Slashdot Mirror
Bob Young on "A New Economic Model"
selanna writes "In The Journal of Electronic Publishing (March, 1999 : Volume 4, Issue 3) Red
Hat's Bob Young writes about "How Red Hat Software Stumbled across a New Economic
Model and Helped Improve an Industry". Looking at it, it reads much like the Young article in Open Sources.
While the developers work hard for free, Red Hat
is getting fat. Parhaps the developers should
do less developing and start rolling their own distro, just to get their share?
Red Hat is going to rooool the world.
Yep. And it says so. Right at the top of the article. How can people miss it?
The developers are of there own free will giving it away to be "exploited".
Red Hat has given (and is still) back to the community, and they're taking the risk and doing the work to get the word and the product out there. That's cool with me. It's not like they have a monopoly on it, either.
(Aside: I'm always amused by the folks who wonder "how do you make money on a free product"? Look through any yellow pages and you'll find folks who make money selling air.)
actually, the people who work on the kernel know all about the gpl, the existence of distros making money, yet they still choose to do it for the benefit of os community...plus, you do NOT HAVE TO BUY FROM REDHAT...you can get debian, suse or, as you suggested roll your own.....it would be explotation if rh made people develop for free, and have rh as the only resource to getting it....but as i remember, don't rh have quite a few gnome people and enlightenment people on the payroll, yet gnome and enlightenment is distributed freely as well....
but i guess it's easier to jump on whatever bandwagon is rolling by....
It has 30% market share
Where did you get that number from?
Haven't and will not!
You can also download RedHat for free or buy a barebones CD for a few bucks. When you buy the shrinkwrap version, you're paying for the box, manual, CD, boot floppies, and 30 days (or is it 60, can't remember) of installation support. RedHat (and the others) realizes that there are many people out there who will pay the extra bucks for convenience and support.
about it.
Is it just me, or is Bob one of those people who really did stumble and trip over a new market?
I bet one could make a kick-ass beowulf cluster
out of that economic model!
*duck*
That's not a bad thing. We can drive cars (or ride the subway, or take buses, or even bike) without knowing why the machine runs, and without knowing how to fix it.
RPM came out (IIRC) around the same time Debian's package install/remove program did, and it's more powerful than Slack's package removal (if only because my fellow Slack folk tend to muck around with files after installation).
The potential problem with RPM/packages/user-friendliness arrives when the system is mostly usable without much specialized knowledge. That's the time when some mechanic (or software company from Redmond) tries to actively prevent people from fixing the product themselves... that's what the GPL is designed to prevent.
First priority is marketing.
Ships half-baked buggy distros.
Plays control games. Examples:
Boycotts KDE which could have been defacto desktop, and buys into Gnome which they can have more control over.
Trys to position rpm as defacto package standard. Flys the flag of "free software" while dissing GNU/FSF.
Getting a free ride on IBM's back.
(Redhat is a bunch of ex-IBM'ers)
The only scary thing about redhat is that they've done whatever they do so well that the mainstream now equates linux with redhat. Not that its a bad thing, but it would be nice to see some serious competition among the top commercial linux vendors.
i know i am probably feeding the troll, but i am just curious....how do you make a living? do you work for for "money grubbing assholes"?
if rpm came out at about the same time as deb, and deb seems to be the better system (according to many) then why didn't redhat adopt it?
sorry, i missed that. usually H U M O R is funny.....
... is pure BS...
I would not buy a car with hood welded shut, because car mechanics need to get in and fix things. But I did buy a car where one needs special tools (which I don't have) to work on it. Which suits me fine, because I just want to drive the car, not figure out how it works and how to fix it when it breaks. This is what car mechanics are for. I am a programmer, not a mechanic.
The similarity to MS with IBM is uncanny. MS would be nowhere today if it hadn't been chosen by IBM for it's PC's. RedHat is in a remarkably similar situation as IBM is fully committing to Linux (just as it did with PC's 18 yrs ago) and RedHat is getting the nod.
It's as though RH==MS and Debian==DR
Free Software lunacy created the model where YOU work and Young gets the money. Hell, works for them. Works for you too - just so long as you settle for peer review ego value and not money.
Red Hat is Linux. They cant be stopped. Just deal with the concequences.
macmillan pays a fee to redhat, who are licensing their brand name for them to use. redhat is certainly getting some funds.
mandrake can say that it's "redhat derived" but the minute they prominantly plaster "redhat" on the box and claim it primarily as such they must pay redhat.
I see you're using ver5.2 which was a bug-fix version. if you had used 5.0 you mightn't have been so trouble free. I had a lot of problems with v5.0 as did many others and so I went back to Slackware
Mr. Young gives himself too much credit. As someone who knows a thing or two about "business models," I can say that what Mr. Young has is nothing new. He is doing the equivalent of recording native songs in another country and then turning around and selling them in the US. In other words, finding unrestricted intellectual property and then exploiting its value in the marketplace. Every publisher that sells a Shakespeare book has the same radical "new business model."
The man is quite lucky that he had no serious competitors (ie: anyone with any marketing and customer service talent) before his product reached critical mass. His article is a key example of what happens when techies have delusions of being professional business people without the requisite training (it's just as bad as professional business people who have delusions of being techies...)
If the car was any good, there would be no need for a hood to open. The Linux hood is open to let people like Young exploit the defects they deliberately include. Economics at work.
Here endeth the lesson.
FUD, TROLL! This anti-Linux crap must be stamped out. I would willingly donate my entire life and home to ensuring that Red Hat makes as much money as they can to remove the evils of Microsoft.
Communism is alive and well - grab a keyboard and hack!
IBM just killed all the other distro's. Not like they are doing anything. Ever hear of Caldera?
I really hate this image that Linux people are a bunch of commies. If you check ESR's site some time, you'll see he's a gun-toting libertarian.
Otherwise it feels like the Redhat users are the idiots of the linux world. They defend Redhat with the same not-so-specific arguments as Mac and Windows people. I guess you eye-candy types are all alike.
This is just idle speculation but I would bet large money that every one of the companies who have invested in Redhat are pressuring Bob Young to step aside as CEO.
By the second meeting they had with him, most venture capital types I know would be saying "Bob, we feel that your skillset is more in line with the position of Chief Technology Officer... We've brought Bill R. Slick to this meeting because we think he can provide Redhat some good strategic guidance as CEO. Step aside, friend."
You'd get a chuckle. You can download it in tex or postscript (but not text or html--weird)
They imply about themselves over and over that they are the most important contributor to ever happen to the Linux movement. Whatever.
great article... except that the stuff about NASA is kinda interesting... didn't a previous article on /. mention that the new space station, of which NASA is playing a major part, has lots of NT machines, besides (I think) Solaris or a BSD?
I agree with most of what you said. You did not, however, address the fact that Bob Young has NFC with regard to business strategy even though he is arrogantly trumpeting his ignorance to the entire world.
There is no reason he should be positioning himself as a 90s version of Henry Ford, Jack Welch, or even Bill Gates. The man is very lucky that his recent investors will be able to provide some guidance on "how things really work" in the competitive environment.
Lunacy? I think not.
I have contributed in small ways myself to OSS.
And whatever original material I write goes
under the GPL. How have *I* been "paid" for my
efforts? Recently the company for which I work
needed a new Web server. Red Hat (it happened)
Linux, with Apache, etc. fit the bill quite
nicely. When I told the CFO I did the whole
thing for US$42.50 + tax, he was *literally*
astounded.
I, and the company for which I work, were both
more than amply compensated for the time I have
contributed.
This is a case where the whole *is* greater
than the sum of its parts. If you cannot grok
why this is, then I can see why you think it
lunacy.
As far as Red Hat itself: I so far have been
quite pleased with the distributions (other
than the lack of continued support for XView)
and have yet to find fault with the RPM system.
Eric Raymond is just a Red Neck, gun promoting d*ckhead. Lets sue ESR for promoting crime (through Gun ownership).
The Linux Development community will rise up and overthrow the opression of those making money from our work.
Rise up, boycott Red Hat, use..... Linux. Eh? There arnt any other distro's? Well, Boycott Red Hat anyway.
Just like Communism, you are free to choose - so long as its what *THEY* allow you to choose. Like Red Hat.
Just as long as they understand, as Bob does, that there is NO COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT for operating systems anymore. It's gone, and you can thank Billy Boy. MS arrogance and greed is forcing *every* other OS player into the "redhat" model.
Read the friggin news.
Personally, and in part because of your snide comments, I will be happy to recommend Redhat to anyone new to Linux. Your comments (and you have made several) really sound more like sour grapes to me.
Debian user since rex.
Funny how people screech bloody murder about dselect, which is really quite an adequate tool, especially with apt in the back end, yet bang their heads bloody on rpms.
Not that it really matters. apt will only die from lack of interest, not from corporate machinations.
Redhat really *ought* to switch to apt once the gnome front end is ready.
When do we get to sue you for promoting the disarming of law abiding citizens so that criminals - both the ordinary criminal and the criminal that hides behind a badge - can run wild and terrorize all and sundry? And when do we get to sue the lawyers for sodomizing the legal system to promote their own anti-democratic agendas and lust for money at the public expense?
what? redhat use a package manager that doesn't have their brand name in it? why ever since redhat 1.0 they've always used a package manager that had the word "redhat" in it whether it was RPP or RPM (certainly not PMS or PM)
Yes, my comments may be snide, but I've read too many half-baked business plans that contain the words "new economic model" and I am now immediately suspicious of anyone using them. For the CEO of a relatively unacomplished company that still hasn't figured out exactly what its product is, I think that Young is showing quite a bit of arrogance and self-importance by trying to cast his venture in a scholarly light. Next thing you know, he'll be asking the Harvard Business School if they want to do a case study about him.
I myself am no longer a Redhat user, nor do I recommend it to anyone (questionable quality and lack of consistency IMHO). Like you, I am a Debian user and will continue to recommend Debian to anyone new to Linux.
what I most appreciated about the article was his leading disclaimer *asking* scholars NOT to consider the article as anything more than one man's personal opinion of himself, his business experience, and his opinion on where he fits into the greater scheme of things.
Did you not read that part?
Yes, but such a disclaimer implies that the writing is, in fact, comparable in many ways to a scholarly work and may be confused for one by readers (hence the need for a disclaimer). Or did you not read between the lines?
Anyway, I think we're wasting bandwidth here. I happen to think the guy is an amateur but refuses to recognize it. You disagree. I think you will continue to disagree whether or not I choose to respond to your next message.
Would someone please answer my one question about open-source software as the New Business Model(TM).
How can programmers, the product of whose efforts is, after all, driving the entire computing industry, make any money by writing software which they immediately give away for someone else to sell?
It's fine to want to change the world, but some of us would like to eat, too.
I honestly want to hear a coherent answer to this.
Yeah...The car argumentido is a bit weak to say the least. Also, a car is concrete piece of material. You cannot stick a ball of metal in a room and press a button and coy that car and give it to your friend. You can do something like that with a program. I can see why companies want to charge and keep their sources---THAT BEING SAID, as an individual, I would much rather work in cooperation with those on the net for a "greater good", but then who pays my salary? Luckily, I work for a university and don't have to worry about keeping the hood shut on my code.
Back to the car, I think the only way to use that anology would be to say "You wouldn't buy a Toyota car if only Toyota were allowed to open the hood" That is, if toyota were the only place in the world that could get into your car and fix it, improve it, put gas in it...or only those companies who had paid toyota for an extension of this right... THEN you wouldn't want that car, because your choice would be limited as to what you could do with it. I sure like being able to take my toyota to different shops if need be... I cannot say the same for my MS os. Only MS can give me NT service packs. WIth my linux distribution, however, the "patches" may come from linus t or alan c, but anyone can contribute and I am certainly not *limited* to what THEY SAY.
Redhat realized that there is a "production externality" in the OSS market. For non-economists, a production externality implies that there are benefits incurred by the producer for which he does not have to pay.
With little investment, RedHat (or any other distribution) is able to receive the full benefit for the work of many not on their payroll. Do I dislike RedHat for that? Not at all. For example, there is also an offsetting consumption externality, meaning I buy 1 copy of RedHat Linux and install it on 100 computers without incurring extra cost.
My REAL concern is the driving force of Young's _new_ economic model: People that are not paid for their work. They contribute because they get some form of benefit (in economic terms "Utility") from their work; may that be in the form of recognition, or solving a personal itch, you name it.
As soon as some of the contributors realize that their work means $$$ to the distributors and they don't get their share, they may opt to end contributing. Compare this to giving to charity: You don't mind to make a donation because you believe that you help the cause. Once you find out that the collection agency gets the majority of your contribution your attitude will change.
I believe that Linux is a step in the right direction. I also hope that Robert Young realizes that he has _NOT_ discovered something new and has to worry about his supply side, i.e. the contributors.
Holger
Holger
go read the GNU licsense http://www.gnu.org, it is pretty clear on how to make money with free software
You said:
Personally, I see nothing wrong with taking an almost-free resource, slapping a label on it and making some cash. It's the American Way. It's like buying ice at the party store or bottled water. You're paying for the convenience. Also, you're paying for some re-assurance that you're not buying water strained through dirty socks. That's what the brand-name is all about.
I say:
I agree completely. The problem I have is not with what he has done or is doing. Instead I object to the level of importance he has accorded to himself. That's all.
No, it is not at all clear from the GNU Public License how you can make any money writing free software.
The GNU Public License requires the author to provide a complete license to the code FOR FREE. One can only charge for the physical act of distributing the code, or for warranty service, neither of which is a credible source of revenue for a small, independent developer.
Please explain more precisely how a developer can make money writing free software.
Help us help the world - Xpresso LINUX - social capitalism at work. Send email to xpresso@compuserve.com and ask for details of Xpresso LINUX. 3 plain text files will be sent - each 2/6 pages. Help us now to help mankind move from MS Windows to Linux OS.
Duh, they are trying to create brand loyalty. If redhat used the debian packaging system that would imply that debian did something but noooo! we cant have that, redhat must get the credit for everything.
huh? apt will not die, it is the future.
you rpm fanatics only wish you had something half as good as it.
for such shrill words, you should have some very bad experiences to justify your tone.
... Deluxe" that is indeed the RH version; but Red Hat is getting no funds!
Why is that I suspect you have none? Pasting a board with mis-information sounds more like a trouble maker that neither uses Linux nor has any real interest in its growth.
When I purchased what I thought was Red Hat Linux version 5.2, it has all those words on the box. I actually bought the "Complete
It's a Macmillan distribution. There are others to that take the RH distribution and copy it - so the question becomes who is taking advantage of whom?
Somehow your words remind me of Spiro Agnew using ghetto talk - neither genuine nor reflecting your real intent.
Sorry the letter I received says that they (Red Hat) receives nothing though they did have a relationship for version 5.1.
... [no] official relationship ... [can] distribute ... terms of our licensing". Sounds like GPL to me.
As they explained it "
Where do you get your facts?
Sorry again, I have been running version 5.0 and the problems I have encountered could easily be ascribed to my own ineptitude , because I became quite adept at reinstalling the text version for one reason or another. I had purchased version 5.2, as a means of thanking RH for their efforts and to get support for my fairly recent video card and monitor.
this is also for the other respondents:
Please read the publicity blurbs: IBM is not limiting their support only to Red Hat!
For two of you, it seems the "story" is more important than facts.
Perhaps you might consider making commercial "movies" where the relative importance follows that pattern.
/me thinks that ppl should read the article before replying (even if it knocks them down a little lower on the reply list)
That's the point of brand equity. A few additional examples:
The recipe for Rice Krispies Treats is public knowledge. You can make them at home yourself (don't even have to use Kellogg's Rice Krispies). Yet, Kellogg's STILL makes a killing selling Rice Krispies Treats in packages at the store, for an outrageous price.
Fast food: with a little time, one can make hamburgers & french fries at home, with any ingredient you want (ground turkey instead of beef). When was the last time you did that? Have you done it more often than going to your local McDonald's/Burger King/whatever?
I could go on and on, but the point is: even if/when IBM & Oracle decide to make their own distro, they'll still have to contend with the customers asking specifically for the Red Hat *brand* (the version officially supported by Red Hat and not their local knockoff).
Posted by F.A.N.G.:
In no way did Red Hat improve an industry.
Exploit....yes
Contribute...maybe (MetroX! rpm! whatever-that- lame-web-browser-was-called! -but nothing to be particularly proud of)
Improve...uh, no
I have my own suggestion for a societal improvement-summary executions for those who take credit where none is due.
Posted by F.A.N.G.:
.PKG's than touch another rpm.
"Exploit" as in "use to one's advantage."
No religious or social implications made. (btw- you will never find me using the word "evil.")
Ahhh...improving an industry means increasing awareness. Not unlike Exxon's improvement of Alaskan oil shipping?
I ordered a release of Red Hat a couple years ago- 4.2 I believe. Got the tech support, the whole linux library on cd-rom's- even got a t-shirt.
Well, what do you know, none of my hardware is supported. My PC is new, so I figure it will take a month or two before drivers are available...so I'll wait.
The t-shirt they sent me looked nothing like the one on the web page. The one I ordered was kinda neat with some guy running with a briefcase. The one I got was some lame convention givaway copy with an ugly image on the left breast. They wouldn't take it back.
After a couple months I call tech support, and cannot get through. It was long distance, so I decide to try email support. After a particularly painful registration process, I send in email asking if my SCSI card will be supported. A short 3 weeks later I get a response: "I dunno."
Will my video card be supported? "I dunno." How come linux fdisk reads my hard drive geometry wrong? "Huh? I dunno."
Hmmm..that's money well spent, sure am glad I paid for the tech support. The Red Hat box returned to the trash can from which it came.
I then went back to Slackware, and recently to Debian. I have had the misfortune of having to use redhat here and there, and can atribute their success ONLY to marketing. I would rather use Solaris
Two words- TEAR DROP. Red Hat is LAME.
Posted by F.A.N.G.:
They are both unfortunate standared. Inferior to alternatives, nontheless standards.
"While the developers work hard for free, Red Hat is getting fat."
If you don't like others basing their work on something you've done for free, then release it under a different license. None of the developers has been forced to contribute to Linux.
I haven't quite released my free source yet (still getting some details cleaned up), but when I do, I encourage you to find a way to make a healthy profit off of it. It doesn't hurt me any.
I think some people just hate the idea that anyone else is making money.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
The "under the hood" analogy is an old one, but I've not come across the "Ford buy tyres from Michelin, engine blocks from foo, etc -- we get a web server from Apache, compiler from cygnus, etc" analogy before.
All analogies fall apart if you take them too far; these analogies make the point they're meant to.
The analogy I really liked was the Heinz ketchup analogy. It made a point I'd never considered before.
--
Yup, I download it for free from those money grubbing assholes that are purely in it for the money that they are so greedily drooling for.
Don't understand....
How is RedHat like M$?
They allow you to download the distro for free. They release all the source code for everything they release. (Hence the unwillingness to Qt their distro)
They have an errata page where you can get fixes as soon as the code has been released.
They parter for service on the OS rather than the OS itself.
They do not add "hooks" into the OS.
They commodotize and legitimize the OS with big name recognition.
They use industry standard protocols.
They are simply commercial. They are imperfect people, yeah they f*ck up. They admit it, unlike M$ who say its a user training issue.
If you think that they selling out because they are making partnerships to commodotize and legitimize Linux, then I'll have to say an extra rosary for you because there is simply no pleasing you. Your pasttime is whining and complaining about things you have no control over and can't grasp the fact that you'll simply have to deal with it.
No, They earn their money, they don't steal it and hoard it. Unlike a Redmond Software company that shall remain almost nameless :^)
On a more thoughtful note....
I simply wanted to poke fun at the people who complain that RedHat does not operate they way they would personally run it. I have trouble with people who complain that RedHat does not adhere with there own personal decisions about how the distro should work.
I have been told, and sincerely believe that organizations do not and will not act like individual people. Those people who expect orgs to act like people are setting themselves up for frustration and disappointment.
RedHat is in the business of making OSes like any other commodity, like wool, steel, plywood, porkbellies....etc. They have been very good about focusing on their goal of trying to add value to the OS to help it gain acceptance. Every major announcement I have read from Mr. Young is consistent with this goal.
This is why I don't understand when people flame on, other than perhaps boredom. RedHat's credo is no secret. So when they make announcements and agreements that are congruent with the credo, why all the fuss? It should not come as any surprise.
That's what makes say "WTF?" to myself. It should not come as any surprise to anyone who has taken the time to find out what RedHat's primary business goal and business model is.
Yup, :^)
but funny is not necessarily humorous :^)
I met one of the RedHat developers that used to work as a core developer for the Debian distribution. He said that the Debian (deb) packages were not properly designed. He also stated the fact that all other major distributions that use packages all use the rpm model, just Debian uses deb.
It was two years ago, that's all I remember.
Gee, you must have read the article in which Young said as much.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
You're absolutely right! By the way, how much did you pay Linus and Alan Cox the FSF and all the other contributors to Linux and its free software utilities?
Boy, all those people were pretty stupid. They could have kept their software proprietary in order to ensure that no one used it without due compensation.
Or better yet, Stallman could have written the GPL so as to make sure no one could in any way make money from distributing (in physical form), supporting or marketing any GPL'd software. That way no one could "exploit" those poor programmers. The fact that few non-techinical, non-hobbyists would be able to access or use the software...well, that's irrelevant.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
For someone with "NFC with regard to business strategy" he's done pretty good with his business.
Good businessmen aren't born, they are crafted.
Henry Ford stumbled upon the idea of the production line, which was stolen from England factories. Bill Gates stumbled upon the OS after sending IBM away the first time they came to him; he thought BASIC was the only important software for a computer. Though I don't know much about him, I'm sure Jack Welch came into his business intelligence through years of experience.
Bob Young may or may not be business-saavy. He really hasn't been given the time to make a judgement. Unlike many other CEOs and owners, Young is travelling a less-travelled path (I won't say he's a pioneer). He has crafted a successful company based on free software; adhering to its restrictions and profiting from its benefits. The fact that he even makes money in an industry where so many are suspicious (to the point of paranoia) of commercial endevours is quite amazing.
He is not the commercial equivalent of Richard Stallman; but by no means should the achievments and insights of the man and his company be understated.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
The fact is that most programmers don't make any money writing free software. Many have jobs in the commercial world, and they donate some (or all) of their free time to producing free software. A few lucky souls are actually paid to work on free software by companies (for instance, Corel's WINE developers, Red Hat's RHAD labs people, Transmeta's numerous kernel writers).
Any individual who plans on making money soley for free software is nuts. Just as Bob Young implied, Red Hat doesn't make money off of Linux per se, but off their brand name, convenience of shrink-wrapped packaging and their value-added services such as organization and technical support.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
What part of "anything I say is tainted for the purpose of objective academic research or analysis [this is...] simply a collection interesting [..] stories " did you not get? The author clearly doesn't want to be recognized as anything but an amateur, just writing down some thoughts. Hell, if this is a crime, USENET is a seething pit of demons.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with taking an almost-free resource, slapping a label on it and making some cash. It's the American Way. It's like buying ice at the party store or bottled water. You're paying for the convenience. Also, you're paying for some re-assurance that you're not buying water strained through dirty socks. That's what the brand-name is all about.
And if Red Hat ever turns out a truly horrible release, it'll sink like a stone if there's a competetor to take up the slack. (pardon the pun). Perrier damn-near fell out of the water market for mistakes four years ago. Red Hat can too.
For the record, I use Red Hat (among other distributions), and recommend it (and Debian) to people who just need to get a taste of Linux simply because it's omnipresent. I have small problems with their QC, but they're manageable. If it ever gets to be unmanageable (like Microsoft) I'll stop.
Get off my lawn.
See subject.
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
Greetings, Mr. Gates! Hope you're not losing any sleep over the way Vinod's 'Nightmare Scenario' for M$ has just come to pass!
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
Thanks for putting the "ASS" in Astroturf...
---------------------
John 3:16 - God's Public License
- Sam
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
I thought that was the point of Debian. It works under the same model that Open Source does.
It has 30% market share, nothing to dismiss. It's the second-most widely used distro.
I've seen like a few polls on Slashdot and on other sites that seem to give those figures.
I think it was around 50-55% Red Hat, 25-30% Debian, and the rest was divided between Suse and Caldera and Slackware..
But there's no real market data other than that. I think it's a better reflection of the true market, since those polls asked you what distribution you were running.
Isn't it amazing how much money you can make by selling free stuff! I should try it too one day. However, in the end I think it will be a fad just like MLM and all those other get-rich-quick schemes. You have to be a little proprietary if you want to make money in the long run. If all you offer is support, then any big company such as Corel or Oracle or IBM can sell your distro and offer even better support and you're knocked out completely.
---
As I said, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
I'm also curious why so many distributions choose RPM over dpkg, any distro maintainers out there willing to answer? And before someone answers with some "Red Hat is an evil monopoly," remember that anyone is free to grap all the Debian packages from ftp.debian.org and make a distribution of their own...
Full disclosure: I use Red Hat but I'm going to give Debian 2.1 a spin.
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
*PLONK*
Troll
- $ 9.5 billion annual sales (from a CBS Marketwatch article)
- $19 billion market capitalization (from Wired's stock-lookup service)
- Price/earnings ratio of 24 (ditto)
If I understand these figures correctly, they mean that Heinz had a profit of about $800 million on their $9.5 billion of sales, or less than a penny for each dollar of sales. (Somebody who actually knows finance, please verify my research and my math!)So the profit margin on a bottle of ketchup is around one percent.
When Linux really becomes a commodity OS, and every commercial Linux provider has to deal with this kind of profit margin, will Red Hat be able to subsidize development of open-source Linux tools and applications? Or will the company have to spend all of its revenue on providing tech support, and tell its employees that if they want to write a new tool or application, they'll have to do it on their own time?
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
I totally agree with you people. No one is forced to make free software, no one is forced to buy free software, no one is forced to sell it, or even use it.
That's just not the case with Microsoft.
That's what Linux is about: choice.
Now if people make money out of this, great!
I actually buy redhat software instead of downloading it, because I want them to get fat, to give me more, etc... The day RedHat or any other starts forcing me onto unwanted paths, I'll just download the damn thing! or switch to something else.
Now if you hate the idea of people making money, then you probably are the sick one! Or maybe wished deep in there that you were the one, in which case you should shut up and work to get some money! Sell air, or do XXX site!
The kernel needs a Gtk/Gnome-based post-install device configuration tools "a la" make xconfig. (Better sig coming soon
Look, Redhat isn't doing anything wrong nor is anybody else who's trying to make a buck off Linux. They are forcing anybody to do anything, nor are they controlling the market in anyway. You can even buy a cheapbytes, or linuxmall knockoff for $2. How is RedHat doing anything wrong? I'll bet Linus buys official versions.
Oh, I'm not sure that they even have to pay Redhat anything even if they do use their names. Otherwise how do cheapbytes and LinuxMall give away CDs that say Redhat Linux on it for $2? I would have to imagine the licensing fee would be more than $2.
The big diff, of ocurse, is that 18 years ago, IBM was the only maker of PCs, so they could act as king maker. Now, in the PC world, they're one player among many. Now, if IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM, and Packard Bell, all back Red Hat, THEN you're analogy would hold water. Remember that IBM also backed MicroChannel and OS/2.
The advantage of peer review is that we will have a decent OS in the future. It's kind of like that in every other area of research; why not computer science? How many times have corporations taken advantage of publicly-funded university research to make money?
Just another example of the maturing of an industry. Just like young said, "You wouldn't buy a car if you weren't allowed to open the hood." Free software (not free beer) will take over the world, but I don't think that young should be credited with too much.
-davek
use slackware!!!
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
Metro X is from a different company. Red Hat employs numerous programmers who release their work under the (L)GPL. How can you complain about that? Do you think that the work they contracted Alan Cox for was evil and exploitative?
If nothing else, Red Hat can take much of the credit for increasing public awareness and usage of Linux. That in itself is improving the industry (as a whole, not just the Slashdot community).
If the good things that Red Hat has done are of no value to you (and I realize that might be the case), then you're under no obligation to send them money. If they've done something to *hurt* you, then let's hear about it.
Of course, "evil" can sometimes mean "good". Sorry if that sounded more extreme than I intended. Anyway, I can't believe anyone would compare Red Hat to Exxon in this context. You have every right to not give money to Red Hat if you consider their product to be inferior. Even if you continue to use the product. So maybe you don't win, but you definitely don't lose. Much better than finding a few thousand barrels of crude washed up in your back yard.
The industry I was referring to was the computer/IT industry. Red Hat is increasing awareness of Linux, and by association spreading the word about free software. Their visibility has been instrumental in rallying corporate support (again, maybe not useful to you, but very helpful to a lot of other people). The benefits are felt by the other distributions, as well as *BSD, HURD, or whichever flag you choose to salute. Meanwhile, a large number of people who would otherwise be stranded in Windows-land are learning the benefits of open source code. Some of them will contribute their time and/or money to support free software development. Incidentally, that means a larger potential base of support for Debian.
So, another bunch of whinners doing a diatribe about the evils of people making money. As if Microsoft isn't bad enough with their virtual monopoly on current PC OSes, some lamers in \. decide to take that anger and vent it against a company who is trying to make money with a good product.
Lets face it, MS only has the monopoly because it keeps its source code secret..Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE etc do not. If you don't like their way of doing a disto, take the code and make your own. If you think rpm sucks, take the code and write a better version. Then, let the users decide. All I've heard and read in this place is people saying how one disto sucks so they moved to another blah blah blah. This is the best part of Linux.. I hate my Win 95 but what can I change to whenever a new feature or improvment comes out - Nothing?!?
So, Red Hat is evil because they chose a creative way to make money from a free OS. I suppose all the developers that are actually EMPLOYEED by RH should live in a box and eat garbage simply because some of you don't think anyone should make money from Linux development (although you'd like everyone to use it).
If the OS is free, people should be allowed to make money from selling applications (open source of course), or tech support services. If you want to make "improvments" you can choose to do so because hey, its nice to be able to brag that "I worked on the package to support xxxx" - heck it might even look good on a resume and get you a good job. If you don't want to buy software, don't. Use the freeware...but don't slag others for wanting to get paid to do what they love.
Has it occured to anyone that if this kind of in fighting may be just what MS wants? The old divide and conquer?
Most people want quality software that's easy to maintain and easy to use (that means GUI!) and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. They also want some choice in this, whether the software is an OS or a Word Processor. The people who make this software would like to be able to feed their kids while they are at it. Linux is a great opportunity to change the way the software business operates so that programmers and users both win. That's why people ought to be using and programming for Linux - so it takes over an defeats MS.
If you are using Linux so that you can be "Cool", "rad" or "anti-establishment", so you can belong to some snobby club with a secret handshake that makes you feel superior to Windows users or programmers, may I suggest you look up the definition of Open Source again (or GNU or GPL).
Nothing wrong with making money as long as your fair about it.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha