Slashdot Mirror
Is Red Hat the Next Microsoft?
Patrick Dunn
writes "On ZDNET's Smart Reseller they have a story
about Red Hat maybe being a mini-Microsoft by it's
business practices." I'd guess that the 2 most common
conspiracy theories that pop into my mail box are 1. MS-Linux
and 2. Red Hat becoming the next MS. What do you think?
/. once again spins off into uninformed bigotry.
The LSB is not about making all distributions identical. It's about giving application authors a minimal set of libraries, header files, configuration paths, locations for dynamic state &c., in known locations. i.e. Things that just make life easier for an application writer to port their software to Linux.
Redhat being unenthusiastic about LSB, and just attempting to have their FS layout the de-facto standard (as it is now) would be a Bad Thing. Fortunatly Eric Troan was very positive about it when I last heard him speak on the subject.
I hope Red Hat's technical base manage to hold out against pressures from marketing to go proprietary.
From the LSB web page (www.linuxbase.org):
Current Members:
Caldera Inc
The Debian Project
delix Computer GmbH
Pacific HiTech
>>Red Hat SoftwareSuSE. GmbH
WGS Inc
Enhanced Software Technologies, Inc.
Metro Link, Inc.
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
Linux Hardware Solutions
VA Research
As you can see RedHat, Debian, Caldera and SuSE are all members...
There will never be an MS of the free software world. There will definitely be market leaders, and that leader may take up 99% of the market. But that doesn't make them an MS.
There are a number of market leaders that are there simply because customers believe that they're the best of breed. Think of Tobasco (hot sauce), Caterpillar (construction equipment), Lego (building blocks) or Zamboni (ice resurfacers). These both lead their respective markets so well that the brand name is synonimous with the generic product.
In both of these cases, competition does exist, and one could argue that there are technical reasons that the competition's product is better. However, nobody argues that these products are bad at their job. If they ever started producing shoddy product or otherwise treating their customers poorly, the brand loyalty would only hold so far. Case in point: New Coke. Market leader screws up royally, and people scramble for the competition until they correct their ways.
Microsoft is a market leader, but it's more than that. It's gotten us locked in so that they can produce shoddy products and generally mistreat the customer, and we still buy their product. I only know of a handful of other products that can make money on Microsoft's business model: cocaine, LSD, heroin, and various other illicit drugs. They are a rogue corporation operating in ways that the normal assumed laws of capitalist economics no longer apply to them.
Red Hat is simply a market leader, and that's all it will ever be. It's another Zamboni. If they take their success and customers for granted, somebody will come up and snatch their crown. Because of the nature of the biz, this will happen _even if all other distributions are dead an buried by then_.
The barriers for entry into the Linux distribution market are low. It takes a moderate-sized corporate infrastructure, easily enough provided by a software tycoon who can see the profit. It takes talented staff in various areas, including engineering--if it's hard for you to get such people, it's hard for everybody else as well. And it takes a copy of the source code, which you have access to because it's Linux.
Will software only run for one distribution? Yup. If it's general purpose software (such as a database server), it should run everywhere. If one distribution has "magic code" required to run it, other distributions should get it and link it in! In other cases, distributions may optimize for different problem spaces (financial, home, gaming, backend number-crunching, internet service). If that happens, some apps will only go to one distribution. Again, if your distribution is losing share because it can't run package X, figure out why and make it run package X. All the source is available; Open Source has no secrets.
1.) Red Hat should consider joining the LSB even if it doesn't agree entirely with it, at this point. If you don't like something, and you think you have a better way, present it to your peers.
They do. They present their whole code base to their peers.
It's a general attitude these people have, I think. Look what happens when an article gets posted about someone who doesn't look exactly right! There was something about Alan Cox a few weeks ago, and people who had never met him were talking about what trash he must be for his appearance (he has a long beard). I've never met him either, but he's done a lot of good work on the Linux kernel. That's all that really matters.
Let's see:
Does Microsoft authorize a $1.99 Cheapbytes CD of their NT OS (Win98 doesn't compare to Linux - NT barely does)
Does Microsoft publish the source for NT and related apps?
Does Microsoft offer their NT OS free from FTP?
If your other dist isn't as progressive as RH in their libs, then download and install them - duh. The only real difference that RH has to other Linux's and Unix in general are some minor directory differences, but that's easy to get around by tweaking your PATH environment. Otherwise, they put out a good product, market it with skill, and fix bugs with haste - does Microsoft fit ANY of those descriptions? Even their marketing is stupid.
RedHat isn't becoming like Microsoft, but Linux users have started to sound a lot like Windows users esp. some of the people on these boards.
Windows users used to flame and think users of other operating systems were inferior and not worth their time. If somebody didn't use their type of hardware, they would be laughed at.
Now, a lot of linux users are wearing that shoe. What were once advocates and evangelists are now incensed zealtos.
Now, I don't want to start a flame war, but I invite people to take a look at what they do and say before they actually happen.
Regards,
Remy
Not to long ago, I read an article here about the "Backlash against Red Hat." Someone said (AC, so I can't attribute it:
/. is a high-enough profile website that I wouldn't be surprised if some of the FUD about the Linux community had its origins right here. Take one halfclued reporter/analyst, half-a-dozen noisy distribution/free software/etc bigots, and presto! Negative press coverage.
This is is different than what I have been hearing
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 10
I, for one, generally agree with the tone of the comments above, i.e., Red Hat has been good for Linux and a win for RH is a win for Linux in general.
But: This isn't what I have been hearing around here lately. I have been hearing about "the Microsoft of Linux" for months now. If I were a Gartner Groupie hanging out on Slashdot, I would have certainly written the same article.
In fact,
Sometimes we need to think before we post.
This person got it right on. I think that this article came straight out of Slashdot, with a few of Caldera's sour grapes thrown in. (BTW, is it just me, or did it seem like this story could have been cooked up -- or at least heavily influenced -- by Caldera?) Red Hat has got their problems, but, hey. This isn't the way to world domination.
The practice of being in the free software business is just too different to put them on the same playing field as Microsoft, who focus on just te bottom line, FUD and hardball tactics.
I don't see Redhat as being the strongarm of the free software world, but I also don't think that Red Hat's philosophy is at all in line with Linus'.
Linus says that his personal drive for Linux is guided by technical excellence and nothing more. I don't see any technical excellence being driven by Redhat with their 'not quite their yet' tools, stranger than strange file locations and other general 'do it their way' crap.
And yes I am a bit bitter about having to upgrade all ny boxes to redhat only becuase none of the commercial software (Oracle) ran on my Slackware boxes that I'd had for years.
Thanks, Aaron Newsome.
mw wrote:
... on your RedHat CD?
* RedHat is NOT the easiest to install (maybe you want to look at EasyLinux)
I took a quick look at EasyLinux's webpage, and it looks like they just remove one step from the RedHat installation, the disk partitioning step. The price of this is it installs Linux in a huge file on a fat partition, within which it simulates an ext2 partition. This can lead to horrible fragmentation and stability problems if the FAT partition is used often. Why do you think nobody uses Doublespace anymore?
* not everything on their CD is GPL'ed, as well as in any other distribution (except Debian maybe). Or do you have a GPL'ed Netscape, xv, XFree86, Perl, Tcl
True, I'll assume the original poster just misspoke. On the other hand, over 90% of the programming that RedHat does is GPL'ed (the remaining bit being the XFree86 stuff, either under X-Consortium license or NDA).
* at least when it comes to buggy distribution, RedHat comes very close to Microsoft
While RedHat does ship with bugs (as does every distribution, but many have fewer than RedHat) the bugs are almost never as bad as the disasters I've seen coming out of Microsoft. They are also fixed more quickly, and they make finding the updates much easier than Microsoft does.
I see almost no legitimate comparisons between RedHat and Microsoft. If you don't like RedHat, talk about what you don't like, don't make pointless comparisons to a company that is completely different in size, organization, business practices, licensing practices, development practices, product offerings, support offerings, power, attitude, budget, revenue, platform, and so forth. There are only two similarities I see: they both distribute software, and both have CEO's with glasses.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Posted by JerTheNerd:
;-)
First of all... Red Hat and MS are two completely different animals. MS is pushing software on people, basicly to make money ($90 a pop for Windows 98... WHAT THE ????) and just because they can. They (or should I say 'he') are (is) using the fact that so many people are locked into using MS products to keep digging the trench deeper.
On the flip side of the coin, Red Hat is pushing their software because it WORKS! And works well. It's easy to install, easy to configure, easy to learn, and easy to use. Plus it doesn't crash. I think I've gotten my box to freeze all of once because that was way back (a month ago) when I had no clue what I was doing. Anyway... couple the fact that Red Hat makes good reliable software, with the price difference! I've seen the 5.2 box set for $30! Or if you're cheap, just download it!
At the very least I'd say that comparing the two companies in the first place (in that manner) is the quickest way to get "Gold Member" status on your Moron Club Card.
Just my two cents, feel free to dispense change.
I've no reason to be a fan, but from what I can observe of their behaviour it's only possible to think that they're some sort of Microsoft if you imagine that they're ill-thought-of just because their software is popular, ie if you have utterly failed to take in just how nasty MS really is.
And they do support the LSB. And they fund free software development. And they support standards. I think their behavour is pretty much exemplary.
I still prefer Debian though...
--
Xenu loves you!
I assume you're referring to libc5. They are out of date, but they aren't "bug ridden". They used (past tense, so this post isn't out of date by the end of the month...) them because they're stable. A bug (unintended program behavior) is not the same as a missing feature (thread support).
TedC
Linux is free.
That means that anyone who doesn't want to go with RedHat doesn't have to. Given the freeness of Linux, I see no way for RedHat to somehow deprive you of your choice among the distributions. If you don't like any of them, you can even roll your own. (I'd love to do that someday, but I don't have the time.)
How could RedHat make .rpms incompatible? rpm is GPLed. We'd all be able to see what the format changes were and they'd gain nothing but ill will.
Remember, RedHat is a company. Their primary goal is to earn enough money to allow their employees to make a living working for them. If they ever did anything along the lines of the paranoid ravings being spouted here, they would lose all community trust. With that trust would go their profits. I doubt they plan anything so insidious.
--Phil (Over there! It's a conspiracy! Made you look...)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
...if you've only used RedHat.
I don't coun't it as FUD, where is the uncertanty and doubt? Infact a consliracy theory like this that says Redmond is shoveling this rhetoric IS FUD ON YOUR PART . Indeed, it is showing an early lead for RedHat to prescribe its (lame) administration nuances on anyone who wants to run propriatary software. It shows certainty of RedHat's system as the port for your MS software moving to linux.
If proprietary software runs on RedHat then it becomes the Linux Standard Base, rather than the community well though out effort that the LSB is.
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~^~
The problem with RedHat becoming the standard distro is about choice.
If I am not able to choose which one I want (RH, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, Turbo Linux...) then Linux will go a big step backward.
Ok Red Hat has done (is doing) great things for Linux but I want CHOICE!
Besides, Red Had having the biggest market share can (by changing it's "format") make all the rpm incompatible with other distros.
This remembers me what a company from Redmond is doing to keep the lead in the desktop market...
I am not against RH (I have it on my PC), just worried...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
- GPL'ed all software developed in house.
- Allow free download of product they sell (including manual).
- Openly communicate with competitors.
If you think those fit Microsoft, well, then maybe the two are the same.I just don't see it (and haven't since the first time I heard this FUD over a year ago).
If the numbers given in the article are right, then RedHat does have a much stronger position in the Linux market share than any other Linux vendor. I don't see evidence of Microsoft practices however. They haven't embraced open standards, modified them and concealed the specifications while at the same time protecting the new specification as intellectual property. They haven't released something for free to crush competition only later to consider charging money for it. They haven't released software which only works on there distribution. What they have done is come up with a relatively easy to use Linux distribution and done so earlier in the game than a lot of the competition. They've done a better job than most on making use of the latest Linux technologies. It's the first point which got them market share and I would wonder how much of that market share has actually payed for RedHat and how much has downloaded it for free (or gone to cheapbytes and picked up an unofficial package) It's a bit of a rolling stone really. Since more people use RedHat chances are that more developers are developing on it and so its more likely that it makes use of the technologies present in a RedHat distribution. This may be unfortunate in terms of squeezing smaller competition out of the running but it seems like its unavoidable. For source distributions the user and developer community is still free to modify the code and make a more distribution agnostic version. It's not RedHat's fault that there are some distribution dependancies, they were in the right place at the right time with the right product. The market share isn't so high that it can't change either. If somebody makes a better deal for the consumer the market share can be moved (ease of installation, reliability, scalability, ease of use, feature set, price, pool of resources including people who can help fix you when you're broke)
If RedHat started developing its own closed source office suite and bundling it with its distribution then it would be infringing on Microsofts practices. I don't see that happening though. The various distributions happen not to be exactly plug and play compatible for software applications. Common sense says that most of it will work best with whoever has the largest market share.
The RedHat training is another point that I don't agree with. RedHat has a distribution. It only makes sense both from a business stand point and a feasibility stand point. RedHat employs a lot more people that know RedHat than know Caldera etc. Caldera has the option of providing training as well, and despite their vocal objection to RedHats training I'd be pretty suprised if they didn't also do distribution specific training.
It would be good if all the distributions had all the same libraries and all the various configuration files in the same place, but then there would only be one distribution with maybe some smaller companies selling CD's of the source and binary trees.
...and as long as they continue to license their tools and software under the GPL, they can not become "the next MS". Think about Mandrake...people used it because they like RH but they also like KDE. Red Hat got the message and, since the license change, KDE will be included in RH 6.0 (atleast as an option). Now people will move back to Red Hat. With the GPL, we will always have this branching option.
I can't even think of examples where Red Hat has bullied other distros around (yes: I remember the LSB, but I understand that that is somewhat rectified, and I still wouldn't call it bullying).
--Lenny
RedHat doesn't seem at all willing to work with Redmond. At the UCLA LUG meeting last year, djb reject the idea that they write a Windows program that detects the hardware, sets up partitions, and automatically installs Linux, because they refuse to hire or pay a Windows developer. If they're unwilling to work with MS when it clearly only benefits RH, I doubt they'd work with MS in some mutually-beneficial agreement.
Well, from the past 5 comments.. I can see the linux defense guns coming up and aiming. "FUD" they scream. Step back and take a look people, I think this article has some valid points.
This sort of situation is really inevitable. When companies get involved, they are going to pursue their bottom line, and they really dont give a shit about anything else. They dont give a shit about freedom, open source, or the community unless it is really advantageous for them. There is no advantage for RH in LSB. Why should they advocate something that might take people away from their platform?
"Look at gnome.. rpm," you say. There's a difference. Gnome is different because I believe redhat sees a financial advantage right now about keeping it's contribution open source. Furthermore, they cant close-source it because it's based on GTK, which is OSS. They know that if they could close-it, and they did, everyone would stop using RH, pretty much, so they dont.
RPM is a different problem altogether. RPM was created by RH when linux was still quite a small deal. Since then, RH has grown by leaps and bounds, and so has Linux.
The thing to know about companies is, they are NOT human. After a certain critical mass, they retain NO human qualities. RPM was released when RH was still run by humans, and humans who cared somewhat for the linux community. Furthermore, Linux itself was a very small platform back then, and all developments had to be shared if it had any chance of hitting the big time. Now it has.
There's just one more thing I'd like to point out. There are tons of people out there who have absolutely no problem with Linux getting in bed with the big guys - IBM, SUN, SGI, Dell, Compaq, etc. I just ask, has anyone noticed how far Linux has come WITHOUT any business help? Were the businesses here when kernel 1.2.13 became 2.0.0? Why do people attatch such a big significance to "market share"? Is "market share" going to make Linux inherently better? Is the worth of an operating system decided by how many people use it, or it's technical features? What is the worth of an OS if it is used by everybody, but technically lacking? What price is this community willing to pay to gain widespread acceptance in the world?
Big business did not help Linux 1 iota in it's development - and they wont help either unless they see a very direct way for them to profit from it. And greedy profit-seeking, in this case, is very very bad.
The feeling now is something akin to "look mom, I build my own race-car and it won the indy-500, and now all these nice rich people want me to wear their shoes and clothing, and they say they'll give me lots of money for it too.. gee whiz". Big business has a way of leaving everything it touches in a state of decrepid waste. Watch out.
-Laxative
Who cares about the maturity level of Linux users. That's an argument ad hominum (sp?).
I've never seen BSD and I imagine that it kicks ass but Linux has so many killer aps for it already and more are flowing in daily. Plus, it's fast, efficient (not a memory hog, are you listening Bill?), and it doesn't crash. I bet you could say the same for BSD and more power to you.
You can't fault an OS for its users.
Isn't this article basically someone interviewing caldera as they whine that everyone else isn't as backwards as they are? Life goes on, and progress happens. Any app which isn't a major system app shouldn't be distribution dependent other than requiring certain minimum system libraries. So does Caldera want every dist to package antiquated libraries to be "compliant"?
And what is that about the LSB being "an industrywide push to decide what basic components should go into every Linux distribution"? Well, actually, I just checked out the page, and RedHat is one of the members. There doesn't seem to be much that's actually in LSB at the moment, aside from a spec for glibc 2.0. Exactly how imcompliant is RedHat to these "standards"? How many of these "standards" exist for RedHat's dist to be incompliant?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
As for my grammer. Terribly sorry.... Anyway I run Slackware 3.5 on one of my computers. I have 4. The 1st one is my 486 and it runs slackware...the reason is its the best for a lower end computer. Redhat tends to load to much crap at startup and Slackware is more convient in that area. Now my firewall runs Debian. And my k6-2 300 runs Redhat. I like redhat cause its the easiest to configure overall. I know how to configure Slackware to do the same thing...but its a hassle. Anyway and on my 4th computer I run LinuxPPC. So don't go off and Flame cause I run Redhat. I have tried every distro and the 4 I use are my fav's. I aggree that Slackware is cool...but once u run Slackware you have to have alot of time on your hands...and second have you every tried to upgrade slackware when buying a new Slackware CD? Pretty $hitty if you ask me. Redhat has a "upgrade" option on it and is a hell of alot easier to upgrade compared to Slack. Anyway Flame all you want but I think Redhat has done nothing but positive stuff for Linux. They haven't Fuxed anything up.
Natas
Natas of
-=Pedophagia=-
http://www.mp3.com/pedophagia
Also Admin of
http://loki.linuxgames.com
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed, I can't see how they are supposed to maintain a monopoly.
Someone else already pointed out that it isn't all GPL'ed, but even if it were, RedHat could still lock people into their distribution; the key is in how they put it all together. A co-worker of mine compiled pine on a RedHat 5.2 machine, and it won't run on Debian 2.1. When we recompiled pine on the Debian machine, it ran on both platforms. Something about RedHat's development environment prevented the RedHat compiled binary from running on Debian. Whether or not this is intentional on RedHat's part is irrelevant, but this demonstrates that if a company develops a product on RedHat, users may have trouble running that product on other platforms. Unfortunately, many companies feel that they must develop on RedHat if most of their customers will be using RedHat.
The company I work for is using Debian 2.1 as the primary development environment for the libc6 version of our product, even though having our product work on RedHat is absolutely imperative. There are a number of reasons we chose Debian 2.1 over RedHat, but the one I would like to emphasize here is that I'm confident in Debian's development environment being as standard as possible. (Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's my perception.)
In terms of one-sided reporting, this piece by Ben Elgin (belgin@zd.com) takes the cake. I don't see ONE quote from Red Hat on the matter, despite the fact that they are the topic of the article. In fact, I don't see much of their side of the story at all.
So what's the story?
Do we want ONE standard from LSB, or do we want to let the different "quirks" thrive, the very diversity and ability to try out new ideas without "standards approval" (why does that sound so much like microsoft, and its windows logo/co-marketing deals)?
Do we really beleive that Red Hat has some proprietary libraries that allow Informix to run on their system but not one others, when ANY system, including Caldera's can take any library, even the Red Hat package manager from Red Hat and use it in their own distribution?
Do we see a company that provides programmers, bandwidth, and a damn nice distribution for free? Or do we see a microsoft which is shutting down the competition (there seem to be more distributions than ever).
What we see is a piece of rock-bottom ZDnet reporting, and I read their stuff every day, by a reporter who couldn't be bothered to get the other side of the story, and got the story wrong. It's so pathetic it is unbeleivable, and worrisome because it might be believed.
I'd say that MS-Linux isn't likely at least for the forseeable future: MS have too much of a
gold mine in Windows in all its forms to give
credibility to a competitor, plus they don't
exactly have a good brand image for this one.
However, Office for Linux is another matter - they
can play exactly the same game that they do with
Office for Macs.
Let's face it - the Halloween memos show that
MS is aware that the effect of Linux is to
commoditise the operating system. If there's
no way they can kill it [1], they'll want to
be in on it and the easiest way they can
do that is through Office.
[1] I'd guess an attempt at FUD, patents and
especially FUD about patents. I don't think
it'll work, but I bet they try it.
Given that everything on Redhat's CD is GPL'ed, I can't see how they are supposed to maintain a monopoly. At least their software is all open, unlike SuSE's YAST tool for example. Fact is, Redhat are reaping the benefit of being the "easiest" Linux to install when more and more Linux newbies are arriving; 'nuff said
// Hmm, another variant of IE/W9x/NT to add to the "integrated MS value proposition"
I certainly don't think that Red Hat is the easiest to install. I tried it with version 5.0. It took me longer than any other distribution I tried, and still couldn't get it running properly. Then I went back to Slackware and installed it in about 20 mins. I think that Red Hat has the best marketing team (kinda like MicroSoft) and is using that to make it look like the easiest. The best software isn't the ones that say they are the best, its the software that users who have tried others come back to.
"Normality - What one individual (usually deranged) perceives that the world should be, which does not directly coorelate to the views of any other people" -- me
-- toolie