Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux? 694
RadioheadKid writes "This article featured on eWeek asks the question 'Red Hat: Next Redmond?' It quotes an IBM VP who says, 'There is a backlash against Red Hat from many consumers and government agencies, who fear it is increasingly becoming the Microsoft of the Linux world with respect to its dominance and attitude,' while Red Hat states: 'Our commitment to open source remains absolute, no matter what our competitors are saying.' Is this just some pro-UnitedLinux spin, or a valid concern? What do you think?" Such characterizations are nothing new, but a response on NewsForge from Red Hat's Jeremy Hogan supplies a counterpoint to make the eWeek article worth reading. (Has anyone really seen a Red Hat backlash?)
They will never have the money.; Money == power. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't have the money that Microsoft has, and given that they aim for low prices... and not to "lock in customers" then
Can't you guys accept that RedHat might want to make money and still have _some ethics_?
MODS: We were ASKED what we thought!
Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I think Apple is more like MS than RedHat. Seriously, look at the financials (for example):
MSFT 40billion in cash 90% of market
AAPL 4billion in cash 4-5% of market
RHAT 0billion in cash 1% of market
Apple is just a smaller scale monopoly than micosoft. Don't think for a minute if Apple were in the drivers seat that you could tell the difference between Microsoft of today. That being said, Linux is the true O/S with choice. And that is what makes RedHat NOT Redmond of linux.
BTW I love Linux, Apple (OS X), and Windows (not a fan of solaris however).
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS (Score:2)
And what do cash reserves have to do with behaving properly?
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS (Score:4, Informative)
Why in the world should RedHat encourage ESRI to create packages for their competitors? RedHat has done their part by becoming LSB certified (they didn't have to do that, and if they hadn't become certified the LSB would be deader than a doornail).
RedHat has gained their lead by writing cool software and giving it away. Most of their erstwhile competition (ie Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux) tried to lock their customers into proprietary software that they layered on top of Linux. RedHat, on the other hand, gave their tools away. RedHat's tools, and the RedHat distribution, became the most popular despite the fact that Caldera, SuSE, and others often had better tools. The difference was that RedHat's tools were Free.
Personally, I use Debian Linux, but I am tired of all of the bellyaching by the other commercial distributions.
Re:Exactly, the difference is if you don't like MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do you see Linux products on ESRI's website? Talk about monopolies - ESRI does what it wants, since it has a monopoly on the GIS market - you couldn't have chosen a worse example had you tried. ESRI has a history of only offering support for Windows, Solaris, and the other Unicies (IRIX, DUX, etc). And now they've even punted that. The current version of ArcView is only available for Windows, and they punted their scripting language in favor of Visual Basic.
ESRI, like any monopoly, will offer the bare minimum necessary to get the largest number of people to STFU. If they offer RedHat support, it's only because it's the most popular distro, not because there's some zekr1t n1nj@ conspiracy going on. RedHat couldn't possibly convince them to offer LSB compliant packages, whether it wanted to or not. They could drop RedHat support in a second, and they really wouldn't lose any customers.
Yes, this was OT, but I had to set the record straight.
Not lock in customers? Hah! (Score:2)
What do you call rpms?
I am totally serious here... I've seen several companies that make software for linux and just automatically assume that any Linux install will use rpm's -- which of course, will fail to work correctly due to dependancy issues if a person has typically gone with installing system software via tarballs.
rpms's are frequently assumed to be almost as universal for Linux as the
Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! (Score:3, Informative)
The vendors of those commercial applications are unlikely to support you using rpm on Debian to install their product, but that's because they probably don't support Debian, anyway. In which case it doesn't matter how they ship it.
If you're too fucking stupid to understand that rpm is no more "proprietary lock-in" than using newfangled gzip instead of real Unix compress on your tarballs, you shouldn't be working with computers, you should be scratching in the dirt with a stick.
Re:Not lock in customers? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the other post stated that a Java
Now, though using
RPMS are universal (Score:3, Informative)
Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:2, Insightful)
They already are LSB compliant (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't hate them because they're popular and (somewhat) successful; they are not evil, or power-lusting, etc. They do a pretty good job, and are good community citizens.
Red Hat makes money from providing service to companies. They follow the underlying GPL philosophy that the software should be free as in speech, (and cheap as in beer).
You pay for what you get with Red Hat. The truth is, making a copy of a CD is cheap, for Red Hat, for Microsoft, for anyone. Microsoft has made billions selling $1 CD's for >$100 each. Its a great business model. If you actually use M$ support, you pay alot more (although this may actually be worth it, depending on your needs).
Ok, so now Red Hat is aiming right into M$ territory - the corporate desktop. Which is also pretty close to the home desktop for most people.
That means that their software is starting to look superficially like windows. Its time that the Linux command line zealots got over this. If you like your command prompt, thats fine by me (its a fantastic tool). But Linux is moving into corporate territory for people who don't do dos, or bash, or anything much else like that.
This is a GOOD thing. Linux has needed a good GUI user interface and powerful desktop apps for a while, and now they are starting to happen. (Obviously many of them come from outside of Red Hat - like Evolution, Mozilla, Open Office)
Just because Red Hat is supplying people that sort of stuff doesn't make them Microsoft. The more corporations Red Hat services, the better things will be for Linux. Their fundamental model is that of selling service, not software. And that is fair enough. If you want to have time on a phone getting help from someone, that really does cost money - its economically rational. If you want to get some software, it shouldn't cost a weeks wage for a bulk replicated disk that comes with an EULA denying any implied functionality.
And this is a key difference. With Red Hat, you pay for what you get. With microsoft, you pay an arbitrary amount which gets ratcheted up yearly to maintain a good EBIT on the microsoft balance sheet.
Michael
Re:No, no, no... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I work we're gradually moving some of our systems to Linux. Mostly just clients at this point, but some backend servers are being ported too.
But we need someone to point a finger at if something breaks. I've never actually used RedHat support, but at least they have some! There also needs to be some sort of indication that the company won't die tomorrow. And RedHat's doing better than most other Linux companies out there.
As for personal systems...I dunno. It's easy to install for newbies, and it's still customizable like any other distro. I've run pretty much every distro at one point or another, though at the moment I'm running RH, just because it's what I use at work.
And now that I have it set up the way I want, I don't want to change it. I'm lazy like that
Re:No, no, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
They offer a version of Linux that works right out of the box. Remember that while much of the Slashdot crowd likes to customize everything to the limit, most people are happy with most defaults. Redhat isn't the most secure, or the most powerful. However, it can set things up without asking too many questions; which is often a feature for someone new to Linux. In fact, I point Linux beginners to Red Hat or Mandrake for this reason: They are probably best off learning by poking around on a system with reasonable defaults, not having to make random choices when they're asked a question over their head.
They're a fairly large company. They certainly don't have the cash of someone like Microsoft or even Apple, but they do have enough money to appear large and "stable". To many, especially in the business world, it's a big selling point to say that you'll be around in five or ten years.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to point new linux users to Red Hat/Mandrake/SuSe but no longer... My younger brother wanted to install linux to "see what linux is like", and I pointed him to the new woody release - I've got a few years of debian experience under my belt, and installing woody on a new box was, to say the very least, significantly less painful than any prior install of it I've ever done.
If the beginner is even a little bit computer savvy, I wouldnt have any problem in recommending an install of Woody as it is a much easier install than previous ones.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
All the config files are are in resonable enough locations, all you have to do is edit them and restart the relevant daemons.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:2)
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Firstly, I think that insulting Amiga is not wise. Amiga was a great system -- revolutionary. It was the best consumer product at the time.
Secondly, RedHat certainly doesn't include features that aren't ready for prime-time as does SuSe and Mandrake. But it also isn't as much of a rock of stability and security as are distros like Debian and Slackware. So, that doesn't explain why its so popular.
I think its popular because of support.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, to use a better example, they wouldn't want to appease users by using something slightly unreliable, like linuxconf [redhat.com].
Be realistic. The system that makes sure everything is ready for primetime before it goes into the distro is Debian (and I speak as an impartial non-RH, non-Debian, non-Mandrake, non-Suse, non-Windows user). Redhat has something else going for it - probably the fact that they sell hardware AND offer support for it; I can think of a couple of companies who have an official policy of only buying from other companies who offer support.
Re:No, no, no... (Score:3, Informative)
Looking at making one desktop? They're just trying to make both desktops look consistent. All the apps are still there. Konqueror is still there. KMail is still there. And you can use both of them if you want to.
They sell non-open-source software? That may be true (although I don't know any of their proprietary programs; can you name one?), but most of their software are open source. That includes the installer and all the configuration tools. Those are all GPL'ed. And they release the source code of their patches, including the patches for BSD-like-licensed programs like XFree86.
Checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Checks and balances (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to distros. I've used extensively Slackware, RedHat, SuSE, Debian and RedHat (again) in that order on dozens of my machines over the years. I even used Yggdrasil and InfoMagic way back in the day. My switching around distros hasn't really been because I wanted to "get away" from a bad distro. It was pretty much always just, "I need to install Linux on another machine... which set of discs is closest?"
As far as RedHat goes, I've never felt like they were becoming the Microsoft of Linux distros. I've enjoyed using machines loaded with RedHat and will probably continue to do so -- assuming the RH discs are the closest ones to the next machine I set up. I think my current office workstation is running RedHat, but it's kind of hard to tell. I tend to bastardize my own installations by doing too much by hand instead of using all the new tools that have been coming with more recent distros. Old habits from my early Yggdrasil and Slackware days haven't completely died yet.
Re:Checks and balances (Score:5, Insightful)
A little history. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of you might remember Red Hat's resistance to KDE over Qt licensing issues. The only reason that we have Qt under the GPL (and Gnome is general, which seemed to be developed as a reaction to a closed Qt) is mostly the actions of Red Hat. This sole act should be enough to justify their standing in the community, regardless of the quality of their distribution.
Red Hat also now lobbies legislatures on a local and national level (at least on UCTIA, and perhaps on other issues; I don't know).
Red Hat has remained true to the GPL, and in so doing they have gravitated toward the consumer in most issues. Even with very bad management, it would be extremely difficult for them to wield the kind of power that is being grasped by Redmond.
There are many things about Red Hat that I don't like, both about their distribution (inetd, no XFS, and other disagreeable directions the development is taking), and about the company (Raster's termination, failure to influence commercial UNIX to adopt GPL components, subdued efforts for interoperability with other distributions/platforms [which will be Microsoft's undoing]), but I am willing to overlook these grave faults because Red Hat usually lands on my side of most contentious issues within the software community.
Other UNIX distributions, flashy though they may be, are unlikely to replace Red Hat. Red Hat's dedication to the GPL is the cornerstone of their strength.
Re:Checks and balances (Score:2)
What you really meant was "cheques and balances", as in bank account balances. Microsoft turns an enormous profit. RedHat barely survives as a company: do you think they're the same?
Loyalty is paper-thin (Score:5, Interesting)
what this really means.... (Score:4, Funny)
Divide and conquer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Divide and conquer (Score:2)
Perhaps you're right. It looks to me, though, that since the original (slightly oddball) comments came from IBM, that the old saying about them needs to be updated. Here it is for those who have forgotten:
IBM, we're in the computer industry, but that hasn't stopped us from bringing you the very very best in F.U.D. since 196x.
Sensationalism (Score:5, Funny)
depends on how you think of MS. (Score:2)
Do I believe that they try to inhibit freedom and choice? Do I believe that they are looking to corner the Linux market solely for themselves? Do I feel that they are ending my ability to use Linux as *I* see fit? Do I believe that they are going to create terribly expensive and prohibitive licensing?
No. I don't think that they are going to do anything of the sort. I believe that they are creating a positive spin on Linux and I believe they are doing it properly (at least for now).
Once they start pissing EVERYONE off, breaking the law, and breaking the GPL then I will think again. Until then I will happily stick w/Debian and let RedHat do their marketing thing with the "suits".
Quality issues (Score:2)
The only common thread I've seen regarding Red Hat has been along quality lines.
I am not certain that arguing these particular points is relevant here, but they are generally of a high level decision making nature, more than a low level goof-up nature.
They have gotten minor kickback here and there for making decisions that some people feel are 'loose cannon' type things. Examples include early deployment of glibc 2.0, and the original rollout of "gcc 2.96".
None of this, however, paints them in the light of a controlling "Microsoft" position.
As a strong SuSE partisan, I would be very very happy if my favourite distribution engineers would take a page from Red Hat's book and GPL their extremely effective build system for the benefit of all.
Not Redhat != UnitedLinux (Score:2)
Priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why on earth are people criticising redhat (who have made many contributions to the stability and usability of Linux? Shouldn't they be working on getting something that 99% of the population don't freak out over??
Ah well, I guess it's inevitable. Someone smelt money in opensource and so the crappy politicking starts.
My opinion : This isn't news, it's pulp journo-jism. Slashdot editors - do you have to throw this rubbish in our faces?
Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupid) (Score:5, Insightful)
I did not switch from RedHat because I question their ethics. To the best of my knowledge they have always opensourced anything they've done. They have eventually open sourced anything they've acquired. All under the GPL. I don't see how we can fault them for that.
RedHat has done things that I feel are stupid ( gcc-2.96, recent behavior towards KDE ). But NONE of these things are in anyway unethical. Some of them have been handled badly from a PR perspective. But I have yet to see RedHat do anything that even slighly had nefarious intent.
RedHat provides a very valuable service. They provide a familiar interface to the commercial world. Large companies want a standard distribution with support contracts to help them sleep well at night. Large commercial software producers who right rather overly rigid software NEED a platform to implement to ( because they can't implement to standards, or deal with minor variations ). RedHat provides all of these interests with what they need.
People should really leave RedHat alone on the Microsoft comparison front. Kick them around over some of the dumb technical decisions they make if you like. That's fair and decent criticism, but don't FUD them.
Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi (Score:5, Insightful)
Much like what happened back in the day when RedHat didn't bundle KDE and Mandrake did, the open source nature means that when RedHat fucks up (or more accurately makes choices that don't suit your needs), you can go with something else. The switching costs are minimal. How can you NOT be happy as a RedHat customer?
The day this stuff stops being true is the day I'll stay up at night worrying about RedHat taking over the world. In the mean time, I think the risk of say Gillette taking over the world is much more significant.
Re:Redhat is not Evil (although occasionally stupi (Score:3, Informative)
Why not? I'll say it: people were wrong for hating it. RedHat made the best decision. Their one mistake was not explicitly marking the compiler as their own - people thought it was an official gcc release.
Anyone who thinks the gcc 2.96 compiler is buggy should read this page [bero.org].
Recent behavior towards KDE??? (Score:2)
How can Red Hat be the next Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
The main point, though, is that if Red Hat tries to become a closed-source deal, it will have thousands, if not millions of hours of code to rewrite.
Uggghhh (Score:5, Interesting)
1991 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2000 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2001 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
2002 Is Redhat becoming like Microsoft?
How many times can you ask the same stupid question and how many more years can you be wrong?
Redhat continues to put out GPL software year after year and like it or not is the poster child for linux. Which commercial linux vendor from back in the day would you have rather have won out? Suse, Caldera, Turbolinux?
Redhat does not have a monopoly on linux and never will. It's just not possible. Now maybe they will be the leading commercial linux in the corporate world, but dam it they have earned it.
I know I like many other long time linux users have always wanted linux to make it big. World domination was always the joke, but really there is a bit truth in there. Why oh why did anyone think that all 450 linux distros would equally share in the fruits of commercial linux's success?
Re:Uggghhh (Score:2)
While I agree that their marketing is exceptional (compared to other vendors) why are you letting it go? Why aren't you pushing for another vendor? Are you letting them slip in like MS did?
They went unnoticed as a bully.
(note: Check my previous post, I am not against RedHat, I am just against your particular comment about them).
Re:Uggghhh (Score:2)
10 or 15 years ago I didn't see MS bullying people, most didn't. I don't believe RedHat is now either but how much do we really know?
We only know what others want us to know.
Re:Uggghhh (Score:2, Insightful)
if you have any legitimate claims, that is fine. if not i'm sorry but i'm going to have to side with redhat on this one.
Re:Uggghhh (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, I don't believe RedHat should get a carte blanc pass to avoid criticisms. If they do something worth being criticized, then by all means. But the key point here is if they DO something.
You have yet to point to a single action.
Microsoft is financially successful. Microsoft is in the IT industry. Microsoft is a monopolist and a bully.
RedHat is in the IT industry. RedHat is showing success. Thereforce RedHat must be a bully.
Oh please. How about some proof and substance?
If RedHat starts to use licensing terms as a method to lock out other operating system vendors, call me. When RedHat uses FUD and Vaporware to create confusion in the marketplace and defend their sales figures, spread the word. When RedHat begins to use hidden, proprietary technology as a method to lock in their customer base, raise a shout. The list goes on.
In short, when RedHat begins to act like Microsoft... then this name-calling might be valid. Until then, like all corporations in the IT market, they deserve observation and careful review. But not labels.
Red Hat gets a pretty bad rap. (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, Red Hat is the perfect hybrid of commercial/open-source -- they can take advantage of the pool of free developers to get the bulk of their product developed, then work over the result in-house to make the various pieces work together seamlessly (well, mostly), and finally provide direct support to businesses implementing their solution. They are proof that the Microsoft strategy can be made even more effective with open source. Do they step on toes, as with the KDE/GNOME fiasco? Only where necessary to improve the user experience and to aim towards making a product better than Redmond.
Open source means choice, every disto has a place (Score:2, Insightful)
I really don't see how Redhat's attitude and dominance can be equated to Microsoft's. Somebody has to be number one, and Redhat's dominance is of a far smaller margin that Microsoft's. Microsoft is closed source, Redhat is not. Period, end of story.
If any distro approaches MS style arrogance, it's United Linux.
Third time's the charm (Score:2)
Do writers make accusations just to get attention? (Score:5, Funny)
The situation remains that changing between Linux distributions is like changing your underwear while changing from Windows to Linux (depending on what services you are running) is like a sex change. I know this i've done both. Changed a small server farm between linux distros and changed over from windows to linux that is, not a sex change. I do change my underwear though. I'll just stop typing now....
My opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
Some ways to tell the difference (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Is Redhat a convicted monopolist yet again, after ignoring the court the first time?
3. Has Redhat's license agreement recently morphed into legalized extortion?
4. If Dell and HP and Compaq stop pre-loading Redhat will Redhat be able to drive them out of business?
5. Does Redhat force end-users to agree to license audits as part of their EULA?
6. Has Redhat ever descended on an end-user demanding unnecessary and duplicative license payments the way the BSA has?
I could go on, but there is just no comparison, none at all, there is no similarity whatsoever, by any stretch of the imagination. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Microsoft is in a league by themselves here.
Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... (Score:5, Informative)
Time will tell if other distributions will be as well managed and forward thinking but for now I don't think we should slam RH because they got off to a good start and hired some smart people. They are working hard to produce free software for us and just happen to be doing it very well.
At K12LTSP.org [k12ltsp.org] we base our distribution for schools on RH for all of the above and the fact that over time, it's been one of the easiest and most stable versions of Linux for us to use in schools. They have been 100% supportive of us hacking their distribution and redistributing it to schools. That's about as far from Redmond as you can get. There are some good folks there in NC! Let's give some credit where credit is due.
Can You Say FUD? (Score:2)
I use RedHat sometimes, but I prefer Debian. The only way that I could see that RedHat could be compared to Microsoft is that they aren't the best in everything, but they're decent in everything. If you want to set up a server, a RedHat CD works. If you want to show Linux off to a newbie, RedHat works.
You could probably say the same about SuSE....the only difference is that RedHat had a head start being based in the US. European software manufacturers have always been at a disadvantage in the US market (which is the majority of computer users, like it or not).
I have always been happy with RedHat (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike Debian, the stable release has recent libaries and binaries; they also have a much more formal SQA methodology than what Debian has (Debian testing works, of course, but it just takes longer for Debian to declare something stable). Unlike gentoo/sorcerer/etc., no one has to wait while all of the programs compile. While this is an excellent learning experience, a.k.a. Slackware (another great platform for learning the internals of Linux on a very intimate level), it is, in my opinion, not necessary for daily production usage.
I like knowing that I can buy (or download; the two are 100% identical) RedHat and not have to upgrade my system for a year or two; RedHat will "freeze" on a given release and release only critical bug fixes (mainly security updates) for a period of two years for a given release. This is very useful; it allows people to use systems without having to be on the constant upgrade treadmill.
I am very pleased to see RedHat merging KDE and Gnome; having different applications on the desktop having different user interfaces looks, IMHO, unprofessional and I am glad to see RedHat resolving this.
RedHat has always strongly belived in free software. They took a stand aginst the old Free/Qt licensing by strongly supporting Gnome; their actions undoubtably contributed to QT's decision to allow the free versions of their libraies be GPL'd.
If you don't like RedHat, you are free to make your own fork of RedHat which fixes the things you don't like. Mandrake did this because they wanted a RedHat with KDE five years ago; they are a RedHat fork which still exists today (knock on wood; I hope they get past their financial problems). I think the person at tummy.com [tummy.com] is still selling RedHat-derived distributions (RedHat + whatever updates he feels are needed).
I have been using RedHat for over five years, since RedHat 4.2, and have been very happy with RedHat. I feel that they have made an excellent compromise between making the settings configurable with a GUI or with a text editor--I happyily use a text editor to configure my RedHat box (currently only one: A laptop with 7.2). Some old Sun greybeards (too lazy to learn a new tool) complain about Xinetd; I think RedHat is remarkably conservative about intorducing new things which force users to relearn; I think replacing the old, crufty inetd.conf with Xinetd is perfectly reasonable. Now, if only Microsoft were so reasonable about keeping the UI so consistant between releases.
Speaking of Microsoft, RedHat, as the articles pointed out, can not be the next Microsoft. The GPL protects us from that.
- Sam
No. (Score:2)
As a non RH user (Score:2)
They are quite concerned with what the market wants, not what the best solution is.
They have a pretty strong market position and use it to expand into weaker areas.
But they don't limit interoperability. They release improvements. They don't really interfere with their competitors, just pretty much fair honsest competition.
So no, they aren't MS, they compete fairly and openly on the technical merit of their solution. Not artificial lock in.
Evidence is startling (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing bad about RH is *.rpm (which is what's bad about SuSE and Mandrake etc. etc.). The weakness of RPM is why competitors like Gentoo, Debian and FreeBSD are so damn uhh
The KDE project's leadership being all over the age of 25 and somewhat more mature don't to lose sleep over this: they distribute RPMs built for 7.3 and limbo: both official and "unofficial" builds.
Re:Evidence is startling (Score:2)
Personnally (but then I only used RH, since 4.2, circa 1998), I like that format. It's easy to download and install bugfixes or security updates from RH. It's easy to bundle something myself, if I need to. It's easy to upgrade the whole distribution (even though I usually don't do that the "recommended" way).
A little more precision would be helpful for me, to understand what you dislike in it, and maybe have a different look on the packaging system.
Re:Evidence is startling (Score:2)
GPL should keep Red Hat in check (Score:5, Insightful)
However, what could keep RH from devolving into another-business-that-has-achieved-market-dominan
I'm sure if RH finds a dangerous loophole, it'll be quickly shored up by RMS, and unless RH decides to fork all of its packages and take on development itself, will be obliged to adhere to the terms of the software it distributes.
Finally, there is a bellweather I would watch to determine whether RH has become too powerful: Alan Cox. Cox seems a man of principle, and wouldn't stand for too much BS from his employer.
What a load of hoo-ey (Score:2)
"Mod Parent Down!" and related mumblings (Score:2, Informative)
First, is there actually any locking in being done by Red Hat? No, it's been discussed before: they're adhering to the GPL, so if they make a change, you can get the source and change it back.
Secondly, are they making money off the sales of Linux? Not really; if you want Red Hat 7.3, you can download it and burn it to 3 or 5 CDs for connect time/blank media. If you buy a boxed set, you're getting printed documentation and support in addition. I may be oversimplifing, but it seems that the product for sale must be the printed docs and support. Red Hat does, I suppose, have a virtual monopoly on selling Red Hat-specific information... but, at a guess, most of the information in the docs and obtainable from support staff are also availible somewhere on the net for those with clues.
I'm sure just about every entity that people think is good and wholesome has its detractors, but just because you're a detractor doesn't mean you have to call Red Hat a monopoly.
incomparable (Score:3, Interesting)
Here are the companies I'd rather worry about:
But the solution is simple: if you don't like what a company is doing, promote and use something different. I wouldn't use Qt or Apple's proprietary windowing system even if I liked their design.
Re:incomparable (Score:3, Informative)
So where in the GPL does it mention anything about ISOs? I find it scary how many people think a distro is required to be in ISO form. Some of us hate ISOs, actually. I can get a distro on my computer in a fraction of the time directly over FTP/NFS and they save on bandwidth costs.
As everybody around here has beaten to death, YaST is under the YaST license, which allows you to anything you want with the freely-available source, except profit when you make changes. (ie: no rebranding) What hasn't been pointed out though is that the installer is not just YaST. The first piece is Linuxrc, a nice little program written by Hubert Mantel of SuSE, which is GPLed and was used in DemoLinux. The hardware detection part, hwinfo and the libhd library, is very comprehensive, and even detects TV cards and braille terminals. It is also GPL. The base of the OS, a collection of programs and files contained in the aaa_base package, is also under the GPL. That includes SuSEconfig, fillup, and a bunch of other utilities.
You seem to be only concerned with installation/maintenance tools, though. That's good for me, because I don't want to be here all night listing software
These statements have no basis in reality. They're bad even for Slashdot. How do you come to the conclusion that simple framebuffer access is less efficient than X11? Do you even know how these things work? Your monopoly accusation is also preposterous. All of Trolltech's competitors are using the framebuffer as well. That's not what I call a monopoly.
Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software. If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt. Ask any developer using Qt and they will tell you that it more than pays for itself. Also remember that there are no distribution licensing fees, so it will not increase the price of a device/piece of software, only decrease it.
Re:incomparable (Score:3, Insightful)
Where did I say that SuSE was "required" to distribute ISOs? I didn't accuse SuSE (or Apple or Troll Tech) of a GPL violation, I merely pointed out that I believe that their policies are bad for open source if they succeed.
How do you come to the conclusion that simple framebuffer access is less efficient than X11? Do you even know how these things work?
Yes, I do. More importantly, I have used X11 on platforms less powerful than what Qt/Embedded requires. There is no technical or efficiency reason for Qt/Embedded--X11 has a longer and better history of running efficiently on embedded devices than Qt/Embedded.
Your monopoly accusation is also preposterous. All of Trolltech's competitors are using the framebuffer as well.
iPaq Linux and most embedded UNIX GUI apps use X11.
That's not what I call a monopoly.
You need to read more carefully: I said Troll Tech has tried to monopolize the market for Linux-based handhelds. They will probably not succeed in the long run because their strategy makes no sense for anybody than themselves: they don't offer anything lots of other toolkits don't offer as well, but Qt/Embedded is considerably more limiting than an X11-based solution. Unfortunately, Troll Tech will do a lot of damage in the process by making platforms like the Zaurus less attractive for commercial development.
Trolltech, in using the GPL, are encouraging more free software.
Linux has become successful because it is a reasonable platform for both free and commercial software and allows people to publish software for it under a wide variety of licenses. Without the ability to create commercial software for Linux without having to pay some sort of tax to one company, Linux would have been a flop. Just because something is, or forces something else to be, GPL doesn't make it good for open source software.
Troll Tech wants to be the gatekeeper and toll taker for commercial applications on Linux. Why should we give a single company that kind of control over GUI applications on Linux?
If you do want to make commercial software, Trolltech's prices are very cheap, especially considering how quickly you can write apps in Qt.
Yeah, right, that's what people say about Windows as well. And with Windows, people don't even have to pay Microsoft to develop commercial apps.
RedHat is a simple install, period. (Score:5, Interesting)
RedHat has good name recognition for a reason, they make getting Linux on your box simple. I am sure you can on and on again about your favorite distro and you will have valid points. I just love quick and simple net installs--free of charge--Microsoft ain't never gonna do that for me!!!
Yeah right... (Score:2, Insightful)
MS has money. MS has marketshare. MS is an established name. Regardless of how you feel about Microsoft, how can anyone POSSIBLY relate RedHat and Microsoft this way?
Quite simply RedHat just doesn't have the power to be a Microsoft-like company. They don't have the money, they don't have the resources, and they sure as hell don't have the marketshare. Maybe they're the leader of the commercial Linux pack, but so what? Don't get me wrong - I like Linux. I use Linux. But don't expect me to believe that RedHat is going to be able to force computer companies to bundle Linux with them. Last I heard, the PC companies we're cutting back on bundled Linux!
Maybe RedHat is adding some proprietary stuff, or plans to in the future for whatever reason (clusters etc - I don't know). Well all I can say about that is 'DUH!' News flash folks - their business model revolves around a free OS, they've got to pay the bills somehow. And I don't know about you, but I certainly don't work for free.
But anyway if RedHat is able to become successful, then more power to them. And if you don't like it, give your money to someone else.
Re:Yeah right... (Score:2)
Wasn't this because Microsoft was again choosing for the customer what they should buy?
-BrentRedHat: The Starbucks of Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Now *that* is a much nicer analogy:
Story Time - HEY, LISTEN UP! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd like to tell a short story about a conversation I had with a fellow linux enthusiast at one of the ALS conferences years ago. (This was back when it was still the ATLANTA Linux Showcase, but I digress). Anyway, I was speaking to someone at the Debian booth, as I had told him that I was curious about switching to Debian. He asked, "why do you want to switch?", to which my best reply was, everyone else on Slashdot is doing it, why not I? Given that there seems to be the fairly LARGE camps of Debian users vs RedHat users I wanted to see what was so great about the other side (btw, other distro users, please don't flame me that I left you out). This fella (sorry, forgot his name) asked me what I currently used, and how well I knew it. I said I've been using RedHat since roughly a year after I started with Slackware linux, and I had gotten to know RedHat pretty well. He then told me that there's no reason to switch if I'm comfortable with what I'm using.
That's actually the bulk of the story. I never ended up trying Debian, but I did think about what he said, usually whenever these discussions arise about who's got the better distro. The point I think I'm trying to make here, is that it doesn't matter what other people think of the distro, as long as it's what you feel comfortable with. If Debian (or whatever) works for you, then keep using it. Don't go switch because so-and-so says theirs is better. At least you're running Linux--you've shed the shackles of Redmond, so why keep bitching about what's better on this side of the fence? Honestly, RedHat still seems to listen to it's user base, and that's what matters. The day that any distro developers stop listening, is the day they trully become like Microsoft.
I can say more, but I'll see what kind of response this generates first.
I-don't-get-it (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok, so at one time, Microsoft was a little startup...without much technical inguinuity...albeit...but they were the underdog against the bohemeth IBM. Now they are they enemy.
So another underdog comes to the table, and they are becoming enormesly successful in their industry. And we have to bash them? Calling them the "microsoft" of their industry?
This is riduculous.
Redhat is a great company. They adhere to standards. They continue to release GPL code. They have introduced more people to Linux than probably all other players combined. In fact, in my industry (systems integration), 3 or 4 years ago, my customers wouldn't touch Linux. Now, when I tell them I'm installing RedHat, they can put a name behind the product and somehow they feel better about it. Today, in certian situations, I can bring Linux in-house to organizations that would have otherwise balked at my proposals a few years ago. In fact, I attribute this to the success of Redhat for creating a solid organization that backs the very code so many of you are working on. A company that the "C" people (ceo's, cfo's, etc) can identify with and trust.
Just because they are successful doesn't mean that they are evil.
Red Hat's position seems more believable (Score:2)
What do I think? (Score:3)
Now, since this is slashdot, and most of the users here have never had a full time job that didn't include subsidized cafeteria food, let me shake some people into the Real World (TM).
Not everyone has the time to compile every package for every server they run. Not everyone wants to sit around and wait for years for their distro to catch up to new-fangled software. Not everyone is willing to work with companies that don't GPL their installer.
Having said that, many companies and governments want SUPPORT for the things that they buy. We've been through this before. They also want to get support from third party software vendors for the software they run on their platform of choice. It's one thing if I call up Legato or Oracle and say "I'm running your product on SmellyJoe's Linux and I get this error: " and another to call someone like TogetherSoft. Those vendors are not going to waste their time and resources to support every distro.
Hence the LSB. IBM is countering with UnitedLinux. Would there be UnitedLinux without IBM? Probably not. Do they have a financial stake in getting their initiative recognized? Probably. Is Red Hat an easy target? Yup. The continuing discussion that RedHat is just waiting to become the M$ of linux has ensured that any silliness that IBM or others want to throw out there will get time and attention from the peanut gallery, even though the horse has been dead for years.
--mandi
Oh come on... (Score:2, Insightful)
Justin
The fruit... (Score:2)
Microsoft tried, and was forced to become criminal in its activities to do so. Who would willingly do that again? What true long term gain is there in feeding your own girth without advancing your product line or its merits? What fruit is there in eating at your own customers?
Um, let's try huge piles of cash. You can criticize the morality and legality of what they've done but it's hard to argue the fact that nobody's going to jail and all the big players have made immense fortunes. And do they have trouble sleeping at night? No, I guarantee you that they all feel that having a unifying unquestioned platform for all people to run on their computers is a wonderful service for humanity (and that point does have merit).
Those dirty rotten bastards! (Score:5, Funny)
Then, use their software on *all* your machines at work, and don't pay them a red cent! Ha!
Oh, wait a minute...
Not as bad as the real MS, but yes, they are (Score:2, Insightful)
Comparing RH to Microsoft sounds to me a bit harsh for the hats, but...
My company has recently been involved in several projects using Linux -- some from quite unlikely customers, such as the long-time Microsoft buddy that has The Way Out... but that's another story. Anyway, their consultors were pretty much learning to use Linux on the fly, and they have zero Unix background. They of course use RedHat, and they did succeed in installing a couple of Linux systems, which ended up being, well... somewhat imperfect.
Alright, yes, they were ugly and insecure and just crap overall. But then again, they were learning, so I don't blame them. I just think that they shouldn't be able to install such systems. Or at least believe that the machines were tip-top and running smoothly.
To rant even further, the thing that bothers me most about Microsoft is the idiotizing effect that has on their users. I'm sick of people mailing me 2MB worth of word documents every other day, given that my net link is rather small and I don't use Windows -- but they don't even know what they're doing. They just pressed a colourful and friendly button and poof, off it went. I just stopped trying to explain that I don't even run Windows, which makes reading their docs a pita for me.
It's like the people that just double-click on executable attachments in their mail, to get the cute sheep on their desktop (and the nasty trojan on their disk). Filtering content and babysitting software for such users is, imho, a battle lost before it starts. Fighting this requires only common sense and a bit of computer knowledge --surely no more that the bit of training you need for operating a car. If using a computer required even a small bit of computer knowledge, most of these things wouldn't happen.
But anyway, I don't blame computer-illiterate users for this state of things. I do blame companies such as Microsoft that actually encourage this ignorance by struggling to build software that even an idiot can use.
And on that account, yes, I do consider RedHat as the Microsoft of Linux, and I do hold a certain amount of disgust and resentment for their practices.
Er... (Score:2)
My philosophy: I like Red Hat Linux 7.3 because it's a solid piece of software. I got Red Hat Linux for free, from ftp.redhat.com. Nobody at Red Hat has attempted to take away my rights, and indeed, they have fought for them.
I believe the common phrase is "bitch, whine, moan complain. That's all I ever hear from you!"
Apple is (Score:2, Funny)
redhat is real ultimate power (Score:2, Insightful)
i gave it to a MS only tech who had been trying many other distros most of which he was unable to get to even install, he didn't use redhat because he heard it was bloated, insecure and unstable. and it installed perfectly the first time and he's stuck with it.
its only flaw is (again my opinion) if you dont do a custom package selection install you get too much of the same thing, a couple different image viewers, email clients, mp3 players, image editors and so on. so if you wanna claim they're like MS the only way you'll win that argument is that they bundle software with their OS.
Some leverage (Score:5, Interesting)
But there is a difference. MS used contracts and stand-over tactics with OEM's to prevent the icons from being changed. In RedHat's case, the GPL acts as a counter-balancing force.
While they continue to GPL everything they do, the license makes it legal for an OEM to apply a "mod kit RPM" that modifies the RedHat distro however they want.
Also, unlike MS, RedHat cannot say "fine, we will withdraw your license". The minute they tried that, the OEM's would fork the code and tell RedHat to get lost.
RedHat will only survive so long as they provide a useful service. They are dead the moment they stop.
UnitedLinux would be better off copying RedHat than trying to re-invent the glory days of proprietry Unix where vendors lorded it over users and _all_ Unix distributions sucked.
Arr. (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft. It has nothing to with the relative size, or position in the market. It has nothing to do with the current employees at RedHat. It has nothing to do with the business model. It doesn't even have anything to do with the GPL.
No, the fundamental difference between RedHat and Microsoft is that RedHat is standards-compliant. Compile one piece of software on RedHat, and you can run it on most any Linux distro. If you can't, you can get compatibility libraries so you can. All for free.
This means that vendor dependence is no more. Anyone can use RedHat for a while, then if Mandrake offers a better deal, they can switch on the spot. No buying new applications, or hardware, or support contracts; everything stays the same, except the distributor.
This means that RedHat can't do "embrace and extend." If they do, people can switch distros instantly, and RedHat's dominance will be gone. RedHat only remains dominant because they offer a good product; and as Mandrake's offering gets better, its marketshare rises on the charts. If RedHat's tops, it's because it's good software. Period.
From a Debian Advocates POV, NO! (Score:2)
And my answer to this question -- is RedHat the MS of Linux -- is a resounding NO.
RedHat may not be perfect. There are some trademark issues, and it isn't perfectly devout in the OSS / FS philosophy. But they are pretty strong in their OSS / FS philosophy.
There are some other minor moral issues. In terms of morality for a software developing organization, Debian has one of the best standards in their Social Contract. RedHat doesn't quite live up to that, but they are pretty damn good. They are certainly a far far cry from MS.
There are other technical issues that make me prefer Debian over RedHat (namely, Debian's superiority in terms of stability/security, and lack of bloat, and superior performance). However, these are not moral issues; and the moral issues which one can criticize RedHat for are rather minor.
Put another way, Debian, FSF, OSI, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc., are like the Ghandi's, Mother Teresa's, Mandela's, and ML King's of the software world. MS is like the Hitler of the software world. Would you really place RedHat in MS' category? Granted, they don't belong in the saint category either; but perhaps an appropriate analogy would be Winston Churchill.
In other news... (Score:2)
or maybe... (Score:2)
The real question... (Score:2)
"Will hackers still be able to love Linux if it become a real competitor to Microsoft?"
Will this all be fun when mom calls in the evening wanting to know how to build the new kernel? Or when some little Britney wannabe says "Linux" the wrong way? Or when what we do and talk about at the LUG meetings isn't unique anymore? When the club is open to all members, will it still be worth belonging?
Maybe that's why some people fear Red Hat. The more mainstream they get, the closer all of those things become.
I wish!!! (Score:2)
Let's worry about keeping the company going first, and fret about monopolies later.
This is Just Getting Rediculous (Score:5, Interesting)
When Red Hat released a distro with a new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!
When Red Hat plans to release a distro with another new version of gcc: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!
When Red Hat changes a few icons from two GPL'd Linux desktops: Oh my God! Red Hat's the Microsoft of Linux!
This is just nonsense. Red hat certainly has a large share of the corporate, commercial, and boxed Linux market, but they are far from a monopoly, and they have contributed everything they developed that goes into their normal distribution back to the open source community.
They host and support many open source projects, they regularly oppose bad laws like the DMCA or the latest Hollings drivel (including putting money where their mouth is via lobbying), and they champion Linux in schools.
Are they competing for market share? Sure. Are they trying to annihilate all competition with FUD, dirty marketing, embrace-and-extend, and illegal manipulation the PC distribution channel? Definitely not. Have they made some stupid mistakes? Of course they have, who hasn't?
I personally use Red Hat on some machines, but I use several other distros as well. That's called choice, something you don't get at all with Microsoft operating systems (unless your definition of choice is Win98, Win2000, WinXP, WinNT,or WinME).
Red Hat is definitely about competing for customers, but even if they had 90% of the boxed Linux market, they would not really have a monopoly because of the licenses which allow anyone else to produce a similar product for free. If Palladium ever succeeds, then there may be an advantage to companies who produce commercial versions of Linux, but we are still far from this situation at the moment, and it's not yet clear that business or the public will even accept it in the long run.
If you don't like Red Hat, then don't use it, but calling them the Microsoft of Linux everytime they freakin fart is just pure paranoia.
Re: When is the last time that you checked? (Score:5, Informative)
nuff said
Re:Surprise??? (Score:2)
As far as KDE versus GNOME, you can change the default either for the system (and it prompts you during installation!) or for an individual user. In fact, being able to set which desktop to use (as well as which language) right at the login prompt is very newbie friendly in my opinion.
Re:Red Hat? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
And then someone at work also told me that the name of x-windows was a direct ripoff of microsoft windows.
But even funnier, I was using Mozilla and some guy was like.. wow, they ripped off Netscape!
I eventually quit that job, and went to work another place that was all bsd/linux/mac.. but my boss calls me bugs me on Sundays... gah, can't have it all.
But joking aside, Redhat rocks. They have innovated a lot of things for linux that is necessary for it to become wider spread. I don't even think we should be spending time with articles like this. Support everyTHING OPENsource despite where it comes from. I hate to say this, but everyone who deals in free software really needs to read the Communist Manifesto. (NO, I am not trying to spread communism here, nor do I support them.) Think of software being personal property and redhat trying to be the state that runs it all. It is cool because everyone benefits yet no one really owns anything.
Unfortuantly money talks and makes the world go around. Which is why capitalism (Microsoft) is a nearly impossible foe to deal with. Redhat is trying to make money though, but you have to admit it is very difficult for them to do.
I guess my point is...
It doesn't matter if you LIKE redhat or not, support them damnit. People like them are the few that might accomplish the goals we all really want. Hell... type emacs on a command prompt, and hit Ctrl-H then Ctrl-P
Re:Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux? (Score:2)
If by "Redhat is the Microsoft of Linux" they mean, "Redhat makes a high-quality product that many people use and enjoy on a daily basis", then yes, Redhat is the Microsoft of Linux.
Re:Actually.... Yes, they are (Score:2)
Are you implying that Windows is bad? I think Windows is good. It's Microsoft's anti-trust violations that are bad. If Microsoft would sell Windows on it's own virtues, instead of selling it by preventing consumers from buying what they want, Microsoft would not have it's anti-trust troubles.
Red Hat may be the front and center trademark in the Linux field. But they are selling it on it's own virtues, not by prevents other distributions a place in the market.
-BrentRe:Smaller distributions (Score:2)
Intriguing.
Why not just use Red Hat for those applications then? Certainly a proposal for a new application would take into account what distribution it is supported on?
-BrentRe:Wait...How Is SuSE Open??? (Score:2)
Considering what SuSE has done for the community in supporting KDE developers, the -aa VM, and the Reiser file system, among other things, painting a picture of them being, in Stallmanist terms, "a parasite of the free software world" is unfair. It's noteworthy that when they were having financial difficulties before IBM's investment in them that during the layoffs they refused to lay off one developer.
Re:Isn't it interesting.. (Score:2)
So you think that if a company is successful, then they should be put above the law? Why not let successful criminals be above the law?
Should a carjacker not be prosecuted if he successful steals my Corvette? Maybe I should only prosecute him if I catch him before he drives away. Or perhaps you say that only businesses should be above the law. Then perhaps if the auto dealer scams me for services that they didn't do, they should not be prosecuted. After all, they are successful, that's what their financial records show.
I get it. It's not were they are successful or not at all. It's whether they hurt you. People today look at guilt or innocence not in relation to laws, but to whether they were hurt. That's why OJ Simpson, Bill Clinton and Microsoft gets off the hook. People don't feel they have been personally hurt yet by them so it doesn't matter. That's why they man who kidnapped the little girl in the park gets the death penatly. He hit close to home.
-Brent