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?)
Loyalty is paper-thin (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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
In a way, yes. (Score:1, Interesting)
Corporations want to pay for an OS. They don't want anything free, it makes them insucure. They also need a corporation behind the distribution and this corporation is RedHat. So, instead of using Gentoo like I use at home and on my laptop at work, I use redhat on the servers. I don't complain too much because at least we're more and more linux.
On the other side, sysadmins should always try to have their managers to BUY their distributions. It injects money in the opensource community, no matter which distro. Note that donations are often better but it's harder to convince your boss to donate 150$ than to buy a 150$ distro.
I think that Redhat contributed a lot to the Linux community and, in that way, cannot possibly be compared to MS. They pay people to develop opensource code. They contributed in making linux easier to install for people who, for some reason, would never install linux if they had to go through the gentoo way of installing it.
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.
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.
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: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.
Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power (Score:3, Interesting)
Insanity, I say! RH did great and heres why! (Score:1, Interesting)
Now I'm 21, I've used Debian, BSD, SuSE, Caldara, Stormix, Lunar, and RedHat. RedHat was able to teach me linux and let me move on to the other distros. It's a level of how easy it is.
Microsoft's products are easy to use and thus, broken. RedHats is the easiest distro to install, and they make a few sacrafises for that. But, it benefits the entire Open Source and Linux community.
Without Redhat, I never would have used Linux, ANY DISTRO!
Re:Red Hat has been there for K12Linux... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Anthony,
Good news on the job. Let me know if you need a boxed set or two when
the time comes to throw over NT.
--jeremy"
How many companies would sponsor such a list, let alone monitor it and assist people with boxed copies of their product. Redhat also offers free access to the Redhat network for schools.
I doubt we will see such gestures from Microsoft, other than to protect their monopoly and get a large write-off in the process.
Re:They will never have the money.; Money == power (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe once Windows is dead and there's no more competition from MS, then we can focus more on ethics. But for now, it's about gaining the necessary monetary resources to fund programmers.
One Word: (Score:2, Interesting)
The concept that RedHat could wield even a whisper of monopoly power that M$ does is a total fiction, trumped up by losers. Why? RedHat IS NOT A MONOPOLY.
I think it's a good thing that software vendors balk at using RedHat as their supported platform, and more of them should take the extra time to certify against a number of linux variants. Consumers should absolutely demand it.
I haven't seen a whole lot from RedHat that is provocative or bad-spirited. While I use Mandrake pretty much exclusively now, I don't have anything against RH, except that they don't optimize for i686 and up, don't have as many neat toys and gui thingys as Mandrake, and Linuxconf still sucks.