Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat? 572
An anonymous reader writes "Various news sources including ZDnet are today reporting that Microsoft is considering buying out Red Hat, speculating that 'Microsoft could see Red Hat's acquisition as a nice way to undermine IBM, but might not consider that a sufficient reason to do it,' adding that Red Hat is however '...a company that wants to be Microsoft and, like Microsoft, makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas.'" That description seems to miss the key point that Red Hat releases the software they package and sell as Free software, and that both companies pay coders to create and improve software in the first place.
I don't think so... (Score:4, Interesting)
1. It would be seen as an admission that the Windows Server technology is not what it is cracked up to be, and be read by the market as such. The immediate impact to the server business would be significant, and it is the only segment at Microsoft that is growing.
2. It would be seen as an admission that Linux MIGHT have some redeeming qualities, something that the Executive team at Microsoft has been avoiding at all costs. Just like Hertz and Avis, #1 should NEVER acknowledge #2 in the market.
3. It would dramatically confuse the market at a time when Microsoft is trying very hard (read $100M+ marketing) to win the server space and defend the desktop.
You may not like Microsoft, but they don't tend to make really stupid mistakes, and this would be one. It just ain't gonna happen.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being that Red Hat is one of the largest financial contributors to Linux and open source, Microsoft buying them and cutting that funding would take a huge chunk out of who they see as their only real threat at market dominance, the open/free community.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Interesting)
retiring in exchange for 200K/year from Microsoft?
------
Of course, like everything that Microsoft does, this was done by mistake, by a renegade executive, the dog ate the email server, it's not corporate policy.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Informative)
1: When you are hired, they claim ownership of any IP that you created unless you specifically list it as excluded on a form they give you.
2: You must get permission in writing from Microsoft to do any work outside Microsoft, or do any moonlighting
3: If a dispute arises, you agree to grant them a non-exclusive, non-revokable, worldwide, royalty-free license to distribute, modify, and re-use the disputed IP.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I expect that your last company did not pay you to write code for a GPL project such as the Linux Kernel? The issue here is that MS cannot change the terms of a contract unless the other party agrees to it and some form of consideration is paid, such as a contract extention, raise, or bonus. In such a case, the
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does Microsoft win?
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not sure if that's the same (Score:3, Interesting)
They would be happy to pay this extra money because they know they can get it back immediately by taking it out of Red Hat's bank account once the takeover is completed. Of course, they might decide to leave it there, but that is their choice.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Regards,
Steve
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet if the price were right they'd do it.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
How would react businesses currently using Red Hat ? Kindly switching to Windows ? I don't think so. They wouldn't be happy and would rather switch to either another Linux distro (like Suse) or another Unix vendor (like Sun).
Microsoft can't possibly buy them all, and even if they were able to, they can't buy Linux (because of it's GPL nature), so new Linux distro would just appear. Would be somewhat like a wack-a-mole game...
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Funny)
I dunno. Let's ask all of those corporations using PeopleSoft. Oh, wait...
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the hot water they were in with the DOJ late last decade because they owned too much of the software market and they were dragging out lines like 'apple / linux are a serious threat and have some of the market therefore we are not a monopoly therefore we are not guilty'
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Why?
- Sun has valuable patents that fit Microsoft's new IP strategy.
- The can get their 2 billion back from Sun that way.
- Sun and Microsoft have a good working relationship; could be rephrased as McNealey makes Balmer Smile [slashdot.org]
- and most importantly, it
seems like McNealey wants to sell [slashdot.org]
Buying RedHat wouldn't hurt IBM at all considering that they're at least as much a SuSE/Novell partner as they are a redhat partner.On MSFT buying SUNW (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:On MSFT buying SUNW (Score:5, Insightful)
MSFT has spent billions on marketing the idea that Windows is better in the server room than Unix and Linux. For them to turn around and buy a tier-1 Unix vendor would completely undermine that position. Likewise, Solaris is one of the few commercial OSes that can beat windows in the server room on technical merit, name recognition, and PHB appeal; for that reason it would be VERY unlikely that any merger would be approved.
Like Microsoft & Netscape. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are planning to do the same thing with Linux. (They already tried to scare Linux users with SCO and it didn't work out too well.) They are going to 'improve' Linux until its dead as a door nail.
If it not RedHat, it'll be some other player. Starting with RedHat is easier because they have the biggest client base.
Then t
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't count on regulators stopping Microsoft from acquiring a competitor any time soon if that's what they want to do.
Not a Bush FTC (Score:3, Interesting)
My suggestion is you guys re-examine your options regarding increasing your support of Debian.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Couldn't agree more. The Linux market offers little opportunities for complete domination. Moreover, could you really imagine Microsoft distributing software governed by the GPL after all the "viral code" FUD?
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wix is pretty darned close (CPL rather than GPL, but it's still an OSS license).
Microsft like to tell the PHBs that they hate OSS and all it stands for, but really I doubt they're that dogmatic - they'll do whatever it takes to make money. If they could make more money by ditching the Win32 codebase and embracing the GPL they'd do exactly that... (not going to happen of course, because they couldn't).
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my uninformed opinion, if a company came out with a user-friendly Linux flavor that included all of the driver support of Windows, with none of virulent Linux zealot attitudes to go with it, it would totally dominate the consumer market.
"Moreover, could you really imagine Microsoft distributing software governed by the GPL after all the "viral code" FUD?"
Yes, and it would be easy since being two-faced isn't an issue for most companies. All they'd have to do is make the source available for download, and then sell their Linux products to that 90% of the consumer market that doesn't compile programs from source, and just wants to double-click a download to make it install.
As for competition, sure, other programmers could run with the source, but could they make a professional-grade UI to stick on the front end, or are we talking the mid-90s UI of KDE 3.x? More importantly, how many developers would work with Microsoft source code, given the virulent anti-MS attitude of the Linux community?
Frankly, if Microsoft entered Linux, I think the consumer market would embrace it big time to the tune of 15%-25% market share. Of course, who knows.
Peace.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
but could they make a professional-grade UI to stick on the front end, or are we talking the mid-90s UI of KDE 3.x?
Because of course the Windows UI has moved ahead in leaps and bounds since the mid-90s. You look at a Win95 interface, and then at WinXP - well, you wouldn't think it was the same system at all!
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. This could be viewed as a 'strategic acquisition' so as to provide 'leading edge technologies' from wherever they were. Then, they could release brain-dead and damaged versions of RedHat Linux that failed under certain conditions;
2. Admitting that Linux has redeeming qualities is not a problem given that the marketplace has already proved that. Like NASA's mantra, "Buy It and Kill It" (tm) would be an easy operation to undertake.
It would dramatically confuse the market
3. Dramatically confusing the market would work in Microsoft's favor. further, they would offer "upgrade paths" that start in Linux and go towards MS Server 2k3 in short order.
As a way to reduce competition, this might make total sense. Yes, it would be profoundly evil, and the antitrust authorities might look at it that way, too, but given the Bush administration's justice dept., any challenge to (potential or actual) big money donors seems unlikely.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways most of what is RedHat is a free open-source program. So what would Microsoft be buying.
1. A building.
2. Its Employees (many of which would jump ship)
3. Some private code
4. The name (would would immediently be destroyed in many peoples eyes when Microsoft buys it)
This would effectivly be the worlds largest waste of money. While it may have some small long term goal of shutting down their compitition. Microsoft share holders would NEVER go for a billion+ dollar aquasition that would have almost nothing tangable about it.
Re:A $billion+? So what? They have no choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I don't like Microsoft, and they do tend to make really stupid mistakes from time to time. Ignoring the Internet for so long. Microsoft Bob. WebTV. Others I'm sure we can think of.
But I don't think they'll make this one, for all the reasons you mentioned, and possibly more: One, they're in denial. I think they believe they're superior in all ways, and unbeatable. Two, pride. "If you can't win 'em, join 'em", and they're not willing to admit they can't win, because they always have. Three, history: they never pick up on the latest technology until everyone else has, and they've still got a grip on the market.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft is dedicated to innovating on behalf of you, our customer. With the recent acquisition of Linux vendor Red Hat, Inc. we will continue to deliver on this promise. Customers who have grown beyond Linux now have an easier upgrade path fo
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Interesting)
Putting an old, familiar name on a distribution like Novell legitimizes the idea of using a Linux distro much more than reading, say, "polychromatic platypus" on the disks, especially when it all works well with Netware.
Also, with Novell sponsoring Mono, and the threat of OpenOffice, seeing a C# port of MS Office to run on Mono would be an obvious way for Mr. Softy to keep the cash cow spouting the milk of currency.
Recall, Redmond's only ideology is money; they leave the fanaticism to the FSF.
Ever Hear Of Xenix? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Ever Hear Of Xenix? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft sold Xenix off to SCO (and others) [unicom.com].
rebuttal. (Score:3, Interesting)
Being that Linux is Open Source. Buying redhat, just to gain Linux technologies seems like an expensive and needless task, and they still have to keep what they added as GNU. Also being that Linux and Windows are more even on the server market
Re:rebuttal. (Score:3, Interesting)
And that's the point, isn't it - MS could have its own linux distro, complete with a fancy graphical installer and partition wizard, out of the door in under 12 months if it wanted to. It wouldn't need to buy Redhat to do that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Funny)
There really isn't a story here. Anything but the single fact that these two guys met about something, and Gates got asked for comment. He didn't say anything to clarify, confirm or deny.
All we know is that Ballmer and Szulik sat down and chewed the fat. We don't know what they spoke about, and we don't know what the topic was. Hell for all we know, they discussed underwear preferences (tighty-whities vs boxers).
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only part of IIS that runs in kernel space is the HTTP listener, everything else is user space.
The rest of your list is typical /. bullshit - none of those applications run anything in kernel space.
Huh? Links to the stories - (Score:4, Interesting)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/index.php?p=27
http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+t
The ZDNet blog states the biggest problem posed to RedHat would be IBM settling with SCO and developing an OS for the new Cell processor. Why would IBM settle now? After http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/05/22420
Pie-in-the-skying on a slow newsday (Score:5, Insightful)
While the articles make a case that it might be beneficial for RedHat, what's in it for Microsoft? Plus, what are the chances of it clearing anti-trust hurdles?
They need a way to get more eyballs? (Score:3, Funny)
It appears they used the olde MS vs linux formula:
combine MS and linux in one headline and you are guaranteed to have slashdot come over and look at your ads.
Let's see what else I can come up with:
MS hates Linux: for hash words on some conference
MS denies Linux: same event, please tear me down version(but still give the attention)
MS fights Linux: MS will make better product (in the future) then linux (as it is no
Re:What's in it for microsoft - SCO IP (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft sued SCO over that?? :)
Selling ideas? (Score:5, Informative)
Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would Microsoft Buy Red Hat? Doubtful.
Never has a Simpson's quote been more perfect (Score:5, Funny)
Homer: I reluctantly accept your proposal!
Gates: Well everyone always does. Buy 'em out, boys!
Need to add this: (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Star Wars quote... (Score:5, Funny)
"Dangerous to your OS division, not to my Office line."
"Linux will continue to gain support along with OpenOffice as long as Red Hat continues to..."
"Red Hat will no longer be of any conern to us. I've just received word that the Emperor has purchased Red Hat and has ordered a completely new version of Linux that will be released sometime in the near future... IE not at all. The last remants of Unix have been swept away."
Re:Obligatory Star Wars quote... (Score:5, Funny)
"Until Longhorn is fully operational we are vulnerable. Linux is too well equipped. It's more dangerous than you realize."
"Dangerous to your OS division, not to my Office line."
"Linux will continue to gain support along with OpenOffice as long as Red Hat continues to..."
"Red Hat will no longer be of any conern to us. I've just received word that Emperor Gates has disbanded the Red Hat. The last remants of Unix have been swept away."
"But without Red Hat, how will the local servers be kept on-line?"
"Fear. Fear of lawsuits will keep the local system on-line. This monopoly is now the ultimate power in the internet."
"Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have constructed; it is insignificant next to the power of the Source"
"Don't try to frighten us with your Sourcers ways, Lord Bahlmer..."
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM settling with SCO while they seem to be holding them at their balls? And then releasing their own linux distro? Yeah, right.
This 'article' is nothing, ziltch, nada, nop. No new facts, no reasoning, no nothing.
The Visuals (Score:3, Funny)
Is it "at their balls" or "by their balls"?
Either way, it's an amusing visual . . . ;-)
Re:The Visuals (Score:4, Funny)
Hee hee. I know what you mean.
Still though, the image of an IBM lawyer holding a SCO lawyer's face to his balls nearly made me snort my soda!
Oh, please.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Others might think that Microsoft is ready to get into the Linux biz. For those, I have a large iron structure in Paris that I'm trying to get rid of; perhaps you'd be interested in buying?
Re:Oh, please.... (Score:5, Interesting)
After a while, yes. Let's play Devil's Advocate, though - I'm Microsoft and I can't get Longhorn out the door and Linux is catching up too fast.
I need to slow down Linux.
OK, who pays for a large chunk of Linux development? (it's easier to whack one big mole than several little ones) RedHat. RedHat contributes a heck of a lot of code to the open source community. IBM and Novell et.al. couldn't immediately take up all the slack if RedHat vanished tomorrow.
Steps:
1. Buy out RedHat. Announce no immediate changes.
1.a. Some percentage of RedHat quits same day on principle and starts a new company
1.a.I. It takes at least two years to get that company off the ground, with all the subscription management software, infrastructure, sales force, channel partnerships, certifications, etc.
1.a.II. It takes 5 years to be back to the strength RedHat was at.
1.a.III. These guys are out of the way.
2. Announce all kinds of linux/microsoft synergies and interminglings
3. Start a new
3.a. some of the team quits.
3.a.I. Novell absorbs some of them
3.a.II. IBM aborbs some more
3.a.III Others get private sector jobs but have less time for open-source development. These guys are out of the way.
3.b. Some of the team stays due to not wanting to move, etc. These guys are out of the way
4. Repeat with other Microsoft technologies
5. Ship Longhorn
6. Cancel said projects. Disparage Linux as the reason. Move team to China.
6.a. These guys are out of the way.
There, another 5 years of market dominance achieved for a stock-leveraged RedHat takeover. The math is good. This is the right thing to do for Microsoft stockholders.
Don't look at it as a long-term strategy, look at it as literally buying time. The Open-Source community may be able to out-code and out-architect Microsoft, but when it comes to dollars and cents Microsoft is king.
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Redhat's profits are primarily from service contracts and their automated patch udpates.
Remeber...everything is GPL'd...so buying out Redhat would at most just give MS some time (against Redhat ONLY)....there ARE other LINUX distros out there....like Mandrake...SuSE.....MEPIS...debian......
They'd only end up with the name (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the community at large would really accept this buyout, and both companies' philosophies are quite different (at least the way I perceive it).
How Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
A disturbance in the Force (Score:3, Interesting)
MS would benefit if they wanted to move the next-version-of-Windows-after-Longhorn to a Linux codebase, but they don't need to buy Red Hat to do it.
Instead, MS would simply create a vacume in the Linux world which would be quickly filled by another distro vendor.
No Publicity is Bad Publicity (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't it just last week we were talking about how Microsoft was going to begin hyping their products using a paid blogger 'grassroots' campaign?
You don't suppose a bullshit story like this that ends up on someone's blog could simply be testing the waters to see how effective the online rumor mill is, do you?
so what if they did? (Score:3, Insightful)
The new company,"Brown Bowler", would take a few years to rebuild their distribution chanel. Them maybe go public and let Microsoft make them rich again.
The only thing owned by Red Hat is the company name, support contracts, distribution channel, some office space and hardware, and the logo. All of the real value would just walk out the door.
Sounds good to me... (Score:4, Interesting)
Gentoo, Debian, Slackware, Ubuntu... They'd all be the biggest beneficiaries of such a move, and Microsoft would be left with a worthless property.
I dropped Red Hat after Red Hat 9, because it started to become clear to me that my customer space wouldn't be able to afford Enterprise and that Fedora was (by design) too fast-changing to support. I now run all my servers and desktops on Gentoo and it's working great for me. The main advantage I see is that I can control and minimize the dependency hell that Red Hat was and create tighter servers with less subsystems loaded on them to update in the first place.
Overall, though, this is just pie in the sky - it'll never happen. It definitely must be a slow news day in the IT world if this is even a valid topic to discuss.
Re:Sounds good to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
i love gentoo btw, but it is not what one would call a stable platform. (and by stable i mean "unchanging" - it's great in terms of system dependability)
Better sense to buy Sun (Score:5, Interesting)
I already bought Red Hat twice (Score:4, Funny)
FTC (Score:3, Interesting)
Answers (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes.
Will they?
No.
This is just the product of fevered imaginations, fantasizing what they would do with Bill Gates money. Gates has so much money precisely because he doesn't do stupid things like this. Microsoft is not going to buy a service business, which is pretty much valued at annual revenues. They're going to buy companies with IP, which are valued several times higher.
They're certainly not going to buy a service business where many of the customers suspect that they are mortal enemy of the platform being serviced. Far from undermining IBM, this would be like the day Coke announced they were ditching the old formula. Pepsi gave it's employees a holiday to celebrate. They probably could have called it Our-Fiercest-Competitor-Makes-a-Business-Decision
Wow. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what "various news sources" are cited here?
"News source #1" is Paul Murphy of ZDNet, who basically says "gee, I suppose it's *possible* that M$ could buy RH, but, um, not really."
"News source #2: is "whitedust," the well-known... er, well-respected... er, who are they again? Anyway, the quote from "whitedust"...
"On the surface of it, the concept of Microsoft buying out Red Hat does indeed seem rather humorous. However as commented in the ZDnet article; Red Hat is a company that shares much the same business model as Microsoft in that essentially it makes it's (sic) living packaging and selling other people's ideas. That alone is enough to give some credabilty (sic) to the notion of some kind of thoretical ethical union one that would perhaps be less likley (sic) with any other open source developer."
So, to recap:
Coke-snorting "whitedust" website claims that Red Hat and Microsoft are a perfect pair, editorializes that purchase is imminent!
Really, truly, impressively insane.
People are reading too much into a dinner (Score:3, Insightful)
See http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+t
"Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Red Hat's Matthew Szulik met for more than an hour at a McCormick & Schmick's restaurant in New York in late March"
Wont matter in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
The core is all open, so all that would happen is someone else would step up to the plate.
It might ruffle some feathers and slow the corporate Linux world down for a few months, but in the end no real damage.
Michael Dell? Insider trading? (Score:3, Interesting)
Validity is Questionable, But the Premise Is Not (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Both Microsoft and Red Hat are under a great deal of pressure to deliver profits.
2. Currently, innovation is not coming at the pace that it did in the 90's. In any publicly traded industry, this leads to consolidation. (AdobeMedia anyone?)
3. Price of both companies shares has stagnated. This generally fuels consolidation because shareholders demand high profits.
4. Red Hat is not as cash-rich as MS, but they are the -clear- leader in enterprise linux.
The acquisition would be good for Microsoft.
-They buy the undisputed leader in the segment
-Make Red Hat the red-headed step-child in terms of price and service to Winblows server. This crushes the Sun and Novell Linux strategy and puts them in-play versus IBM.
-Fire most of Red Hat's engineers to keep the business profitable at rock-bottom prices, maintain the distro and stifle competitive innovation.
Now, the humans running MS would likely be mortally opposed to it as many have pointed out. And from a common-sense perspective it should qualify as anti-competitive, but the legal world doesn't run on common sense.
From a Microsoft business perspective, it is a -great- idea.
zerg (Score:3, Interesting)
Invest in, not buy (Score:4, Insightful)
It would make far more sense for Microsoft to invest in Red Hat than buy it outright. Look at their investment in Apple if you'd like a precedent. The idea has several advantages:
I'm not saying this is likely, but it would make a lot more sense and with as much cash as MS has, they can certainly afford either option. However, investing in an established rival is behavior Microsoft has exhibited before, and they do seem very much to not learn any new tricks.
Reasons not to use LSD hours before your deadline (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously...where's the evidence here? This guy just throws out this outlandishly wild conjecture, and has absolutely dick to back it up. What an asshole.
Of course, that's not the only abject idiocy here...anyone who thinks IBM might settle with SCO has totally lost his marbles. And IBM won't ever release its own version of Linux under any circumstances....if AIX didn't prove to them that nobody wanted an IBM operating system, OS2 did. Those guys are shouting from the mountaintops about open systems and standards, and are making big money selling the services to go with them. They don't want to own the distro.
But the big thing from my perspective is that this dickhead just totally made this story up based on some wild acid hallucination he had...there isn't a story here, but that's not stopping ZD.
Paul Murphy blows smoke once again (Score:5, Informative)
GrokLaw readers will recognize Paul Murphy as the SYS-CON writer who likes to defend SCO [groklaw.net]. The statement from the ZDNet blog that should raise a red flag is this:
Anyone who isn't an idiot knows that F/OSS business are supposed to sell support with their Free licenses, not the other way around. The only rebellion I see against traditional software vendors like Microsoft, not RedHat. This guy is just spreading FUD.
FAQ (Score:5, Funny)
Q: Many of my article submissions on slashdot seem to go unnoticed. How can I generate more interest and responses--even if they're a bunch of flaming retorts?
A: While the interests and levels of expertise on slashdot cover their entire respective spectrums, one sure-fire way to get guaranteed attention on slashdot is to post anything with the words "Microsoft" and "Linux" in the same subject line. You're likely to receive more attention if the submission implies any of the following:
1. Microsoft does anything superior to Linux
2. Microsoft wants to buy/cheat/steal anything from the Linux community.
3. Microsoft makes any business move to check Open Source/FSF initiatives.
Submissions that point out the obvious will be appended only with posts of the "Me too" nature. Be sure to punch it up with a new spin or a repeat of a post that is at least 30 days old.
It should also be noted that any submissions or posts that are PRO-Microsoft will be rejected or modded down respectively. Be sure to bash MS thoughtfully and thoroughly with disputable data, imaginative spelling, and ambiguous grammar.
SEE ALSO: Flaming, Linux Bigotry, Open Source Zealotry, and Mac Fanboy posts.
[big, cheesy "I-just-bonked-your-daughter" grin]
MS Linux...It is possible (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like this idea, but I can't discount it.
Oh brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Boy, that's a really stupid comment - even by Slashdot standards.
Has our anonymous submitter ever bothered to look and see just how many of those "other people" that are doing the development work for Linux have email addresses that end in "redhat.com"?
I'm supposed to take this seriously why? (Score:4, Interesting)
IBM doesn't need to settle with SCO to release it's own version of Linux. All it needs to do is... release it's own version of Linux. Hell, they could download RHEL, rebuild, rebadge, and sell that.
Given that Cell outperforms x86 by an order of magnitude and doesn't have the security weaknesses built into the x86, this would leave them fighting to hold an ever decreasing share of a shrinking market.
What insightful commentary. Anyone who seriously believes the Cell processor outperforms conventional architectures by "an order of magnitude" for anything but specialized tasks needs to lay off the crack pipe. That big impressing 256 GFlop figure that's been bandied around is the theoretical "if you fill every pipeline" number, is almost entirely comprised of FP operations (guess what - most business servers aren't busy rendering pretty pictures), and is for a single precision pipeline which rounds in a non-standard way.
Know what the performance hit is for IEEE854 double precision FP? A full order of magnitude. There goes all that theoretical performance, and you lose the benefit of the industry dominant instruction set, and gain a whole set of programming peculiarities of the new architecture, such as the lack of a branch prediction unit even in the PPC core.
Could Afford, If IBM Were Asleep (Score:4, Insightful)
Break up Redhat to disrupt the Linux market
Make Linux the core of MS' business model
The former would be lame, since IBM is in the position to pick up the RH Enterprise Edition business with SuSE. The latter would be too revolutionary, and MSFT share prices would see an unacceptable drop. It would be reasonable to assume that IBM might react with a bid of its own. If IBM absorbed RDHT, it would still leave MS customers, shareholders, and employees with lots of (for MS) counterproductive FUD.
No deal, but big fun for RHAT at M$ expense (Score:5, Interesting)
I see no reason for MSFT to buy RHAT, even for the purpose of shutting it down. If MSFT was dumb enough to start such negotiations, RHAT would just let the rumor leak and drag out the process while their stock soars. RHAT shares have been doing quite well lately, fueled by nothing more than an OLD revelation about Michael Dell and his $100M investment. An MSFT buyout rumor would further pump the price of RHAT without any need for increased earnings or expanded market share.
A real or vaporous MSFT buyout would be like tricking Al Qaeda into promoting US Treasury Bonds.
Cowards suck (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it's too late to Not Feed The Troll.
All Linux Distros Package "Other People's Ideas" (Score:3, Interesting)
We often see this assertion. It makes no sense.
Unless you buy or acquire your software directly from each individual developer, everyone cranking out Linux distributions is packaging and selling "other people's ideas".
You might as well argue that McDonald's got rich by stealing the idea of the hamburger.
Nothing more than simple opposition toward and envy of anyone that's successful.
A couple of reasons MS should buy Red Hat (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not unusual to have more than one O/S. IBM sells you more than one kind computer and more than one kind of operating system and has made a fair amount of money on it for years. MS could do the same.
It might save MS some money. They've got billions of dollars a year plowed into Windows R&D, and what are they getting out of it? Nothing? Where's the growth in Windows? MS could theoretically make a mountain of money simply by offering a migration path to Linux - everyone must migrate to their Linux Enterprise edition, and suddenly that's billions of dollars.
Finally, having control over the premium brand is an excellent way to hedge your bets. Microsoft would control the trump of Windows and the trump of Linux. Certainly having all of those Red Hat developers could make for better ports of things like
In short, Microsoft jumping on the Linux bandwagon is nothing less spectacular than IBM jumping on the PC bandwagon some decades ago. Remember then, they said that elephants couldn't tap dance? History has a way of proving rebellious pundits wrong.
how much is publicly purchasable? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:GPL? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm glad you asked that, because I collect stupid questions and I hadn't seen that one before.
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Funny)
I'm glad you asked that, because I collect stupid questions and I hadn't seen that one before.
Zing!
Now that was funny!
Re:GPL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:i cant take it (Score:3, Interesting)
Because unfortunately, in this world, food, shelter, and clothing isn't free, and neither are the creature comforts we've become accustomed to.