“Red Hat is the biggest bandwidth user on the East Coast,” company vice president Mark de Visser said. “If we wanted to make a killing in the retail market, we could, but that’s not the intent. The intent is to get it into the hands of the most people.” Read the article at NewsFactor. The article in a single sentence: Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the upcoming leader of the Linux market: Red Hat.
Why Red Hat Owns Linux
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Why Red Hat Owns Linux” … they did not answer to their own provocative headline.
Read more here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2178#52300
I think it is obvious that RH will dominate most of the Linux user base next year. Their (Linux-only of course) empire started with the release of 8.0. Failing to see this tremendous amount of users they got with their latest release can become lethal for other competitive distros.
the term itself is thrown around far too much…
Definately NOT a monopoly with the traditional terms. But definately the “dominant/absolute power in the **Linux** market“.
The overall market for the linux desktop at the moment is apallingly small. Its still mostly a geek thing, and most geeks don’t even pay! So, even if you dominate that market, you would still hardly be profitable. The Microsoft pie is big enough, and every linux distro should be looking to:
1. Cut into the Microsoft pie. It isn’t going to happen in one day, so in the meanwhile, linux desktops should be made to easily fit into/work well in windows networks. And linux servers should be carefully tailored to easily serve windows clients. MCSEs should be able to plug windows machines into a linux backend without hassles.
2. On the server end, linux distros should do whatever it takes to keep MS out of the data center. Every company abandoning any of the proprietary Unixes should be getting into Linux, NOT Windows!
Redhat goes out of its way to conform to an idealist’s view of open source distribution to the point of not including browser plugins and multi-media codecs that people really, really want.
If you want the heart and soul of redhat you can download the source for free and make your own and that is the way that Mandrake started off for goodness sakes.
The whole article is pointless drivel a lot of sound and fury signfying nothing.
The Redhat folks aren’t saints and they want to make money like any other corporation on the planet but come on they are committing illegal acts to extend a monopoly into multiple monopolies or other sort of nonsense we have seen from Redmond.
RedHat owns linux only as far as Linus owns the kernel. The reason this article was brought to attention was the headline, however it fails to dwell into the fact that the reason RedHat is predominant is because it makes a quality product. I just recently switched to RH80, the last time I had used it was when it was at 4.2. The reason I switched was simple: It allowed me to install and maintain my Linux environment with minimal hassle. Before RH80 I was a die hard gentoo fan. While Gentoo is fun and all, sometimes I just want to click a few buttons and 20 minuted later have a full Linux systems setup with my network running, sub-pixels anitaliasing already setup and nice GUI’s available for common tasks. RedHat allows that in a clean and consistent way. I love BlueCurve which has allowed me to make use og some excellent KDE tools (KonCD!!!) without popping out like a sore thumb. So does RedHat own Linux, NO. Is RedHat the predominant distribution for people just looking to get some work done, Yes.
I meant to say they are NOT committing illegal acts…duh.
” While Gentoo is fun and all, sometimes I just want to click a few buttons and 20 minuted later have a full Linux systems setup with my network running, sub-pixels anitaliasing already setup and nice GUI’s available for common tasks. ”
Agreed, but you don’t have to run to Redhat for it.
All the major Distros are doing this more or
less. Yes, and the less part applies to Redhat too.
read their mailing lists .. Still plenty of issues.
Over in Europe Suse is a bigger name than Redhat.
There is more to the world than what is happening in
the USA.
And in the Desktop space just last year, Rhat was writing
off the Desktop and now they have it cornered. I don’t think so.
Redhat has had in America first movers advantage.
Other than the Lemming Factor I don’t see why it is sure
thing they will rule the Desktop.
I’m using sub-pixel antialiasing and even bluecurve (with fish in the sky rocks!) on slackware. But I’m happy RedHat is the dominant Linux distro at the moment. They are definitely one of the loudest voices in the community, when they speak people listen. And they put their money where their mouth is. We’ll see if United Linux or some of the other more commercial distributions *cough* SuSE *cough* can catch up or compete in this market. But personally I think a lot more integration and automation is needed in the corporate environment. Your networks should know everything about all the systems running on it and warn you of potential problems such as low disk space well in advance of when you need to schedule a repair. These types of things will make the difference, when one of the distros decides to implement it the right way. But the eye candy is awesome. Makes me feel more sane to be running this awesome dynamic OS.
how dare redhat try to get their product into a lot of people’s hands. i think we should boycott them. i also heard they are trying to create an earnings stream for their shareholders to participate in. i smell a class action suit. oh wait, we have to wait until they have created some wealth to take first. my army of lawyers will be watching them closely in case they become too successful.
A lot of people in the US use SuSE. My company uses it exclusively. If you like KDE I think it is the best most professional rocking distro out there especially once they ship that desktop version with Codeweaver’s Wine on it preinstalled.
I use Gnome and SuSE is not very gnome-centric at all. I like the integrated feel of the desktop and the tools for my desktop that I get with Redhat. The other reasons like XFT and other stuff will come soon for other distros. It is the close ties between the distro tools and my desktop of choice that brought me to use Redhat 8.0 at home.
Though it is funny to see every european that ever posted on any site anywhere say that all americans ignore the rest of the world. If I had a dime for every time I read that statement I would be as rich as Bill Gates. I understand where the stereotype comes from but I catch the french-speaking news on Mhz in Northern Virginia and I like the BBC news for different perspectives at times. The majority of folks I guess are very US-centered but not all of us.
Is an incredible desktop. period.
They are not monopolists, just successful…but as usual the linux crowd doesn’t seem to be able to accept this as fair. Every time an issue regarding RH comes up there are always some people who i swear wish for the RH equivalent to ‘$’ for MS. Come on people, RH are doing great things to raise linux awareness along with the other major distros. They arent leveraging any opportunities like MS did with media player/IE and windows, nor are they hiding anything. Calling RH a monopoly is like calling James Bond a terrorist – the new film is good btw ;o)
RH have provided a fantastic desktop product for both new and power users alike. They also support a lot of OS projects and generally help the linux community out. Just because they’re growing both in size and success does not make them a monopoly! I think that word is being used far too much at the moment. For those who arent sure, and seem to be throwing the word at every company that they dont agree with, the dictionary.com definition of a monopoly is:
Mo*nop”o*ly, n.; pl. Monopolies. [L. monopolium, Gr. ?, ?; mo`nos alone + ? to sell.] 1. The exclusive power, or privilege of selling a commodity; the exclusive power, right, or privilege of dealing in some article, or of trading in some market; sole command of the traffic in anything, however obtained; as, the proprietor of a patented article is given a monopoly of its sale for a limited time; chartered trading companies have sometimes had a monopoly of trade with remote regions; a combination of traders may get a monopoly of a particular product.
Now tell me – how are RH a monopoly?
>Now tell me – how are RH a monopoly?
Read my explanation here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2185#52475
Please do not pose such questions without reading the answers beforehand.
RedHat is never going to make MS loads of money, but it will eventually become the biggest operating system provider on earth. However, operating system business will then be _MUCH_ smaller than it is today, but big enough to keep RedHat alive. And that business will be almost unprofitable.
RedHat and its derivations will dominate business systems practically 100%. Elsewhere there will be a bazaar of Linux distros of all kinds of colors and flavors.
> Please do not pose such questions without reading the answers beforehand.
I reject your explanation. To be a market leader in the US, is not the same as being a monopoly. I agree that Redhat will continue to be the dominant market leader however, the monopoly aspect I reject.
The word monopoly is thrown around far too easily these days.
Dictionary definition:
1. Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
They don’t own the kernel. They don’t own the applications or control the path of development of either the kernel or the apps. They are re-selling products they have influence on but no total control of. This is the promise of Open Source. This the best thing about GNU/GPL structure.
RedHat does not own or control the Linux OS market and they can’t, ever. There will always be gentoos and mandrakes out there.
They may decrease in numbers over time but Redhat has not set itself up to take control of the market. This is the difference between setting your company up as a market leader as opposed to setting your company up to be a monopoly.
Eugenia wrote:
Please do not pose such questions without reading the answers beforehand.
Perhaps you should rewrite your blurb at the end of the news item, because you used the word incorrectly. If you meant what you spelled out long hand in your link, you should say it, not contribute to the loss of precise meaning that “monopoly” has.
First, the world is not only USA. There are other localized distributions very strong on some regions, like Conectiva Linux in Brazil. It is based on RedHat but it has many improvements (like apt and synaptic), decent brazilian portuguese translations, KDE-centric like SuSE and national presence to make it the preferred here. We can also download binary rpms and even isos of the full versions.
RedHat is very important for linux, specially for its open mentality. I prefer RedHat style than SuSe, Caldera/SCO or other companies. When a linux distribution uses closed installers ans applications and there are no isos to download it becomes more alike M$, and users don’t like this (except a few idiot IT managers).
The linux kernel is not owned by any company and therefore any distribution can reproduce the same advances made by others.
RedHat will never be a monopoly like M$. It will be only the most poupular general-purpose linux distribution.
I will save this comment and in a years time, you will see, nothing will have changed suffiently, Eugenia. It’s not like SuSE, Mandrake and the usal suspects are stagnating…
SuSE’s implementation of KDE is tremendous. But, Red Hat 8 racheted everything up to a new level.
Eugenia, you are wrong. Red Hat is most certainly not a monopoly.
You should be very careful in your use of that term. As a corporate securities attorney with some antitrust experience, I can tell you that the word “monopoly,” as prohibited nnder the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, is a legal term, the definition of which Red Hat does not fit. Red Hat as a market leader? Perhaps. Monopoly? Definitely not.
You should be very careful in your use of that term. As a corporate securities attorney with some antitrust experience, I can tell you that the word “monopoly,” as prohibited nnder the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, is a legal term, the definition of which Red Hat does not fit. Red Hat as a market leader? Perhaps. Monopoly? Definitely not.
You speak the truth. I said the same thing, only less eloquently, and Eugenia modded me down for it. RHAT doesn’t fit the legal definition of a monopoly by a country mile. In fact, the GPL all but guarantees that Linux disto companies can never fit the US legal definition of a monopoly.
This thread has been an eye-opener on posters’ beliefs on political economy, though (myself being a paleo-libertarian.)
Excuse me, but the wording was “upcoming monopoly of the Linux market”, not a dry “monopoly”. This means that Red Hat can become in the future a monopoly in the ****Linux**** market, which is nothing more than 1% of the global computer market!
Second, READ my explanation before you jump on me:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2185&offset=0&rows=15#524…
And third, I changed the wording as you requested. Happy now?
> This thread has been an eye-opener on posters’ beliefs on political economy, though (myself being a paleo-libertarian.)
I am not being political at all. And if you think that I am anti-Red Hat you need to get your facts straight.
Anytime an open source company makes money people call them names: monopoly, selfish, GPL-violators, anything they can think of.
Commercial companies, by default, are not evil, least of all Red Hat, who shares more source code with the community than I’m even sure is business savvy!
Whether you use it or not, you should respect and patronize Red Hat. If they aren’t the OS successor, they sure are ushering the way for whomever is.
I see market leadership for RedHat in my crystal ball, but I don’t see dominance there. What would give them power to dominate? They don’t own Linux, not even the TM. They have nothing proprietary nor resources to create anything outstanding. They make no moves even to try that.
They are dominated themselves more than ever by the big players willing to oust MS. If THEY need RedHat any more when MS is tempered, that’s another question. Unlike MS, RedHat has no cards to play the game of the servant becoming the sultan.
>>
Excuse me, but the wording was “upcoming monopoly of the Linux market”, not a dry “monopoly”. This means that Red Hat can become in the future a monopoly in the ****Linux**** market
>>
Hmmm Eugenia, I don’t know about this your “can become in the future..” statement. Sure, Redhat can become a monopoly in the future, but so can Lindows, or Suse, or even Microsoft Linux, who knows? If all we have here is “can become in the future”, I would rather not use the word “monopoly” so quickily. As applied to OSes, “monopoly” has a very negative connotation at the moment.
Oh.. and watch out in the next threee years.. linux would have grown a bit more on the desktop! It ain’t gonna stop at 1 or 5%!! You can write that down!
> As applied to OSes, “monopoly” has a very negative connotation at the moment
Maybe the fact that I am not a native english speaker makes me to not feel this negative connonation at all. For me, as a Greek speaking person, monopoly just means the “driving power, biggest seller” in a specific market. A definite market leader if you must.
To you, monopoly might means “you are the devil”, and you might be right. The fact that I am not english though, really does not make me feel this way about this WORD.
Eugenia, I only jumped on you because you jumped on another reader, JCooper, who asked how RH could be considered a monopoly. He correctly identified the flaw in that argument, and instead of answering him in a civil manner with your own argument (and I understand exactly what you’re saying, Eugenia), you chose to respond with a very curt retort: http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=2185#52504
I don’t think you should jump on someone like that, especially when he was right in pointing out that the use of the term “monopoly” in discussing RH is not correct.
“Mark de Visser said. “If we wanted to make a killing in the retail market, we could, but that’s not the intent. The intent is to get it into the hands of the most people.””
He lies almost as good as Bill Gates. Obviously, Red Hat is in it to make money. After all, how else do you explain their decision to stop allowing 3rd party CD manufactuers from burning copies of Red Hat and then calling it Red Hat Linux when they sell it?
Red Hat is a publically owned, publically traded, commercial company. They are in it to make money.
For me, as a Greek speaking person, monopoly just means the “driving power, biggest seller” in a specific market.
Then your translation is not accurate (heh, i feel silly saying that knowing that the word comes from greek
as what you decribe is not a monopoly, but simply a market leader. Being a monopoly is not so much about marketshare, but about power over the market and your competitors. Microsoft is not being sued because they have 95+% marketshare of the os market. They are being sued because they are using this fact to also be dominant in other areas too, and it is here that anti-monopoly laws kicks in.
Of course monopolies are not always illegal. Until recently* our national phone company and our national railway company were monopolies by law, just as our pharmacies still are when it comes to selling medicine. (except when it comes to small quantaties of a few types of non-prescription medicine, but this is a new thing)
*) If 10-15 years can be considered recently that is
@Simba
I agree with your statements about Red Hat trying to make money. Yes, they are a business, and that’s what they do; try to make money. But what’s wrong with that? They are still a major contributor to Open Source and Linux. I used to be a Suse 8.0 fan, but stopped after I learned that the community involvement in Suse is very limited (compared to other distros), and they don’t offer iso images for download. I know my complaints about Suse might seem trivial to some, but for me it’s enough for me to use Red Hat, and I think they are balancing the role of business/Open Source contributor well. And you are right, Linux Central sells the Red Hat 8.0 cd’s as without the name as ‘Linux 8.0’, but it is still Red Hat 8.0 for $5.95!
As a corporate securities attorney with some antitrust experience, I can tell you that the word “monopoly,”
It means (here in the Old continent), in short, a juridically capable person that conquered such a market share position (quantity) or dominated with exclusivity the “prima mater” (raw materials) sources and transformation on a market (quality) in such a way that it can keep producing and practice anti-competitive measures without loosing position or share profits, thus disabling the competitors on that market and “killing” them financilly by gaining control over market clients.
The most popular form of anti-competitive measure today is what lawyers-economists call “dumping”. Mostly because of globalization.
RedHat can’t make a monopoly in theory. They can’t own the kernel exclusively. But they do try to gain control of the Linux market with anti-competitive measures or try to take advantage of their dominant (quantity) position on the Linux Scene. That’s why “people listen when they (RedHat) talk”. That’s why United Linux was formed, they want to be listened too.
(It’s funny that american lawyers didn’t think about the “dumping” legal notion on the US-FederalStates versus Microsoft anti-trust case !
Microsoft has been making dumping all along since windows 95/InternetExplorer:
selling their OS and Internet Explorer to major hardware vendors (Dell & others) at a smaller price than the productive chain cost (Engineering workers) to (gain or to) maintain their market share.
Off course, software industry is a business not comparable to any other, since once the product research/investement is finished, product units cost the price of a CD-R plus marketing costs. Bill Gates knew/knows that the average corporate users can’t use other software after they learned to push Win32 buttons and Office XP (which is good on a commercial desktop OS).
The dumping practice was not all on the production-cost <-> final-OEMpricing, it was on the major hardware vendors selling tons of PCs pre-loaded with the Windows OS (dumping) as an imposition of Microsoft i order to sell a x number of win32 copies at a smaller price to OEMs and on the inclusion of Internet Explorer for free (dumping) and bundled with the inners of the OS.
OK this is off topic – moderate me down now).
RedHat still has some monopolistic attitudes, but only to other OSS projects or distros. They should be fighting MS not traying Linux (so small:) monopoly.
chicobaud: Off course, software industry is a business not comparable to any other, since once the product research/investement is finished, product units cost the price of a CD-R plus marketing costs.
Actually… Some other industries are the same way. But most people seem to forget that. If you can’t figure out which industries I’m talking about, sit down and think about it a bit.
That’s one of the things that disturbs me actually about the Open Source movement. The software industry isn’t that unique. As far as I’m concerned the biggest problem in the software industry isn’t the fact that alot of software is closed source. It’s the fact that there aren’t very many standards. Like there are in other industries. (For example, if you go out and buy a toaster you don’t need to own a specific type of house to use the toaster. Same thing with TVs, VCRs, etc…)
If Red Hat gets more than 70% of the market, it is already a monopoly. Being a monopoly isn’t bad. Antitrust laws make some cases of being a monopoly bad, but in RH case, they don’t have to fear antitrust lawsuits.
Monopoly isn’t a bad word.
“As far as I’m concerned the biggest problem in the software industry isn’t the fact that alot of software is closed source. It’s the fact that there aren’t very many standards.”
I don’t think the problem is that there aren’t many standards… there are actually a boatload. There are more RFCs than I can even count. ok, maybe I can’t count that high 🙂 Really though, I can spout off several off of the top of my head: POSIX, SNMP, TCP, UDP, HTTP, ODBC, SQL, XML, SOAP, etc etc etc. All are well documented and most even have RFCs.
But, there aren’t enough standards in terms of application interfaces, file systems, document formats (!!!), etc so that I can easily switch from one *desktop* machine to another (we are talking about desktops, right?).
Really, I think what separates the software industry from others is that software is an intangible product. Also, functionality provided by software is _usually_ pretty complex (although not always the case).
“The best thing about standards is that there are so many of them” — (I forget who said that)
I hate to burst your bubble but Linux won’t make huge gains in market share in the next few years like you think. I remember hearing this kind of things 3 and 4 years ago, and guess what? MS is still on ~95% of desktops and Linux is still mostly on geek’s machines. Linux has a very very long up hill battle to climb, they’re getting there in ease of use. But they need killer apps. There is nothing a consumer wants to do that they can’t do in windows but they can do in linux. In most cases the opposite is true, or in order to do it in linux it takes a lot of effort.
the strength of the GPL?
It does remember me something, to domine, to conquer, “owning Linux”… oh non, Steve Ballmer is COE of Red Hat ??
Adam: I don’t think the problem is that there aren’t many standards… there are actually a boatload. There are more RFCs than I can even count. ok, maybe I can’t count that high 🙂 Really though, I can spout off several off of the top of my head: POSIX, SNMP, TCP, UDP, HTTP, ODBC, SQL, XML, SOAP, etc etc etc. All are well documented and most even have RFCs.
I agree that stuff is covered.
Adam: But, there aren’t enough standards in terms of application interfaces, file systems, document formats (!!!), etc so that I can easily switch from one *desktop* machine to another (we are talking about desktops, right?).
That’s what I meant actually. Stuff like that. Sure… A number of other areas are covered just fine. But not that kind of stuff.
You can’t go down to the store and just buy any word processor (DVD player) and plop it on your computer (TV) and open just any document (DVD). Like you can in other industries.
Adam: Really, I think what separates the software industry from others is that software is an intangible product. Also, functionality provided by software is _usually_ pretty complex (although not always the case).
Hmmm… I dunno… On occasion I’ve heard these same/similar words applied to other stuff too. Also all other industries have some differences between them. Anyway… Maybe I’m just wierd to feel that it’s very similar to the others.
The latest redhat was great…so what if they are the biggest
linux distro…it just means they made something great that
people like and use. I have tried SuSe, Mandrake, Gentoo, RedHat…and I must say I was in favour of gentoo up until recently…so I tried the latest RedHat and I was might impressed. It was the best desktop I had tried so far. They have a right to be the biggest because their latest package kicked ass. The only thing that comes to mind is…windows can suck my ass!…;-)
… and hardware you might add (it’s the same lack or too many, you choose, existance of standardization
Standards are something that is issued by an *independent* consortium. In the computer bussiness no one *is* independent except the open source, open architecture organizations (there was an effort with “open hardware” architecture, it faded away).
Just see the current problem around DVD-RW proprietary formats, you buy an expensive drive but have no guaranties that it will read/write the DVD-RW your friend recorded to you …
United Linux is trying to cut a standard for bussiness desktops, so is RedHat (another different standard), so is LinuxStandardBase (it’s being abused comercially, I think), but there is always someone with a better position (a monopoly) that make it come down.
End Users will pay the costs (forced to use – and pay for – one of the standards, generally the standard that other peolple use, like file formats !!) so no problem for monopolists entrepreneurs.
“I agree with your statements about Red Hat trying to make money. Yes, they are a business, and that’s what they do; try to make money. But what’s wrong with that?”
There’s nothing wrong with making money. Although In Red Hat’s case you could raise the argument about whether it is ethical to make millions of dollars selling work that was mostly developed by unpaid volunteers who will never see any of that money.
However, the main problem was not that Red hat is trying to make money. The problem is the statement he made in which he claims that is not their goal. Obviously, it is their goal, so the statement is dishonest.
A publically owned company has to keep their share holders happy. And there is only one way to do that. Because the share holders question is “How much money did you make for me this year?” If they aren’t making money, their investors will pull out.
having more downloads doesn’t mean you have more users … it just means that there are more curious ppl out there. I downloaded it and wiped it cos I didn’t like it.
@Simba
Although In Red Hat’s case you could raise the argument about whether it is ethical to make millions of dollars selling work that was mostly developed by unpaid volunteers who will never see any of that money.
Well that would be every major distribution out there. They aren’t ‘selling’ Linux, they are selling support, books, CD’s etc.. for their distribution. As advanced and superior certain distros might be (Slackware, Gentoo, etc..), they will never weed out M$ from organizations. That’s where the major distros come in in providing support, services and a standardized easy to use pre-packed Linux that organizations want and need. I guess it’s a matter of what point of view you are looking at it from. Personally, I want the standardization and services that the major distros offer, and I have no problem for them packing and selling me this solution at a fair price (about $30-40 USD I think?, or download for free). Don’t forget that most distros actively contribute to OS projects as well, so it’s not like they are just raping the OS community and selling something that is not their own.
Wow, someone who knows ayn rayn. 🙂
“Well that would be every major distribution out there. They aren’t ‘selling’ Linux, they are selling support, books, CD’s etc.. for their distribution.”
That’s really a technical loophole. The reality is that they are selling work that was mostly developed by volunteers. They can’t say they are selling support because you don’t get anything that you don’t get with most commercial software. Almost all commercial software comes with free installation support for at least a little bit of time.
I don’t have a problem with paying for software. But I do have a problem with doing business with a company that I consider to be engaging in unethical practices. IMHO, commercial Linux is unethical. They are guilty of the same kind of things that Microsoft is when it comes to ripping technology they didn’t develop and then selling it without paying the people who did develop it. The only difference is that in the case of commercial Linux, it is technically legal, where as when Microsoft has done it, it has usually violated a copyright or patent. However, just because something might be technically legal does not make it ethical.
With Linux, I tend to stick with Debian or some other non-commercial distribution.
There’s a lot of blurry fuzz in that article and on this board.
NewsForce:
The general consensus, according to Giga Information Group analyst Stacey Quandt, is that Red Hat’s market share is at least 50 percent. “Among enterprise customers, in North America in particular, the dominant distribution tends to be Red Hat,” Quandt told NewsFactor.
So “dominate” means they have to have at least 50% market share. I see I see…
NewsForce:
But even as Red Hat strives to win market share from proprietary Unix, other Linux companies are trying to carve out a slice of the same pie. Linux distributor SuSE Latest News about SuSE, for example, is gaining market share at a fairly rapid pace. According to Holger Dyroff, head of SuSE’s U.S. operations, SuSE has gone from being a negligible presence in the United States to holding more than 25 percent of the market. (…)
Quandt agreed that SuSE poses a threat to Red Hat. “Overall, SuSE has tremendous engineering talent [and] a good partnership with SAP (NYSE: SAP) Latest News about SAP Relevant Products/Services from SAP. Red Hat’s biggest competitor is either SuSE or Sun.”
I guess they should know themselves how wrong their title “Why Red Hat Owns Linux” actually is considering the article’s actual content.
Eugenia:
The article in a single sentence: Ladies and Gentlemen, meet the upcoming leader of the Linux market: Red Hat.
In other words: you did read only the first sentences and came to a wrong conclusion instead reading the arcticle as a whole first.
A whole board fully off topic stuff because nobody cared to read the article it’s actually referring to, congratulations.
@Simba
Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I completely understand where you are coming from and agree with you on the ethical concerns to an extent. Whatever ethical issues I might have do not outweigh the good that I believe many commercial distros have done for Linux as a whole. Particularly, the big dent they have collectively put in the ass of Mr. Gates and company! The bottom line is: you can download Red Hat or any other distribution for free…..period. If you want to pay for the convenience, support, manuals, or whatever in a packaged distro….so be it. If a company wants to charge people for these things and people are willing to buy it, so be it.
“Whatever ethical issues I might have do not outweigh the good that I believe many commercial distros have done for Linux as a whole.”
Something that is enethical by nature doesn’t suddenly become ethical just because you can say you have benefited the Linux community. It’s the classic “two wrongs don’t make a right” example. And Linux hasn’t really put much of a dent in Microsoft anyway. The only businesses that have really been hurt by Linux are commercial UNIX vendors.
But even if they had put a dent in Microsoft, I don’t think that this makes screwing over a bunch of starving volunteer programmers ethical. It’s still unethical.
Go hug a tree, then read some Linux news.
Spare us the holier than thou ethics course.
Done.