Will Red Hat Survive? 158
An anonymous reader writes "Red Herring has an in-depth analysis interviewing industry experts on what the future of Linux distributor Red Hat will likely be now that Oracle is offering cheaper support and services essentially identical to Red Hat Linux. Will Oracle purchase Red Hat? Or is it not yet too late?" From the article: "Mr. Dargo countered that Oracle's move indicated a lack of understanding of the value that Red Hat's support and service provide. But he noted that Red Hat could be vulnerable if Oracle manages to provide better service. 'If the strategy at Oracle works out, Red Hat is going to face some serious issues, but I don't think it is going to work out,' he said. 'There are lots of opportunities for Red Hat to do some aggressive and creative things to turn around.'"
Prices (Score:3, Interesting)
Oracle will give them some healthy competition, may the best distro win.
Re:Prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm in both cases the 'distro' is Redhat Enterprise
if oracle's distro wins to much, they will have killed their 'upstream' distro provider, and who's patches and fixes and developments can they then "follow, releasing our updates only a day later".
Anyhow, it is a very healthy vote of confidence in RHES, it seems to become the 'new' LSB
Re:Prices (Score:4, Interesting)
From the screenshots I've looked at, they couldn't even manage to get the icons right: http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opensource/linux/s
Also... why ship X11 at all? This Oracle Enterprize Linux should be focused at the server-side, shipping with a pre-installed Oracle DB, an Java EJB Container, and a nice web-based console to administrate all that.
It would be a much smarter move to partner with RH and a hardware vendor to push an Oracle Appliance to the market. Plug it, configure some basic parameters via web interface, and start using! This would add something to Oracle, simplicity, something that they currently lack, and that could make a difference aggainst the competing DB products.
I don't know if Oracle actually has the expertise to sell support, and mantain, a linux distribution. Their first attempt at putting one thogether is patetic.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know if you've ever installed oracle, but some of the reasons why any good admin knows oracle is written by a bunch of incompetent java monkeys are:
#1. It requires a gui to install. (Not the newest XE, but seeing as it's not entirely popular yet, I won't include that here.).
#2. Passwords h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We transitioned to SuSE with very little trouble, and we were happy with their aggressive march to the 2.6 kernel, which RedHat found to be
Re:Prices (Score:5, Insightful)
RedHat is much more than yet another distro... though it's the biggest distro by a distance. And a database is not the only thing that a distro is used for....
How can one trust Oracle to look after businesses developed and serviced by RedHat - that has NOTHING to do with databases at all? Or even middleware / ERP?
Re:Prices (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prices--Red Hat way more expensive (Score:3, Informative)
Everytime I have approached Red Hat for volume licensing they are **ALWAYS** more expensive than Microsoft. In fact the latest bid is 100% more; that is Red Hat is twice as expensive. (this is not for AS).
Re: (Score:2)
Lets say I have a 2,000 person company and I want the following services on as little boxes as I can get by with.
File/Print
Web server/application server - both internal and external
Database server (to house custom shopping cart style web application + internal apps)
Content Management Server
Email + Scheduling
Development Tools
General support, say 8:00am to 5:00pm type of stuff.
Virtual System support, so the company can have a "test" and "development" environment.
Virus cont
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1 CHF (Swiss Franc) = 0.80 US$
If you're a sub-15 people company, and only have one machine, Microsoft Small Business Server is a good bet. You can get the Standard Edition for 800 CHF, and the Premium Edition (includes SQL Server and ISA Server (no idea why you would want that)) for 1300 CHF. Each includes 5 User CALs, So for 15 people you need
Re: (Score:2)
The other advantage is that you don't EVER have to worry about CALs. It seems to me that the only real advantage that Microsoft would have would be that it has AD. Granted it isn't a true directory, but it can provide a m
Re: (Score:2)
If you are a information technology company, it might be possible and might even have lots of advantages to use linux exclusively.
However, if you are not an IT company, i don't see linux to stand a chance. There are some technical reasons here, but also social reasons:
The technical reasons:
* Software, which the company needs might not be available under linux. Using VMs or WINE might solve the problem in the short term, but what if the a new version doesn't work anymore?
Re:Linux servers + Windows desktops = happy client (Score:2)
Even linux servers need care after they're setup. You know, even open source applications have security vulnerabilities. And installing updating isn't as easy as on windows (when it works).
Please don't assume that all small companies work unprofessionally with Excel and Access. At least here in switzerland, it's not really possible to be lawful with just easing excel and access (beca
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so RedHat provides buzzwords and certs so managers and business owners can comfort themselves with the warm fuzzies that their techie has a cert. Is the cert really that much better than Microsoft's various techie certs? Has a cert ever actually demonstrated someone has the skills and training needed to do the job right, or does it just prove someone had the time and money for a course?
Clearly certs aren't enough to maintain a company of RedHat's size, or there would be major competition from compa
Network Certs (Score:2)
Maybe so, but having the certs is the ONLY way that Linux of any kind would be approved to deploy on certain networks. No certs, no deployment. Pick a different OS platform. Period. As far as having and maintaining these certs go, RHEL is the only game in town.
We've been waiting for years for someone to get a Linux distribution, any Linux distribution, approved for a particular DoD network that we deploy our systems on. We can't do
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry. I should have clarified that I was referring to admin and developer certs, not software certification.
By definition a software vendor is certifying their product for it's purpose, despite the handwaving disclaimers of many licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
I almost forgot...
My understanding was that most of the military/DoD certifications require a complete software development history, identifying who made any changes and when. I'm not sure that OSS could ever qualify under that requirement.
Personally I wouldn't worry much about the milspec markets. I don't see Linux as "better" than Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, BSD, or QNX when it comes to development. It's philosophical and marketing differences that I like about Linux, and I can't see that being relevant
Re: (Score:2)
Windows pricing is hard to compare, because its so variable. A copy of XP pro over the three year life of a PC is less than RHWS; but add on the cost of CAL licenses to network infrastructure (exchange, file servers) and the price of a PC rises. Same for server installs -the cost of the database scales with the number of users you want to support.
On the other hand, if you are a developer with an MSDN subscription, you get all of windows, office, much of visual studio for a flat rate, less than an AS subscri
Re: (Score:2)
I already have the partitions set up, having used QTParted in my knoppix remaster, see screenshots below.
-- Rapidweather
RedHat dies when hellf reezes over. (Score:2)
Pardon me for saying so but most of the people I know who use distros other th
Other distros, in particular SuSE (Score:3, Interesting)
Now SuSE is often, and to some extent justly, accused of being overly eager to look like Windows. But I still consider it a distro that can be recommended to Linux newbies. It is easy to install and get started with, and from there you can work your way up to more "hardcore" distributions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a distro war (Score:2)
My belief is that Oracle will pull some of RH's coders to their side as well as hire new folks. These ppl will enhance Linux at a much faster clip, which feeds back into Fedora. RH will come down in price but not down
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle is doing exactly that. "Open source intellectual property is available to all of us. What that means is that any company can take the Red Hat version of Linux and use it at no cost so long as they're willing to support themselves. Well, that actually includes us. We could take the Red H
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle can..and they probably will. This is why any business model based on open source is so difficult. Any company with more resources, power, and money can come along and start re-selling it. Even if they put redhat out of business..it won't be a problem because they can easily just hire programmers to start working
Re: (Score:2)
They can certainly try, but CentOS has been around for a while and Red Hat are still in business. If you wish to argue that Oracle are going to give better service than Red Hat, on products that only Red Hat control ... then please pass the crack pipe around so everyone can have a toke.
It's also confusing to me, that Oracle's main market will be asked if they want to save $500 on the OS when they buy a multi $10,000+ Oracle install. But hey, maybe you're already t
Re: (Score:2)
CentOS is very small compared to redhat. When a large company comes onto the scene (especially one that makes its money with something other than open source) and has 10 or 20 times the resources, they should be worried.
Ora
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Take a look at what Ellison said:
"Each time Red Hat comes out with new code we'll synchronize with that version. We will add our bug fixes to current, future and back releases."
Anyone who's been doing opensource for any decent time knows that constantly repatching and resyncing against the upstream is even worse than patching in the first place. Patches break, they get incompatible changes,
If Redhat dies (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens if W. were hit by a comet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly where will businesses go to get their linux OS upon which to run Oracle?
Yes I know, Oracle will provide the OS and that is the idea behind Oracle's Unbreakable Linux, but there is a problem that should be considered by anyone who is interested in replacing Red Hat support subscriptions with Oracle support subscriptions. The CEO of Oracle does not believe in supporting open source because Ellison fears that "if we could do this, other peop
Re: (Score:2)
Competition (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or else they can die, like everybody else with a failed business model.
Or be bought by somebody else.
The open-source revolution doesnt pay the bills.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, the redhat is not paying their bill a decade later. Likewise, Suse is a money losing operation for Novell (NOT). And Ubuntu and Mandrake are not paying their bills (well, to be fair, Mandrake was having issues, but they are very much alive).
All in all, your last statement was absolutely wrong based on 30+ years of history.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP seemed to indicate that supporting OSS somehow entitled Redhat to a succesful business operation.
I was just pointing out that this does not need to be the case.
ISPs are Service providers; as long as people find value in their services, they'll remain in business. Same is the case with Redhat - their survival depends on the value of their support services. Companies dont run purely on goodwill. They need a viable business model. OSS or non-OSS has noth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of Novell hemoraging money on SuSe, that is ass backwards. Do you know how to read financial statements? At least google for it.
Who targets no market? (Score:2)
Who puts in the effort and expense of delivering to a non-existent market? There is always a market, or just a bunch of bankrupt fools with old business cards living on the streets.
If there is a fixed-size market, then "normal" business competition comes into play. In such a situation, it is about "making the other guy lose" so you can steal their share, because it's the only way to grow. For whatever reason, people don't consider stability and long-term viabi
Re: (Score:2)
Business don't care about the open source revolution. Businesses are there for one thing: to make money. Both Redhat and Oracle re
They Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
March to Helm's Deep! Leave none alive! To war! (Score:3, Insightful)
I Didn't Get It (Score:3, Interesting)
Despite what Mr. Greenbaum says, Red Hat does have some intellectual property. In fact, that's why Oracle (according to the article) is indemnifying its customers against IP issues that may crop up, just to be on the safe side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Goodwill Squandered, starring Matt Damon (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, all is not lost for those who prefer a Red Hat style distribution that is stable rather than the Fedora line. I am currently extremely happy with CentOS [centos.org], a community reb
Re: (Score:2)
The "problem" with CentOS is support. That's not an issue for the individual (and I too was rather disappointed in Red Hat's decisions and behavior during the period you mention); but companies want support contracts. A friend works at a company that recently switched to RHEL after using CentOS. That decision was made because their customers were demanding support for the platform the company's hosting ser
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would I ever go back to RedHat?
It is very possible. Everyone makes mistakes, myself included. But I wouldn't go back until they changed their business model to something that is more friendly to small guys. I wouldn't even demand an apology, although one is certainly deserved. I am not a fanboy/anti-fanboy. I am a pragmatic guy that will use what I believe is the best option, be it RedHat, SuSE or even MS if they could ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought about Whitebox and CentOS, and had considered them both because I was already familiar
Re:They Don't Get It (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if Larry has really thought this through; offering Red Hats patches developed for Red Hats customers but two days later isnt a compelling sales argument so what will Oracle do when Oracles customers report bugs to Oracle? Report the bugs to Red Hat and hope they fix them? Or fix them themselves, and submit the patches upstream to Red Hat? Either their customers risk being left high and dry, or Oracle will be doing Red Hats work for them, just as much as the other way around.
"I can't see Larry going after people who attack the GPL"
But maybe we'll see Larry going after the GPL, once he realizes that Red Hat can freeload right back at him.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I absolutely agree with you on that last point: credit where credit is due. At the end of the day, RH's products are open sourced and the do a lot of good work to protect open source as it's key to their business model.
But this doesn't change the fact that RH is a pain in the ass to deal with as a customer. I'm trying hard to remember one single conversation with them that didn't start off with the assumption that I was a drooling imbecile or where I got back a prompt and useful answer instead of an a
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth, Red Hat have patents, which the current owners have sorta-kinda promised not to assert just this minute.
Say, I wonder if Oracle will feel bound by that sorta-kinda promise when they buy Red Hat out?
It will (Score:1)
Why Oracle must be stopped.... (Score:5, Interesting)
By undercutting and subsequently angling for a takeover of RedHat, Oracle is getting into a business which is not beneficial to customers and end-users.... the focal point of the entire Open Source and Free Software movements.
If Oracle wants to offer support Linux-based database solutions, it ought to come up with it's own distro. NOT kill RedHat.. the no. 1 distro. What would happen to RedHat's non-database successes... middleware, applications, hardware collaboration, education and research, training and services... solutions partners etc.? It would appear these are threats to Oracle's long-term survival.. but they are the most valuable things for customers (not just servers and infrastructure).
HP took over Compaq took over Digital... and now, the Unix businesses of Compaq and Digital (both very valuable for customers) have been lost forever.
Oracle might compete... but must not be allowed to takeover RedHat. In many ways they are bigger stumbling blocks to the Open Source revolution than even Microsoft.
Why Oracle will not be stopped... (Score:2)
Sure thing. Let me just reach into my wallet and pull out $14 billion dollars, the approximate difference in annual revenue between the companies (hint: Red Hat's revenue is not even 1 billion, so most of that 14 belongs to Oracle). I hate to be cynical, but ideals are no match for lots and lots of money, my friend. You can rally around Red Hat all you want, but that won't change the fact that Red Hat and Oracle are both companies--capita
Re: (Score:2)
What an oddly inappropriate post (Score:2)
You made this up. Nobody said anything about the quality of the support at all because the quality of the support is immaterial. It doesn't have to be "great", only adequate and cheap--cheaper than what Red Hat offers. Strike one.
2) So RedHat is doomed, worthless useless and it's stock price will collapse
Pretty much. I can tell you don't know much about this or you would know that Red Hat's (two words) stock already has collapsed. Red Hat stock just
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat is a public company. (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if Oracle provides better support--only that it provides at least the same level of support for less. That alone will have resounding consequences for Red Hat. Trust me, there is a lot sneakier stuff you can do to depress a stock price than what Oracle is doing now. They haven't even scratched the surface.
Ill tell you what will happen to RedHat (Score:2)
think why things with
i would be very cautious not to ev
It's not price alone that matters. I hope. (Score:3, Insightful)
It could turn out a problem, however, that uneducated "decision-makers" (how I loathe that word) who don't give a shit about what their more tech-savvy and competent advisers say, and just go for "Unbreakable Linux", because it's cheaper and supported by a big and well known player of IT. Who has ever been fired for buying Micr..., uhm, Oracle?
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:1)
And after? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not (Score:3, Informative)
In my opinion, most serious developers will keep to a lighter distro, and most newbies will keep to a nice flowery distro such as Ubuntu, which prides itself on ease of use. Red Hat is no longer necesarry. Compettition will inevitably drive it away in the ever dynamic food-web of free software.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unbreakable will most likely only compete with RHEL for Oracle customers. That's a profitable market for Red Hat though. What Oracle need to remember is that undercutting a Linux distro is a dangerous game because they can be undercut at any time. All it takes is someone selling g
Identical? (Score:3, Informative)
Some people [groklaw.net] like to differ over that.
Is this not an anti-competitive issue? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How about "Oracle's move strengthens RedHat" (Score:2)
Those that consider their current arrangements good value won't be quick to run to save a few dollars and if Oracle starts to prove itself a strong Linux service provider RedHat is going to have to adjust, not shut the door!
It's not that easy... (Score:2)
Are they up to that? Are they up to handling and solving bugs and big crises?
Forking an Free/Open Source project is not so easy as people might think on the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
What Oracle can do is create a pre-built Linux OS tarball that can be blown onto an approved server and simply replace anything local, which would simplify quite a lot of the installation whac
Can't stop laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, Oracle is never going to be a cheap solution in any market. They claim to be an enterprise software vendor. They charge prices that allow them to provide enterprise solutions very profitably. Oracle clients do not care about the price because they run their business more profitably on Oracle software. In many comapnies, small projects are developed in bitty things like MS Access and then ported to Oracle when they have proven a good idea. Getting your app an Oracle back-end was seen as proof you did a great job when I was contracting at Vodafone for example.
The very fact that they have the Oracle brand behind them means they can and will be the most expensive provider of enterprise level support of Linux.
Unless Red Hat has some aspiration to be more expensive than Oracle, the arrival of Oracle in the market can only be good news as it will grow the overall marketplace.
Who cares (Score:2)
Never mind Red Hat... (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone looked at the pricing? (Score:2)
AS (4-16 CPU servers), 24/7/365 support, 1 hour response, £1,388/year ($2,636 at todays spot $ rate)
AS (4-16 CPU servers), working hours Mon-Fri, 4 hour response, £833/year ($1,582)
ES (1-2 CPU servers), working hours Mon-Fri, 4 hour response, £444/year ($843)
ES (1-2 CPU servers), 30 days install support then just updates, £195/year ($370)
and those are unlimited incidents, and no CALs for each user (put as many on as you wis
Aww, come ON. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm about to take my RHCE next month. RedHat can't die NOW. That's unfair.
Don't worry, Red Hat will not die next month as has been predicted for years, in fact it may do the opposite. If Oracle starts shipping Red Hat into corporate I/T it is also an endorsement of the technology. Thus, open doors even in close minded Microsoft shops.
No one in corporatate America is looking at what China and India are doing with Linux. In fact, if you do getting a RHCE gives you a future. And contrary to noisy minori
Linux always strategic to Red Hat - Not to Oracle (Score:2)
There are those who want a supplier of just a linux system. Linux will always be strategic to Red Hat, but Oracle can change and will never be so Linux-focused.
There are lots of people out there, who, for different reasons, dont want anything to do with Oracle.
Having used Oracle's DB in the past... (Score:2)
A market for both (Score:5, Interesting)
But, the big companies will stick with Red Hat. Why? Simple. When they have an issue with an application, Red Hat has engineers which troubleshoot the problem, fix it, then release a new package. Sure, Oracle *could* do that, but can they get Red Hat to accept the patches? More importantly, will they just say "sorry, that's a bug in the vendor's software"? Red Hat has engineers who are dedicated to patching and improving the OS.
That said, the large companies are likely to exert a bit of muscle to get a better deal on their Red Hat contracts by comparing the Red Hat support costs to Oracle. In the end, this will certainly cost Red Hat some revenue, but I don't personally see it as dire as wall street did on Thursday. And in the end, the marketis certainly big enough that Oracle could end up having a positive influence on Red Hat's market share, as yet another company advocated Linux to the masses.
Re: (Score:2)
With the JBoss purchase, they even have influence in many java projects. Not all; I suspect google sun and IBM have more. but they own hibernate and jboss, and have a presence in tomcat.
I'm bus
HA! This is great for Red Hat (Score:2)
Show Me The Money!! (Score:2)
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RHAT&t=1y [yahoo.com]. RedHat's 1 year price trend.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ORCL&t=1y [yahoo.com] Oracle's 1 year price trend.
I'd say the big-money decision makers have declared Oracle the winner in this one. RedHat's a dead
Re: (Score:2)
Service this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they'd also be playing rather fast and loose with the GPL, as well.
This is the entire reason why I've always believed more in the BSD license for business. The GPL was specifically designed to disallow monopoly. Of course, the usual Communists in the audience will immediately scream that that is as it should be. What they are as usual forgetting
Re: (Score:2)
History proves you wrong. The BSD license is less successful than GPL for anything but essential infrastructure projects. BSD seems, to me, especially ill suited for applications. Which is where the next battles will be fought.
Red Hat is profitable. JBoss was profitable prior to being bought by Red Hat. MySQL is profitable. Profitable businesses can be built under the GPL. Perhaps not with the gargantuan profits a monopoly would get. I guess they shall have to settle with being millionaires instead of bi
Oracle supporting RedHat... (Score:2, Interesting)
Might work, Might not... (Score:2)
R.I.P. Oracle (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am really not sure they are. PostgreSQL has great transactional integrity, but not awesome performance. MySQL has great performance, but is still behind on integrity and safety. Oracle h
Re: (Score:2)
Because I have been working with Oracle products since the 80s, and have seen how reliable they are. I have also read regular reliable reports of it being in the highest-performing commercial systems, including ones that need guaranteed integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
And in the process Red Hat went from being that distro everyone could run for cheap to something unatainable unless you wanted to beta test for Red Hat.
It's sad. I use CentOS now. Mostly because I need stability for my home machine, but can't afford the ridiculous s