Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Bob Young on "A New Economic Model" 87

Posted by Hemos
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bob Young on "A New Economic Model" More

Bob Young on "A New Economic Model"

Comments Filter:
  • Duh, they are trying to create brand loyalty. If redhat used the debian packaging system that would imply that debian did something but noooo! we cant have that, redhat must get the credit for everything.
  • huh? apt will not die, it is the future.

    you rpm fanatics only wish you had something half as good as it.
  • for such shrill words, you should have some very bad experiences to justify your tone.

    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 ... Deluxe" that is indeed the RH version; but Red Hat is getting no funds!

    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.
  • Sorry the letter I received says that they (Red Hat) receives nothing though they did have a relationship for version 5.1.

    As they explained it " ... [no] official relationship ... [can] distribute ... terms of our licensing". Sounds like GPL to me.

    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.
  • this is also for the other respondents:

    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.
  • /me thinks that ppl should read the article before replying (even if it knocks them down a little lower on the reply list)

    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).

  • Posted by F.A.N.G.:

    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.
  • Posted by F.A.N.G.:

    "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 .PKG's than touch another rpm.
    Two words- TEAR DROP. Red Hat is LAME.
  • Posted by F.A.N.G.:

    They are both unfortunate standared. Inferior to alternatives, nontheless standards.
  • "While the developers work hard for free, Red Hat is getting fat."

    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 "under the hood" analogy is an old one, but I've not come across the "Ford buy tyres from Michelin, engine blocks from foo, etc -- we get a web server from Apache, compiler from cygnus, etc" analogy before.

    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.
    --
  • Yup, I download it for free from those money grubbing assholes that are purely in it for the money that they are so greedily drooling for.

  • Don't understand....

    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.
  • No, They earn their money, they don't steal it and hoard it. Unlike a Redmond Software company that shall remain almost nameless :^)

    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.
  • Yup, :^)
  • but funny is not necessarily humorous :^)
  • I met one of the RedHat developers that used to work as a core developer for the Debian distribution. He said that the Debian (deb) packages were not properly designed. He also stated the fact that all other major distributions that use packages all use the rpm model, just Debian uses deb.

    It was two years ago, that's all I remember.
  • Gee, you must have read the article in which Young said as much.
    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • You're absolutely right! By the way, how much did you pay Linus and Alan Cox the FSF and all the other contributors to Linux and its free software utilities?

    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.
  • For someone with "NFC with regard to business strategy" he's done pretty good with his business.
    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.
  • The fact is that most programmers don't make any money writing free software. Many have jobs in the commercial world, and they donate some (or all) of their free time to producing free software. A few lucky souls are actually paid to work on free software by companies (for instance, Corel's WINE developers, Red Hat's RHAD labs people, Transmeta's numerous kernel writers).

    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.
  • Coward,

    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.

  • Greetings, Mr. Gates! Hope you're not losing any sleep over the way Vinod's 'Nightmare Scenario' for M$ has just come to pass!
  • Thanks for putting the "ASS" in Astroturf...
  • I understnad your frustration. However, finding out if a given card words can be found by clicking on the RedHat hardware compatibility list [redhat.com]. If your hardware is on the list, great. If not, it may or may not work, but don't expect RedHat to support your attempts to use said card.

    - Sam


  • 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.
  • I've seen like a few polls on Slashdot and on other sites that seem to give those figures.

    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.
  • Isn't it amazing how much money you can make by selling free stuff! I should try it too one day. However, in the end I think it will be a fad just like MLM and all those other get-rich-quick schemes. You have to be a little proprietary if you want to make money in the long run. If all you offer is support, then any big company such as Corel or Oracle or IBM can sell your distro and offer even better support and you're knocked out completely.
  • I believe that homebrewer was imploying what is know as sarcasm, one of many forms of humor. I don't speak for anyone, but I think an appropriate translation would be "They allow me to download their distro for free strictly following the letter and intent of the GPL. What's so evil about that?"

    As I said, I don't speak for anyone but myself.

  • ...why don't Mandrake, Pacific High Tech, Caldera, and SuSE adopt the debian system?

    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.

  • A quick Web search garnered the following figures for Heinz:

    • $ 9.5 billion annual sales (from a CBS Marketwatch article)
    • $19 billion market capitalization (from Wired's stock-lookup service)
    • Price/earnings ratio of 24 (ditto)
    If I understand these figures correctly, they mean that Heinz had a profit of about $800 million on their $9.5 billion of sales, or less than a penny for each dollar of sales. (Somebody who actually knows finance, please verify my research and my math!)

    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?

  • I totally agree with you people. No one is forced to make free software, no one is forced to buy free software, no one is forced to sell it, or even use it.

    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!
  • Look, Redhat isn't doing anything wrong nor is anybody else who's trying to make a buck off Linux. They are forcing anybody to do anything, nor are they controlling the market in anyway. You can even buy a cheapbytes, or linuxmall knockoff for $2. How is RedHat doing anything wrong? I'll bet Linus buys official versions.
  • Oh, I'm not sure that they even have to pay Redhat anything even if they do use their names. Otherwise how do cheapbytes and LinuxMall give away CDs that say Redhat Linux on it for $2? I would have to imagine the licensing fee would be more than $2.
  • The big diff, of ocurse, is that 18 years ago, IBM was the only maker of PCs, so they could act as king maker. Now, in the PC world, they're one player among many. Now, if IBM, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, HP, IBM, and Packard Bell, all back Red Hat, THEN you're analogy would hold water. Remember that IBM also backed MicroChannel and OS/2.
  • The advantage of peer review is that we will have a decent OS in the future. It's kind of like that in every other area of research; why not computer science? How many times have corporations taken advantage of publicly-funded university research to make money?
  • Just another example of the maturing of an industry. Just like young said, "You wouldn't buy a car if you weren't allowed to open the hood." Free software (not free beer) will take over the world, but I don't think that young should be credited with too much.
    -davek
    use slackware!!!
  • Metro X is from a different company. Red Hat employs numerous programmers who release their work under the (L)GPL. How can you complain about that? Do you think that the work they contracted Alan Cox for was evil and exploitative?

    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.
  • Of course, "evil" can sometimes mean "good". Sorry if that sounded more extreme than I intended. Anyway, I can't believe anyone would compare Red Hat to Exxon in this context. You have every right to not give money to Red Hat if you consider their product to be inferior. Even if you continue to use the product. So maybe you don't win, but you definitely don't lose. Much better than finding a few thousand barrels of crude washed up in your back yard.

    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.
  • So, another bunch of whinners doing a diatribe about the evils of people making money. As if Microsoft isn't bad enough with their virtual monopoly on current PC OSes, some lamers in \. decide to take that anger and vent it against a company who is trying to make money with a good product.
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

What this country needs is a good five dollar plasma weapon.

Close