Bob Young on "A New Economic Model" 87
selanna writes "In The Journal of Electronic Publishing (March, 1999 : Volume 4, Issue 3) Red
Hat's Bob Young writes about "How Red Hat Software Stumbled across a New Economic
Model and Helped Improve an Industry". Looking at it, it reads much like the Young article in Open Sources.
Brand Loyalty (Score:1)
I have one word for that: glint (Score:1)
you rpm fanatics only wish you had something half as good as it.
RedHat is the M$ of Linux - "Half-baked" comment.. (Score:1)
Why is that I suspect you have none? Pasting a board with mis-information sounds more like a trouble maker that neither uses Linux nor has any real interest in its growth.
When I purchased what I thought was Red Hat Linux version 5.2, it has all those words on the box. I actually bought the "Complete
It's a Macmillan distribution. There are others to that take the RH distribution and copy it - so the question becomes who is taking advantage of whom?
Somehow your words remind me of Spiro Agnew using ghetto talk - neither genuine nor reflecting your real intent.
RedHat is the M$ of Linux - "Half-baked" comment.. (Score:1)
As they explained it "
Where do you get your facts?
Sorry again, I have been running version 5.0 and the problems I have encountered could easily be ascribed to my own ineptitude , because I became quite adept at reinstalling the text version for one reason or another. I had purchased version 5.2, as a means of thanking RH for their efforts and to get support for my fairly recent video card and monitor.
RedHat is the M$ of Linux - a grouped reply ... (Score:1)
Please read the publicity blurbs: IBM is not limiting their support only to Red Hat!
For two of you, it seems the "story" is more important than facts.
Perhaps you might consider making commercial "movies" where the relative importance follows that pattern.
Brand Equity (Score:1)
That's the point of brand equity. A few additional examples:
The recipe for Rice Krispies Treats is public knowledge. You can make them at home yourself (don't even have to use Kellogg's Rice Krispies). Yet, Kellogg's STILL makes a killing selling Rice Krispies Treats in packages at the store, for an outrageous price.
Fast food: with a little time, one can make hamburgers & french fries at home, with any ingredient you want (ground turkey instead of beef). When was the last time you did that? Have you done it more often than going to your local McDonald's/Burger King/whatever?
I could go on and on, but the point is: even if/when IBM & Oracle decide to make their own distro, they'll still have to contend with the customers asking specifically for the Red Hat *brand* (the version officially supported by Red Hat and not their local knockoff).
Loose construction of the word "improve" (Score:1)
In no way did Red Hat improve an industry.
Exploit....yes
Contribute...maybe (MetroX! rpm! whatever-that- lame-web-browser-was-called! -but nothing to be particularly proud of)
Improve...uh, no
I have my own suggestion for a societal improvement-summary executions for those who take credit where none is due.
Loose construction of the word "improve" (Score:1)
"Exploit" as in "use to one's advantage."
No religious or social implications made. (btw- you will never find me using the word "evil.")
Ahhh...improving an industry means increasing awareness. Not unlike Exxon's improvement of Alaskan oil shipping?
I ordered a release of Red Hat a couple years ago- 4.2 I believe. Got the tech support, the whole linux library on cd-rom's- even got a t-shirt.
Well, what do you know, none of my hardware is supported. My PC is new, so I figure it will take a month or two before drivers are available...so I'll wait.
The t-shirt they sent me looked nothing like the one on the web page. The one I ordered was kinda neat with some guy running with a briefcase. The one I got was some lame convention givaway copy with an ugly image on the left breast. They wouldn't take it back.
After a couple months I call tech support, and cannot get through. It was long distance, so I decide to try email support. After a particularly painful registration process, I send in email asking if my SCSI card will be supported. A short 3 weeks later I get a response: "I dunno."
Will my video card be supported? "I dunno." How come linux fdisk reads my hard drive geometry wrong? "Huh? I dunno."
Hmmm..that's money well spent, sure am glad I paid for the tech support. The Red Hat box returned to the trash can from which it came.
I then went back to Slackware, and recently to Debian. I have had the misfortune of having to use redhat here and there, and can atribute their success ONLY to marketing. I would rather use Solaris
Two words- TEAR DROP. Red Hat is LAME.
The same reason PC's ship with ZIP drives. (Score:1)
They are both unfortunate standared. Inferior to alternatives, nontheless standards.
The exploitation of other peoples work (Score:1)
If you don't like others basing their work on something you've done for free, then release it under a different license. None of the developers has been forced to contribute to Linux.
I haven't quite released my free source yet (still getting some details cleaned up), but when I do, I encourage you to find a way to make a healthy profit off of it. It doesn't hurt me any.
I think some people just hate the idea that anyone else is making money.
The car analogy... (Score:1)
All analogies fall apart if you take them too far; these analogies make the point they're meant to.
The analogy I really liked was the Heinz ketchup analogy. It made a point I'd never considered before.
--
Never will.... (Score:1)
RedHat is the M$ of Linux (Score:1)
How is RedHat like M$?
They allow you to download the distro for free. They release all the source code for everything they release. (Hence the unwillingness to Qt their distro)
They have an errata page where you can get fixes as soon as the code has been released.
They parter for service on the OS rather than the OS itself.
They do not add "hooks" into the OS.
They commodotize and legitimize the OS with big name recognition.
They use industry standard protocols.
They are simply commercial. They are imperfect people, yeah they f*ck up. They admit it, unlike M$ who say its a user training issue.
If you think that they selling out because they are making partnerships to commodotize and legitimize Linux, then I'll have to say an extra rosary for you because there is simply no pleasing you. Your pasttime is whining and complaining about things you have no control over and can't grasp the fact that you'll simply have to deal with it.
Will never troll :^) (Score:1)
On a more thoughtful note....
I simply wanted to poke fun at the people who complain that RedHat does not operate they way they would personally run it. I have trouble with people who complain that RedHat does not adhere with there own personal decisions about how the distro should work.
I have been told, and sincerely believe that organizations do not and will not act like individual people. Those people who expect orgs to act like people are setting themselves up for frustration and disappointment.
RedHat is in the business of making OSes like any other commodity, like wool, steel, plywood, porkbellies....etc. They have been very good about focusing on their goal of trying to add value to the OS to help it gain acceptance. Every major announcement I have read from Mr. Young is consistent with this goal.
This is why I don't understand when people flame on, other than perhaps boredom. RedHat's credo is no secret. So when they make announcements and agreements that are congruent with the credo, why all the fuss? It should not come as any surprise.
That's what makes say "WTF?" to myself. It should not come as any surprise to anyone who has taken the time to find out what RedHat's primary business goal and business model is.
H U M O R (Score:1)
H U M O R (Score:1)
I don't have an answer, but... (Score:1)
It was two years ago, that's all I remember.
How redhat stumbled upon my ass and wrote a paper (Score:1)
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Linux *IS* Red Hat *BECOMES* Microsoft (Score:1)
Boy, all those people were pretty stupid. They could have kept their software proprietary in order to ensure that no one used it without due compensation.
Or better yet, Stallman could have written the GPL so as to make sure no one could in any way make money from distributing (in physical form), supporting or marketing any GPL'd software. That way no one could "exploit" those poor programmers. The fact that few non-techinical, non-hobbyists would be able to access or use the software...well, that's irrelevant.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Just how do you make a living? (Score:1)
Good businessmen aren't born, they are crafted.
Henry Ford stumbled upon the idea of the production line, which was stolen from England factories. Bill Gates stumbled upon the OS after sending IBM away the first time they came to him; he thought BASIC was the only important software for a computer. Though I don't know much about him, I'm sure Jack Welch came into his business intelligence through years of experience.
Bob Young may or may not be business-saavy. He really hasn't been given the time to make a judgement. Unlike many other CEOs and owners, Young is travelling a less-travelled path (I won't say he's a pioneer). He has crafted a successful company based on free software; adhering to its restrictions and profiting from its benefits. The fact that he even makes money in an industry where so many are suspicious (to the point of paranoia) of commercial endevours is quite amazing.
He is not the commercial equivalent of Richard Stallman; but by no means should the achievments and insights of the man and his company be understated.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Someone please tell me how programmers get paid! (Score:1)
Any individual who plans on making money soley for free software is nuts. Just as Bob Young implied, Red Hat doesn't make money off of Linux per se, but off their brand name, convenience of shrink-wrapped packaging and their value-added services such as organization and technical support.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
Perhaps, (Score:1)
What part of "anything I say is tainted for the purpose of objective academic research or analysis [this is...] simply a collection interesting [..] stories " did you not get? The author clearly doesn't want to be recognized as anything but an amateur, just writing down some thoughts. Hell, if this is a crime, USENET is a seething pit of demons.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with taking an almost-free resource, slapping a label on it and making some cash. It's the American Way. It's like buying ice at the party store or bottled water. You're paying for the convenience. Also, you're paying for some re-assurance that you're not buying water strained through dirty socks. That's what the brand-name is all about.
And if Red Hat ever turns out a truly horrible release, it'll sink like a stone if there's a competetor to take up the slack. (pardon the pun). Perrier damn-near fell out of the water market for mistakes four years ago. Red Hat can too.
For the record, I use Red Hat (among other distributions), and recommend it (and Debian) to people who just need to get a taste of Linux simply because it's omnipresent. I have small problems with their QC, but they're manageable. If it ever gets to be unmanageable (like Microsoft) I'll stop.
It IS the "Open Sources" article (Score:1)
The explotation of others peoples work (Score:1)
RedHat is the M$ of Linux (Score:1)
Loose construction of the word "improve" (Score:1)
- Sam
Isn't that what Debian is? (Score:1)
I thought that was the point of Debian. It works under the same model that Open Source does.
It has 30% market share, nothing to dismiss. It's the second-most widely used distro.
Polls on both Slashdot and a few other sites (Score:1)
I think it was around 50-55% Red Hat, 25-30% Debian, and the rest was divided between Suse and Caldera and Slackware..
But there's no real market data other than that. I think it's a better reflection of the true market, since those polls asked you what distribution you were running.
Bob Young (Score:1)
H U M O R (Score:1)
As I said, I don't speak for anyone but myself.
I don't have an answer, but... (Score:1)
I'm also curious why so many distributions choose RPM over dpkg, any distro maintainers out there willing to answer? And before someone answers with some "Red Hat is an evil monopoly," remember that anyone is free to grap all the Debian packages from ftp.debian.org and make a distribution of their own...
Full disclosure: I use Red Hat but I'm going to give Debian 2.1 a spin.
Linux's hood *HAS* to be open (Score:1)
Troll
The Heinz ketchup analogy... (Score:1)
So the profit margin on a bottle of ketchup is around one percent.
When Linux really becomes a commodity OS, and every commercial Linux provider has to deal with this kind of profit margin, will Red Hat be able to subsidize development of open-source Linux tools and applications? Or will the company have to spend all of its revenue on providing tech support, and tell its employees that if they want to write a new tool or application, they'll have to do it on their own time?
The exploitation of other peoples work (Score:1)
That's just not the case with Microsoft.
That's what Linux is about: choice.
Now if people make money out of this, great!
I actually buy redhat software instead of downloading it, because I want them to get fat, to give me more, etc... The day RedHat or any other starts forcing me onto unwanted paths, I'll just download the damn thing! or switch to something else.
Now if you hate the idea of people making money, then you probably are the sick one! Or maybe wished deep in there that you were the one, in which case you should shut up and work to get some money! Sell air, or do XXX site!
Welcome to capitalism homebrewer (Score:1)
RedHat is the M$ of Linux - "Half-baked" comment.. (Score:1)
RedHat is the M$ of Linux (Score:1)
Linux *IS* Red Hat *BECOMES* Microsoft (Score:1)
long article... (Score:1)
-davek
use slackware!!!
Loose construction of the word "improve" (Score:1)
If nothing else, Red Hat can take much of the credit for increasing public awareness and usage of Linux. That in itself is improving the industry (as a whole, not just the Slashdot community).
If the good things that Red Hat has done are of no value to you (and I realize that might be the case), then you're under no obligation to send them money. If they've done something to *hurt* you, then let's hear about it.
Loose construction of the word "improve" (Score:1)
The industry I was referring to was the computer/IT industry. Red Hat is increasing awareness of Linux, and by association spreading the word about free software. Their visibility has been instrumental in rallying corporate support (again, maybe not useful to you, but very helpful to a lot of other people). The benefits are felt by the other distributions, as well as *BSD, HURD, or whichever flag you choose to salute. Meanwhile, a large number of people who would otherwise be stranded in Windows-land are learning the benefits of open source code. Some of them will contribute their time and/or money to support free software development. Incidentally, that means a larger potential base of support for Debian.
Just how do you make a living? (Score:1)
Lets face it, MS only has the monopoly because it keeps its source code secret..Red Hat, Caldera, SuSE etc do not. If you don't like their way of doing a disto, take the code and make your own. If you think rpm sucks, take the code and write a better version. Then, let the users decide. All I've heard and read in this place is people saying how one disto sucks so they moved to another blah blah blah. This is the best part of Linux.. I hate my Win 95 but what can I change to whenever a new feature or improvment comes out - Nothing?!?
So, Red Hat is evil because they chose a creative way to make money from a free OS. I suppose all the developers that are actually EMPLOYEED by RH should live in a box and eat garbage simply because some of you don't think anyone should make money from Linux development (although you'd like everyone to use it).
If the OS is free, people should be allowed to make money from selling applications (open source of course), or tech support services. If you want to make "improvments" you can choose to do so because hey, its nice to be able to brag that "I worked on the package to support xxxx" - heck it might even look good on a resume and get you a good job. If you don't want to buy software, don't. Use the freeware...but don't slag others for wanting to get paid to do what they love.
Has it occured to anyone that if this kind of in fighting may be just what MS wants? The old divide and conquer?
Most people want quality software that's easy to maintain and easy to use (that means GUI!) and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. They also want some choice in this, whether the software is an OS or a Word Processor. The people who make this software would like to be able to feed their kids while they are at it. Linux is a great opportunity to change the way the software business operates so that programmers and users both win. That's why people ought to be using and programming for Linux - so it takes over an defeats MS.
If you are using Linux so that you can be "Cool", "rad" or "anti-establishment", so you can belong to some snobby club with a secret handshake that makes you feel superior to Windows users or programmers, may I suggest you look up the definition of Open Source again (or GNU or GPL).
Nothing wrong with making money as long as your fair about it.