Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat? 572
An anonymous reader writes "Various news sources including ZDnet are today reporting that Microsoft is considering buying out Red Hat, speculating that 'Microsoft could see Red Hat's acquisition as a nice way to undermine IBM, but might not consider that a sufficient reason to do it,' adding that Red Hat is however '...a company that wants to be Microsoft and, like Microsoft, makes its living packaging and selling other people's ideas.'" That description seems to miss the key point that Red Hat releases the software they package and sell as Free software, and that both companies pay coders to create and improve software in the first place.
Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Pie-in-the-skying on a slow newsday (Score:5, Insightful)
While the articles make a case that it might be beneficial for RedHat, what's in it for Microsoft? Plus, what are the chances of it clearing anti-trust hurdles?
Re:I don't think so... (Score:4, Insightful)
Could Microsoft Buy Red Hat? (Score:3, Insightful)
Would Microsoft Buy Red Hat? Doubtful.
Yeah, right. (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM settling with SCO while they seem to be holding them at their balls? And then releasing their own linux distro? Yeah, right.
This 'article' is nothing, ziltch, nada, nop. No new facts, no reasoning, no nothing.
Oh, please.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Others might think that Microsoft is ready to get into the Linux biz. For those, I have a large iron structure in Paris that I'm trying to get rid of; perhaps you'd be interested in buying?
Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Redhat's profits are primarily from service contracts and their automated patch udpates.
Remeber...everything is GPL'd...so buying out Redhat would at most just give MS some time (against Redhat ONLY)....there ARE other LINUX distros out there....like Mandrake...SuSE.....MEPIS...debian......
They'd only end up with the name (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the community at large would really accept this buyout, and both companies' philosophies are quite different (at least the way I perceive it).
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
How Dumb (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I don't like Microsoft, and they do tend to make really stupid mistakes from time to time. Ignoring the Internet for so long. Microsoft Bob. WebTV. Others I'm sure we can think of.
But I don't think they'll make this one, for all the reasons you mentioned, and possibly more: One, they're in denial. I think they believe they're superior in all ways, and unbeatable. Two, pride. "If you can't win 'em, join 'em", and they're not willing to admit they can't win, because they always have. Three, history: they never pick up on the latest technology until everyone else has, and they've still got a grip on the market.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Being that Red Hat is one of the largest financial contributors to Linux and open source, Microsoft buying them and cutting that funding would take a huge chunk out of who they see as their only real threat at market dominance, the open/free community.
Re:Well (Score:1, Insightful)
and how many other linux distros are there? 10,000?
so what if they did? (Score:3, Insightful)
The new company,"Brown Bowler", would take a few years to rebuild their distribution chanel. Them maybe go public and let Microsoft make them rich again.
The only thing owned by Red Hat is the company name, support contracts, distribution channel, some office space and hardware, and the logo. All of the real value would just walk out the door.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't count on regulators stopping Microsoft from acquiring a competitor any time soon if that's what they want to do.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does Microsoft win?
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
How would react businesses currently using Red Hat ? Kindly switching to Windows ? I don't think so. They wouldn't be happy and would rather switch to either another Linux distro (like Suse) or another Unix vendor (like Sun).
Microsoft can't possibly buy them all, and even if they were able to, they can't buy Linux (because of it's GPL nature), so new Linux distro would just appear. Would be somewhat like a wack-a-mole game...
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
People are reading too much into a dinner (Score:3, Insightful)
See http://news.com.com/A+Microsoft-Red+Hat+warming+t
"Microsoft's Steve Ballmer and Red Hat's Matthew Szulik met for more than an hour at a McCormick & Schmick's restaurant in New York in late March"
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways most of what is RedHat is a free open-source program. So what would Microsoft be buying.
1. A building.
2. Its Employees (many of which would jump ship)
3. Some private code
4. The name (would would immediently be destroyed in many peoples eyes when Microsoft buys it)
This would effectivly be the worlds largest waste of money. While it may have some small long term goal of shutting down their compitition. Microsoft share holders would NEVER go for a billion+ dollar aquasition that would have almost nothing tangable about it.
Wont matter in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
The core is all open, so all that would happen is someone else would step up to the plate.
It might ruffle some feathers and slow the corporate Linux world down for a few months, but in the end no real damage.
Re:On MSFT buying SUNW (Score:5, Insightful)
MSFT has spent billions on marketing the idea that Windows is better in the server room than Unix and Linux. For them to turn around and buy a tier-1 Unix vendor would completely undermine that position. Likewise, Solaris is one of the few commercial OSes that can beat windows in the server room on technical merit, name recognition, and PHB appeal; for that reason it would be VERY unlikely that any merger would be approved.
Invest in, not buy (Score:4, Insightful)
It would make far more sense for Microsoft to invest in Red Hat than buy it outright. Look at their investment in Apple if you'd like a precedent. The idea has several advantages:
I'm not saying this is likely, but it would make a lot more sense and with as much cash as MS has, they can certainly afford either option. However, investing in an established rival is behavior Microsoft has exhibited before, and they do seem very much to not learn any new tricks.
Reasons not to use LSD hours before your deadline (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously...where's the evidence here? This guy just throws out this outlandishly wild conjecture, and has absolutely dick to back it up. What an asshole.
Of course, that's not the only abject idiocy here...anyone who thinks IBM might settle with SCO has totally lost his marbles. And IBM won't ever release its own version of Linux under any circumstances....if AIX didn't prove to them that nobody wanted an IBM operating system, OS2 did. Those guys are shouting from the mountaintops about open systems and standards, and are making big money selling the services to go with them. They don't want to own the distro.
But the big thing from my perspective is that this dickhead just totally made this story up based on some wild acid hallucination he had...there isn't a story here, but that's not stopping ZD.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:5, Insightful)
In my uninformed opinion, if a company came out with a user-friendly Linux flavor that included all of the driver support of Windows, with none of virulent Linux zealot attitudes to go with it, it would totally dominate the consumer market.
"Moreover, could you really imagine Microsoft distributing software governed by the GPL after all the "viral code" FUD?"
Yes, and it would be easy since being two-faced isn't an issue for most companies. All they'd have to do is make the source available for download, and then sell their Linux products to that 90% of the consumer market that doesn't compile programs from source, and just wants to double-click a download to make it install.
As for competition, sure, other programmers could run with the source, but could they make a professional-grade UI to stick on the front end, or are we talking the mid-90s UI of KDE 3.x? More importantly, how many developers would work with Microsoft source code, given the virulent anti-MS attitude of the Linux community?
Frankly, if Microsoft entered Linux, I think the consumer market would embrace it big time to the tune of 15%-25% market share. Of course, who knows.
Peace.
MS Linux...It is possible (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't like this idea, but I can't discount it.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like Microsoft & Netscape. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are planning to do the same thing with Linux. (They already tried to scare Linux users with SCO and it didn't work out too well.) They are going to 'improve' Linux until its dead as a door nail.
If it not RedHat, it'll be some other player. Starting with RedHat is easier because they have the biggest client base.
Then they'll go after the next biggest one.
I'm not too worried about the FTC and neither's Microsoft. There are enough accounting scandals out there to keep them busy.
Re:A $billion+? So what? They have no choice. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Boy, that's a really stupid comment - even by Slashdot standards.
Has our anonymous submitter ever bothered to look and see just how many of those "other people" that are doing the development work for Linux have email addresses that end in "redhat.com"?
Re:Sounds good to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
i love gentoo btw, but it is not what one would call a stable platform. (and by stable i mean "unchanging" - it's great in terms of system dependability)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Could Afford, If IBM Were Asleep (Score:4, Insightful)
Break up Redhat to disrupt the Linux market
Make Linux the core of MS' business model
The former would be lame, since IBM is in the position to pick up the RH Enterprise Edition business with SuSE. The latter would be too revolutionary, and MSFT share prices would see an unacceptable drop. It would be reasonable to assume that IBM might react with a bid of its own. If IBM absorbed RDHT, it would still leave MS customers, shareholders, and employees with lots of (for MS) counterproductive FUD.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:1, Insightful)
Everything from the US = Bad. Even a company that has done more for any other single entity in OSS is 'evil' just cause of its orgin. There is absolutly no other possible reason to hate this company.. none. They have always played fair and beat people with better products, or ideas not by leveraging a monoply.
RedHat/Fedora has been forked 20,000 times for a reason and its not due to RedHat patents, or dirty tactics I assure you.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:1, Insightful)
If Microsoft bought out Redhat and killed off Linux funding, it would be a shot across the bow of US and EU anti-trust regulators.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: FTC? Don't kid yourself. (Score:1, Insightful)
M$ can always buy both RedHat and Sun and then throw a bone to the complainers, who politically don't amount to squat in a republikan congress anyway. Some added advertisment dollars to the press to ensure any fallout fades quickly from public view would also likely be needed as part of the total settlement. The legal stand will be that "in the end its good for customers". That will be good enough and if its not, they will pass on a few extra bucks toward "faith based iniatives" to insure that enough radical envangelists are enlisted to lobby the faithful.
My guess is they first see if they can pressure the stocks of both Red Hat and Sun before making a bid. That will save them money and assure that the corporate boards of Sun and Red Hat will be more willing to sacrifice their shareholders and customers in order to get their golden parachutes on the way out the door.
FTC will save us. You have got to be joking. Hell, the Hollywood lobbyists routinely rent these whores out several times a week. They are already known to be a cheap trick. Thankfully, I've heard they've all be castrated as a condition of appointment, so at least we don't have to worry about mutant progeny.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I expect that your last company did not pay you to write code for a GPL project such as the Linux Kernel? The issue here is that MS cannot change the terms of a contract unless the other party agrees to it and some form of consideration is paid, such as a contract extention, raise, or bonus. In such a case, they can simply refuse to sign and MS must accept or buy out the contract. If there is no contract and they are "at will" employees, they can still refuse to sign such agreements, forcing MS to fire them (which opens them to lawsuits over wrongful terminations, and CA is likely to have judges that side with Cox and award lost salary.)
Point was, while contracts like yours are common, its likely Red Hat did NOT have them.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the hot water they were in with the DOJ late last decade because they owned too much of the software market and they were dragging out lines like 'apple / linux are a serious threat and have some of the market therefore we are not a monopoly therefore we are not guilty'
No, I think this is probably a FUD campaign to say "Hey, RedHat is just like us, don't move to them because you hate us, because you WILL hate them too".
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet if the price were right they'd do it.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only part of IIS that runs in kernel space is the HTTP listener, everything else is user space.
The rest of your list is typical /. bullshit - none of those applications run anything in kernel space.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks, get a clue. Market dominance, market dominance, and more market dominance is not an end to itself. Believe it or not, some people just want to USE THEIR OWN COMPUTER THAT THEY BOUGHT WITH THEIR OWN MONEY OR PUT TOGETHER WITH THEIR OWN HANDS THE WAY THEY SEE FIT! Many of us would almost prefer that we be a market of one. I don't care about anybody else's computer, and I don't want anybody else caring about mine. That's why I use Linux. That's also why, as soon as a big mega-corporation buys my distro, I'll switch to something else. If I have to compile my own operating system and keep it hidden from the rest of the world, _I_ _will_ _have_ _my_ _own_.
I don't get it. It's not "being a zealot" to modify your own car to work like you want, or build your own furniture, or grow your own crop, or cook your own food. But go near a computer, and the entire society seems to be screaming, "NOOOOO! We have to control EVERY SINGLE BYTE!" I think that's kind of silly. I think it is the actions of people who do not understand computers at all, or they would not be so terrified of what I might do if I have complete control of one.
That's being a zealot. Sure, I'll go get the dot burned on my forehead first thing tomorrow.
Re:I don't think so... (Score:3, Insightful)
but could they make a professional-grade UI to stick on the front end, or are we talking the mid-90s UI of KDE 3.x?
Because of course the Windows UI has moved ahead in leaps and bounds since the mid-90s. You look at a Win95 interface, and then at WinXP - well, you wouldn't think it was the same system at all!