computerworld."
I feel as if thousands of MCSE's cried out in pain and were silenced.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.
all too often, you see a business with a couple of it 'support' staff, maybe developers too, and someone has a day at the golf course and comes back with 'great news, we've managed to secure a long term contract with IBM...'
i still loath cognos reportnet some 4 years after that guy came back from the golf course... whats that ? ibm bought cognos? greeeeeaaat!
Were they using the Billy Mays awesome auger to run cat5 near gas lines?
Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).
So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.
Anybody want my mod points?
Why is it that every story evaluating open source as a replacement for proprietary software starts with, "We want something cheaper." It's encouraging that people are comfortable with the reliability and features of OSS that they are comfortable putting businesses on it. But I would be concerned as an employee at these shops that management had fully evaluated the the needs of the company with respect to these packages. I've seen it a few times already at places where I've worked where a manager says, "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.
The year of the Linux desktop is finally to come.
...again.
I had a customer who needed to start from scratch with a new business. They could allocate about $5k for the whole database server. I priced out an NT+SQL Server (what they requested), and then priced out a Redhat ($50 at the time) box where we spent the same $ on hardware that we would have spent on software... so they got a kick butt system with $4950 worth of hardware versus a piece of crap machine with $3000 worth of software. That company is now worth something in the 8 digits range. (Wish I had an equity stake now!) That server also served their needs for 5 of the 8 years until a hardware failure, and all we did was move Mysql/Apache and the source to an externally hosted platform.
meh
It would be cheaper to stay with what they already have, if only it were that easy...
What happens when the current software reaches end of life? No patches, gaping security holes, nothing you can do about it... Have to upgrade, and possibly upgrade the hardware at the same time.
What happens when you need to buy new or replacement hardware, the old software may not run on it, or its license may forbid it, meaning you now have some new and some old. Will you be able to run old alongside new, or will you start having compatibility problems that will force you to upgrade everything?
If you move to open source, then future upgrades are a lot less painful, and its easier to retain older versions if you need to.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS. I mean, I see his point and it may be a valid one, but he could be a little less gung-ho about it.
Maybe he's hoping to hire some of those laid off workers. I do see your point though, I warned a relative about debt levels, houses, etc. Now I'm keeping really quiet about it. It's a really hard situation for people who didn't know how to evaluate the situation and went with what seemed like good advice because it was popular, only to be stung.
That said, it has seemed obvious to me since reading the GPLv2 and seeing RedHat 7 where this thing (OSS) was going, and I've always been a bit surprised that most people don't see it too. Proprietary licences are designed to benefit the business, GPL is designed to benefit the user (and the users they distribute to, in perpetuity).
How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor? It is very unlikely that any other consideration will outweigh that in the long run although they often do in the short term. Tough economic times require purchases to be evaluated more thoroughly, so yes it is likely to benefit OSS.
Likewise, how hard is it to figure out that if you allow corporations to produce the money supply out of thin air as loans that you are headed for financial collapse? Tighter regulation can do nothing to prevent the collapse of a financial system based on money that isn't worth anything.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
First we were afraid
we were petrified
Kept thinking we could never live
with Windows on our drives
But then we spent so many nights
hacking Linux all night long
And it grew strong
And we learned to carry on
but now you're back
your battle lost
I just logged on to read about you
urged by your bosses to save costs
we should have told Novell to wait
We should have raised our service fees
If we had known for just one second
you'd be begging on your knees
Do not trust this signature.
No doubt. Red Hat is the only company that I know of that will support other vendors apps to the point of fixing it themselves, or even having one of their kernel devs patch Linux. If fact, Red Hat is the only company that I know of that can really claim that they can get fixes for customers directly in to both the mainline Linux kernel and Samba. My understanding is they'll also support any of the products created by the thousands of vendors that are part of the Red Hat Exchange. Microsoft just can't offer that, even if they wanted to.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
almost.
what they need to do is stop investing in vendor lockin.
dont write that new app in dot net, do it in java with open source libs.
dont use oracle/sql server, use postgres.
with that first step tidied up, moving to an open source app server running on linux is very simple.
or even moving to a closed source app server on linux. or aix. or solaris - your apps, if well written, will not need to change one bit.
And you just hit the nail on the head as to why it will be hard for MSFT shops to switch. MCSEs are cheap and plentiful,whereas Linux gurus are the opposite. So while they can run a free Linux server edition and save upfront costs the first time they have a serious breakdown it is going to cost them. And the support contracts for distros like Red Hat(last time I checked,its been a few years) will eat any savings that they had from switching. Hopefully as cheap Nettops and Netbooks get more popular more when learn Linux and go into the field,but ATM Linux Server admins certainly ain't cheap nor plentiful.
Not trying to flame here,just stating what I've run into in the field. While there are some old Windows guys out there like me that love to learn new Operating Systems and all the little ins and outs,I have run into way too many MCSEs that if you took away WinServer would be as helpless as any non technical home user.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.