Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 21, 2008 08:23 AM
from the falling-tide-lifts-some-boats dept.
arashtamere writes "Red Hat president and CEO Jim Whitehurst predicts the enterprise open source software business will emerge from the economic crisis stronger than the proprietary market. 'I've had a couple of conversations with CIOs who said, "We're a Microsoft shop and we don't use any open source whatsoever, but we're already getting pressure to reduce our operating costs and we need you to help put together a plan for us to... use open source to reduce our costs." And we've had other customers literally looking at ripping and replacing WebLogic or WebSphere for JBoss ... I think we'll know in about six to nine months but there is no question that open source will come out of this in relatively better shape than our proprietary competitors,' he told Computerworld."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: Economic Crisis Will Eliminate Open Source 753 comments
An anonymous reader writes "The economic crisis will ultimately eliminate open source projects and the 'Web 2.0 free economy,' says Andrew Keen, author of The Cult of the Amateur. Along with the economic downturn and record job loss, he says, we will see the elimination of projects including Wikipedia, CNN's iReport, and much of the blogosphere. Instead of users offering their services 'for free,' he says, we're about to see a 'sharp cultural shift in our attitude toward the economic value of our labor' and a rise of online media businesses that reward their contributors with cash. Companies that will survive, he says, include Hulu, iTunes, and Mahalo. 'The hungry and cold unemployed masses aren't going to continue giving away their intellectual labor on the Internet in the speculative hope that they might get some "back end" revenue,' says Keen."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I feel as if thousands of MCSE's cried out in pain and were silenced.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:31AM (#25451939)

      Were they using the Billy Mays awesome auger to run cat5 near gas lines?

    • And you just hit the nail on the head as to why it will be hard for MSFT shops to switch. MCSEs are cheap and plentiful,whereas Linux gurus are the opposite. So while they can run a free Linux server edition and save upfront costs the first time they have a serious breakdown it is going to cost them. And the support contracts for distros like Red Hat(last time I checked,its been a few years) will eat any savings that they had from switching. Hopefully as cheap Nettops and Netbooks get more popular more when learn Linux and go into the field,but ATM Linux Server admins certainly ain't cheap nor plentiful.

      Not trying to flame here,just stating what I've run into in the field. While there are some old Windows guys out there like me that love to learn new Operating Systems and all the little ins and outs,I have run into way too many MCSEs that if you took away WinServer would be as helpless as any non technical home user.

  • by doktorjayd (469473) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:30AM (#25451937) Homepage Journal

    as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.

    all too often, you see a business with a couple of it 'support' staff, maybe developers too, and someone has a day at the golf course and comes back with 'great news, we've managed to secure a long term contract with IBM...'

    i still loath cognos reportnet some 4 years after that guy came back from the golf course... whats that ? ibm bought cognos? greeeeeaaat!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:42AM (#25452633)

      As a manager, with 20+ years in the industry, I have solved the mystery.

      "Golfware" is a term I invented to describe any combination of hardware and/or software that is purchased after a golf outing. Golf is powerful stuff; it enables non-technical people to make far-reaching technical decisions without spending the time to learn the details. You don't see open source on the golf course, and you have to understand open source to effectively utilize it.

      There are people who actually CREATE solutions and those who merely SHOP for them. The "creators" can only rise so high in the org chart. Inevitably, somebody with a non-CS background becomes the "creator's" boss. Such people are inevitably "shoppers".

    • by HangingChad (677530) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @10:56AM (#25453687) Homepage

      as an engineer, with 10+ yrs in the industry, it still boggles the mind that closed source, proprietary software has such a stranglehold on the way businesses percieve 'value'.

      Depends on the business. I got the top tech spot where I am precisely because of my background in both Windows and open source. Moving away from Windows as a host and development platform resulted in significant cash savings. We've even replaced a lot of our commodity workstations with Ubuntu and our productivity apps with a mix of GoogleDocs and OpenOffice.

      Not only have we saved a lot of cash in licensing costs, but discovered that all the hype about increased training costs is just FUD. We haven't had any massive staff training costs, not even many calls to the help desk. The only ongoing annoyance is so many vendors want to use GoToMyPC and it doesn't support Linux. So we have to go scare up a Windows client.

      Higher maintenance costs...FUD.

      The line about paying more for qualified open source techs and developers is also FUD. We didn't have any problems replacing Windows only staff at competitive local rates. And our operating environment is so much calmer and more productive. You don't realize how much time you spend serving the Windows platform until you move away from it.

      It's a pity it takes an economic crisis to get companies to look into a better way of doing business. You'll never make any progress taking advice from people invested in the MS platform, even if they're on your staff. The .NET developers said it would take us months to duplicate some of the systems they built, we did it in weeks. In one case days. We're down to converting the last couple core systems and the mood among the remaining .NET developers is grim. This is a bad time to be out looking for a job but I gave them a chance to get on board with the new order. We're shutting them down in the next couple months. Even the outsource vendors. I gave them the right answers the first day we met. Months later they're still trying to push .NET solutions.

  • Yes, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by russlar (1122455) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:33AM (#25451961)
    Has anybody checked the price of a Red Hat subscription lately? It ain't cheap. In fact, it's cheaper to get M$ bundled with a server than it is to get a one year Red Hat subscription, given that you need to renew (read= pay more $$$) each year, and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

    So yes, open-source as a "whole" (Articles of Confederation-type whole) will do well in tough economic times. If Red Hat wants in on this, they'll need to either lower their prices, or perhaps rethink they're "software as a service" model.
    • Re:Yes, but.... (Score:4, Informative)

      by doktorjayd (469473) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:40AM (#25452037) Homepage Journal

      www.centos.org

      ( or - son of redhat )

      presuming you havent built really crappy apps, one linux guy to install and configure, then let it just run in the background. java webapp? tomcat ! database backend? postgres ! ldap? etc...

      of course, if your business demands up to the minute support, patches, etc, redhat can provide a reasonable service for a reasonable price, and will be pretty well binary compatible with your initial centos outlay.

    • Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by corbettw (214229) <corbettw@ y a h o o.com> on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:38AM (#25452593) Homepage Journal

      and Linux engineers can command more salary simply because there are fewer of them than there are Windows engineers (oxymoron, I know.).

      True, but you need fewer of them. The rule of thumb I've always seen used is 1:25 admins to servers with Windows, but 1:50 (or 1:100 if the guy's good) with Linux (on desktops, that ratios on both are around 1:50 or more, but then desktops aren't usually pushed as hard as servers). This may not be as true as it once was, I understand Windows Server 2008 has made some impressive leaps, including a full command line shell and SSH server. But that's the historical reason for Linux (UNIX guys in general, really) commanding more dough: better rate of return on each dollar spent.

      • Re:Yes, but.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by schon (31600) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:13AM (#25452289) Homepage

        The subscription gets you any new release while you're subscribed. For Windows, you need to buy the new OS.

        Also, does a Windows subscription cover applications, or do you need to buy them (and support for them) separately?

        OB car analogy:

        It's like complaining that Red Hat's car costs more money than our MS's bare chassis. By the time you buy the MS Engine, MS Body, MS Wheels, MS Dashboard, MS Steering Wheel, etc, you end up paying more.

      • by Gazzonyx (982402) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:36AM (#25452563)
        No doubt. Red Hat is the only company that I know of that will support other vendors apps to the point of fixing it themselves, or even having one of their kernel devs patch Linux. If fact, Red Hat is the only company that I know of that can really claim that they can get fixes for customers directly in to both the mainline Linux kernel and Samba. My understanding is they'll also support any of the products created by the thousands of vendors that are part of the Red Hat Exchange. Microsoft just can't offer that, even if they wanted to.
  • by rhsanborn (773855) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:34AM (#25451973)
    Why is it that every story evaluating open source as a replacement for proprietary software starts with, "We want something cheaper." It's encouraging that people are comfortable with the reliability and features of OSS that they are comfortable putting businesses on it. But I would be concerned as an employee at these shops that management had fully evaluated the the needs of the company with respect to these packages. I've seen it a few times already at places where I've worked where a manager says, "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "This is cheaper, lets get this." and then doesn't realize that he needed someone who actually knew how to configure and manage things like the Linux box it was going to go on, etc.

      clearly you've never been somewhere that thought oracle was a good idea either...

    • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:53AM (#25452131) Journal

      Cheap is a valid metric for evaluation. The employees will use what the company gives them to do the job the company asks them to do. These aren't personal gaming machines at your house.

      I have found that combining Windows XP with FOSS is a good thing. You give people an OS they are know, along with software that doesn't cost you anything but the time it took to create the gold image.

      My company saves money by buying our PCs used. We buy off-lease Dells for a pittance, and they already have the XP Pro sticker on them. Microsoft Tax? Not in this company. And we aren't talking about slacker machines, either. P4 with 2Gb RAM for a tad over $200 each.

      Cheap PC + Windows XP sticker + FOSS = IT being able to buy more toys.

  • Hi Peter, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drunkennewfiemidget (712572) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:34AM (#25451975) Homepage

    If you could just go ahead and convert all of those windows servers containing all of our business value into linux, that'd be great, mmmmk?

    Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to just stop upgrading to the latest and greatest and stick with what they've already got?

    (I am a linux fan and don't even run windows, it just seems like it'd be more money and less cost effective to start switching over just leaving things alone).

    • Re:Hi Peter, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bert64 (520050) <bert@sl[ ]dot.fi ... m ['ash' in gap]> on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:17AM (#25452329) Homepage

      It would be cheaper to stay with what they already have, if only it were that easy...

      What happens when the current software reaches end of life? No patches, gaping security holes, nothing you can do about it... Have to upgrade, and possibly upgrade the hardware at the same time.

      What happens when you need to buy new or replacement hardware, the old software may not run on it, or its license may forbid it, meaning you now have some new and some old. Will you be able to run old alongside new, or will you start having compatibility problems that will force you to upgrade everything?

      If you move to open source, then future upgrades are a lot less painful, and its easier to retain older versions if you need to.

  • Hell yeah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by cosmocain (1060326) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:37AM (#25452001)
    The year of the Linux desktop is finally to come.

    ...again.
  • 8 years ago.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @08:40AM (#25452039) Homepage
    I had a customer who needed to start from scratch with a new business. They could allocate about $5k for the whole database server. I priced out an NT+SQL Server (what they requested), and then priced out a Redhat ($50 at the time) box where we spent the same $ on hardware that we would have spent on software... so they got a kick butt system with $4950 worth of hardware versus a piece of crap machine with $3000 worth of software. That company is now worth something in the 8 digits range. (Wish I had an equity stake now!) That server also served their needs for 5 of the 8 years until a hardware failure, and all we did was move Mysql/Apache and the source to an externally hosted platform.
      • Re:8 years ago.. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by doktorjayd (469473) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:18AM (#25452351) Homepage Journal

        If you have a hardware problem and call Intel they will solve your problem because the entire hardware stack is Intel

        so the admin guys with MCSE's you employ to babysit your system guess its a hardware problem...and so the call intel.

        whereby intel will direct you to the software vendor, who is clearly responsible for the ${fault} you have described. .. and such and such.

        _or_ you could employ a couple of guys who know their way around f/oss, use commodity hardware and when a part fails, just replace it. if its under warranty, great, maybe get a fresh replacement part for the next one that blows. if not - meh.

        all the support in the world isnt going to help if your raid array fries and the mcse's didnt back up the data....

        my point is that if you have to have local support ( sysadmins, whatever ), then they should be able to handle 99 % of any problem likely to arise, the other 1% should be cheaper to just replace parts with - so what does ' vendor support' really get you?

  • Red Hat CEO Says Economic Crisis Favors Open Source

    No! Really? I'm shocked!!! Who would have thunkit????

  • A lot of businesses may become increasingly unwilling to take risks, such as radically switching their technology.

    It's easy to take risks when business is good and there is plenty of cash sloshing around, but changing mission critical systems during bad economic periods will be seen as a bit too radical for many businesses.

    Having said that, I think smart businesses will be willing to make the change in many cases, especially when there is an OSS drop-in replacement, or where they are implementing a greenfield system.

    Paul

  • by paniq (833972) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:32AM (#25452525) Homepage
    First we were afraid
    we were petrified
    Kept thinking we could never live
    with Windows on our drives
    But then we spent so many nights
    hacking Linux all night long
    And it grew strong
    And we learned to carry on
    but now you're back
    your battle lost
    I just logged on to read about you
    urged by your bosses to save costs
    we should have told Novell to wait
    We should have raised our service fees
    If we had known for just one second
    you'd be begging on your knees
    • True. But Red Hat owns and supports JBoss, so, uh, what do you think they're going to be pushing to their enterprise customers?

    • Re:Great, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by rohan972 (880586) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:24AM (#25452429)

      Here is a situation where potentially thousands of people in the industry are going to be laid off because of this economic downturn, and all he can mention is how great it's going to be for OSS. I mean, I see his point and it may be a valid one, but he could be a little less gung-ho about it.

      Maybe he's hoping to hire some of those laid off workers. I do see your point though, I warned a relative about debt levels, houses, etc. Now I'm keeping really quiet about it. It's a really hard situation for people who didn't know how to evaluate the situation and went with what seemed like good advice because it was popular, only to be stung.

      That said, it has seemed obvious to me since reading the GPLv2 and seeing RedHat 7 where this thing (OSS) was going, and I've always been a bit surprised that most people don't see it too. Proprietary licences are designed to benefit the business, GPL is designed to benefit the user (and the users they distribute to, in perpetuity).

      How hard is it to work out that the software distributed in a manner that it benefits people (customers) will eventually gain dominance over software that is distributed in a manner that restricts customers for the benefit of the distributor? It is very unlikely that any other consideration will outweigh that in the long run although they often do in the short term. Tough economic times require purchases to be evaluated more thoroughly, so yes it is likely to benefit OSS.

      Likewise, how hard is it to figure out that if you allow corporations to produce the money supply out of thin air as loans that you are headed for financial collapse? Tighter regulation can do nothing to prevent the collapse of a financial system based on money that isn't worth anything.

    • by doktorjayd (469473) on Tuesday October 21 2008, @09:59AM (#25452875) Homepage Journal

      almost.

      what they need to do is stop investing in vendor lockin.

      dont write that new app in dot net, do it in java with open source libs.

      dont use oracle/sql server, use postgres.

      with that first step tidied up, moving to an open source app server running on linux is very simple.

      or even moving to a closed source app server on linux. or aix. or solaris - your apps, if well written, will not need to change one bit.