I think this is why some folks call in a question for their 'RHEL' box, only it's really CentOS.
You make a good point, though. There's no question there are limitations to community Linux in the enterprise. That's why it's only a small slice of the overall Linux deployment at present.
JL
There will be plenty of people who need/want/will pay almost anything (weapons/telcos/banks) for paid support with Linux for a long, long time. The Linux leaders will have to further differentiate and enhance their offerings, possibly adjust pricing and accommodate the free Linux use to an extent, but most of their customers will continue and possibly expand their subscriptions.
JL
I think it's a combination of the things -- timing, Shuttleworth, aging Windows machines, Vista, etc., but it's really about the code and development. Ubuntu has had a greater focus on end users and just making things work with Linux. It used to be that was not something of much/top concern to Linux developers. Ubuntu has changed that dramatically, or at the very least arrived on the scene at a time when there was some realization of the need for user focus among some Linux developers.
JL
This is an important point, and it's true that RHEL subscriptions pay for Red Hat's contributions back to the kernel (it's the leader). However, I think, as others have suggested, this will simply push Red Hat to further differentiate its Linux offerings with enhancements and extensions. When you start talking about virtualization or a cloud deployment, you're most likely talking a leading, commercial distro.
I think RH is confident that use of CentOS is not so bad for it in the long run, since folks (particularly enterprise folks) tend to scale up their use and eventually subscribe.
JL
This is an interesting example of a community distro (CentOS) creating traction for another community distro (Ubuntu). We saw community and commercial Linux mixing it up pretty good in our research, and I think some of the examples here show how Linux is used in many different ways for many different people and organizations. Obviously that flexibility is an advantage from openness, and it will be interesting to see how further adoption affects the flavors.
JL
There is no question that for the vast majority of IT organizations, they need the commercial Linux subscription, regardless of their Linux skills. It boils down to having an insurance policy, a place to call when things go terribly wrong and a place to point the finger.
Things is, with Linux, most organizations become more self-sufficient, so the appeal of community distros becomes even greater. We simply see the successful community distros growing along with RHEL and SUSE, and that's a good thing.
JL
Thanks for posting. Arch Linux is among the many, many OTHER community distros that are also in use by small, midsize and even some large enterprises. It may only be a sliver compared to the planks that represent RHEL and SUSE, but it's happening all over the world.
JL
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is why some folks call in a question for their 'RHEL' box, only it's really CentOS. You make a good point, though. There's no question there are limitations to community Linux in the enterprise. That's why it's only a small slice of the overall Linux deployment at present. JL
There will be plenty of people who need/want/will pay almost anything (weapons/telcos/banks) for paid support with Linux for a long, long time. The Linux leaders will have to further differentiate and enhance their offerings, possibly adjust pricing and accommodate the free Linux use to an extent, but most of their customers will continue and possibly expand their subscriptions. JL
I think it's a combination of the things -- timing, Shuttleworth, aging Windows machines, Vista, etc., but it's really about the code and development. Ubuntu has had a greater focus on end users and just making things work with Linux. It used to be that was not something of much/top concern to Linux developers. Ubuntu has changed that dramatically, or at the very least arrived on the scene at a time when there was some realization of the need for user focus among some Linux developers. JL
This is an important point, and it's true that RHEL subscriptions pay for Red Hat's contributions back to the kernel (it's the leader). However, I think, as others have suggested, this will simply push Red Hat to further differentiate its Linux offerings with enhancements and extensions. When you start talking about virtualization or a cloud deployment, you're most likely talking a leading, commercial distro. I think RH is confident that use of CentOS is not so bad for it in the long run, since folks (particularly enterprise folks) tend to scale up their use and eventually subscribe. JL
This is an interesting example of a community distro (CentOS) creating traction for another community distro (Ubuntu). We saw community and commercial Linux mixing it up pretty good in our research, and I think some of the examples here show how Linux is used in many different ways for many different people and organizations. Obviously that flexibility is an advantage from openness, and it will be interesting to see how further adoption affects the flavors. JL
There is no question that for the vast majority of IT organizations, they need the commercial Linux subscription, regardless of their Linux skills. It boils down to having an insurance policy, a place to call when things go terribly wrong and a place to point the finger. Things is, with Linux, most organizations become more self-sufficient, so the appeal of community distros becomes even greater. We simply see the successful community distros growing along with RHEL and SUSE, and that's a good thing. JL
Thanks for posting. Arch Linux is among the many, many OTHER community distros that are also in use by small, midsize and even some large enterprises. It may only be a sliver compared to the planks that represent RHEL and SUSE, but it's happening all over the world. JL