Microsoft to take direct shots at Linux rivals (News.com)
Taylor's methods include funding analyst firm studies, launching a "Get the Facts" advertising campaign and discouraging Microsoft executives from making any more inflammatory comments that open-source software is a "cancer" or "un-American." Taylor meets with customers worldwide and has begun expanding the Microsoft attack to Europe. Taylor said he expects that targeting Linux sellers such as Red Hat and Novell will be persuasive to software customers."
Posted Sep 16, 2004 22:06 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (35 responses)
We put in about 10 years of work for idealistic purposes, and boy have we squandered it! Folks, there is absolutely no advantage to Free Software if the main channels to the consumer operate as if they were Microsoft. Nor can we expect to win any legislative battle if this is a fight between two or three companies rather than a fight between a movement for the public good and a big corporation. As long as we let companies with restrictive business practices stand as the gatekeepers between the community and the consumer, we have no high ground and can not expect to be treated as anything but another company. Bruce
Posted Sep 16, 2004 22:33 UTC (Thu)
by stumbles (guest, #8796)
[Link] (2 responses)
How would/should/could it have been done differently?
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
All of this is structured to avoid building another Microsoft. Bruce
Posted Sep 17, 2004 3:11 UTC (Fri)
by walters (subscriber, #7396)
[Link]
Posted Sep 16, 2004 22:49 UTC (Thu)
by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223)
[Link] (2 responses)
1) What is this near-obsession you have with Red Hat? Even from that article you truncated "Red Hat and Novell" to "Red Hat". Every time I've seen you criticise a commercial Linux company it's Red Hat. Is Red Hat that much worse than SuSE/Novell? Or Caldera was? Or IBM potentially is?
2) Microsoft wants to reduce it to the easy two big targets. Red Hat and Novell/SuSE. Well, even fighting on their ground, you can still expand the argument. Like Red Hat's software but not the price structure? Try White Box. Then there is Mandrake, or . . . and I assume that you'll be able to put something in about User Linux in there too :-)
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:26 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
I am holding off judgement on Novell for a while. They haven't had enough time to show how they handle the covenant. White Box and Mandrake are cool, but I am hoping that UserLinux gives us the power to align a large number of regional and vertical-market companies under one flag to be more of a competitor that Mandrake has ever had a chance to be. I guess you can't fault me for dreaming small. Bruce
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:38 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link]
And about IBM. Didn't I have a lot to say about their patents in recent time? Only because of my goading did they make a declaration that they would not assert their patents on the Linux kernel. And I have not been quiet about HP since I left there. Bruce
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:13 UTC (Thu)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link] (5 responses)
Meanwhile there's also Novell/SUSE, Mandrake, Linspire, Xandros (to mention a few that are available on the shelves of local stores or preloaded onto computers available from e.g. WalMart) as well as less commercial distros like Slackware, Fedora (yeah, I know that's Red Hat, but it's a different name), Knoppix, and of course Debian. Microsoft targeting a company or distro name isn't going to be any more effective than targeting Linux in general, there are just too many targets.
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:29 UTC (Thu)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (4 responses)
Thanks for enumerating those distros, but currently for the enterprise user, RH and Novell are the only ones that matter. I could help give some of those other folks a leg up if things go well. Bruce
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:50 UTC (Thu)
by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223)
[Link] (2 responses)
I remember reading a talk you gave just after Red Hat launched its action for a Declaratory Judgement against SCO. That's the last time I've seen you say something nice about Red Hat, or warn about anyone other than Red Hat (in that instance IBM).
I can only speak for myself. But I agree with the "personal gripe" comment. Not because Red Hat is innocent, or that RHEL doesn't deseve criticism. But because of the fact that they appear to be the _only_ one you focus on. Can it be _that_ hard to find someone else to have a go at now and then? (Or is my reading to limited?)
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:53 UTC (Thu)
by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 17, 2004 2:23 UTC (Fri)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link]
Thanks Bruce
Posted Sep 17, 2004 16:09 UTC (Fri)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link]
The Red Hat Enterprise Linux software is available from other sources than Red Hat. If RH chooses to place certain requirements on a support subscription that's their decision, and we'll see if that turns out to be a good business decision over the next few years. I do know of companies that have sufficient Unix/Linux expertise in-house (or through a third party managed services agreement) that they'll roll out copies of RHEL without the Red Hat support subscription, choosing RHEL for stability and application vendor support.
First-time enterprise Linux users may limit themselves to RH or Novell/SUSE, but in my experience (which covers many large companies), those who have some experience with Unix (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) and/or some version of Linux have no problem with running several flavors internally, including RH 7-9, SUSE 9, Debian, Fedora, or unsupported-by-RedHat versions of RHEL.
Posted Sep 16, 2004 23:36 UTC (Thu)
by ccyoung (guest, #16340)
[Link]
Also, Red Hat's licensing is also good for good Linux sysadmins - makes their ROI quite nice, thank you.
Posted Sep 17, 2004 0:02 UTC (Fri)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (7 responses)
In my little microcosm of the world-- where, granted, we've been Unix forever, and MS is only growing because it started so small-- Red Hat is already rapdily approaching irrelevance. I used to run Red Hat on all the machines I use for astronomy. Now I run Debian everywhere. Most particle physics groups around the world that used to run Red Hat now run Fermi Linux -- which, granted, is a Red Hat derivative, but it's its own thing with its own support.
All the effort hasn't been completely squandered. Even without world domination, there still is the possibility for those who are paying attention to be free.
-Rob
Posted Sep 17, 2004 1:54 UTC (Fri)
by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Sep 17, 2004 2:13 UTC (Fri)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (2 responses)
On the other hand, the particle physicsts down the hall did switch to it, and seem extremely happy with it. They have become evangalists for it, and keep trying to convince me that I should consider using Fermilab Linux instead of Debian. (Especially every time they see me installing a new machine; it's well known that the installer is one of the weakest points of Debian when compared to other distributions.)
-Rob
Posted Sep 17, 2004 10:22 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (1 responses)
Anyway, cernlib (from CERN, of course) was what got me hooked on Linux and Open Source, by the way. Running that at home, wow! ;-)
Posted Sep 17, 2004 12:59 UTC (Fri)
by mmarsh (subscriber, #17029)
[Link]
What I really need to do is slap a GPL notice on my wrapper for CERNLIB using SWIG and the CERN C macros and put it up on the web. That's how I happily fill HBOOK structures from perl and python. Plus, there's the sheer amusement value of Fortran accessed through C macros wrapped with SWIG to generate wrappers for scripting languages.
Posted Sep 17, 2004 8:41 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (2 responses)
(The port of cernlib to RedHat was what dragged me into Open Source, by the way: I could run my own physics workstation at home! Brilliant! ;-)
Posted Sep 17, 2004 15:18 UTC (Fri)
by rknop (guest, #66)
[Link] (1 responses)
In the physics world, Red Hat dominated by a very wide margin over other Linux distros. When all of a sudden everybody in Physics running a Linux box realized that they had a choice between (a) paying a huge licencing fee each year, or (b) running a system for which after a few months there would be no security patches or updates easily availble.
Fermilab realized that they had a huge consistency facing this problem, so took advantage of the Open Source nature of Red Hat and made the distro their own, committing to supplying updates and security patches.
So, yes, you're right, it's an exercise of the freedoms that Open Source giveds us. However, the reason that brought about that exercise was a symptom of the approaching irrelevance of Red Hat in many circles due to their licencing changes.
-Rob
Posted Sep 17, 2004 18:04 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
Well, they're selling a different product now. It seems that many of the alienated (potential) customers appreciated the "free as in beer" aspect of Linux quite a bit (they're entitled to it), to the extent that they expected to get the new product for the old price. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. Fortunately, you have all the options at your own disposal, because Red Hat distributions are free as in "speech". Fermilab profits from that (CERN have their own Red Hat based Linux distribution too, by the way ;-). Anyone who seriously thinks that "free as in speech" implies, or gives you a right to "free as in beer" is, well, naive.
The comparisons with Microsoft (in other comments here, and at the time of the RHEL introduction) are quite out of place. Most observers accusing Red Hat of monopolistic behaviour clearly do not understand monopolies, the way Microsoft reigns the proprietary software world, the rationale behind Red Hat's move, or all of the above.
Posted Sep 17, 2004 3:07 UTC (Fri)
by walters (subscriber, #7396)
[Link]
It is certainly not sold or paid for the same way. With RHEL you get a subscription to updates and support for the OS. With Microsoft you get a license for a particular version. Often that license has per-client fees attached. That's not the same thing at all. As for "essentially the same rights": obviously that's not true, since you get the source to everything in RHEL. What does Red Hat do? See here.
Posted Sep 17, 2004 4:30 UTC (Fri)
by Russell (guest, #1453)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Sep 17, 2004 5:32 UTC (Fri)
by a_hippie (guest, #34)
[Link]
Posted Sep 17, 2004 9:38 UTC (Fri)
by dvrabel (subscriber, #9500)
[Link]
Posted Sep 17, 2004 15:31 UTC (Fri)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link] (3 responses)
Here in the Netherlands, the government has adopted Open Source software as a serious alternative to proprietary software for all ICT projects, for all the good reasons: no vendor lock-in, access to the code, good quality and so on. To me, this means that it is Open Source that is winning the war, not Red Hat or Novell. The distinction between the strategies employed by companies that base their business on Open Source software, and the process of making and distributing Open Source software, is quite clear to the decision makers in my country.
According to a Dutch paper, IDC predicts that in two years 50% of new servers will be running Linux. Do you really think that is because everyone is falling for Red Hat's and Novell's devious schemes now?
Basically your arguments amount to something like: "Red Hat has hijacked Linux and if they are taken down by Microsoft we lose everything we have worked for".
That's too simple. Or just plain wrong. It culminates in this cryptic statement:
Please back this up with facts, figures and arguments.
Posted Sep 18, 2004 2:52 UTC (Sat)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link]
Of course, while that statement is true, his statements regarding Red Hat are not. For all the issues I have with RH, is not acting like every other company. Red Hat may have an *expensive* product, but that doesn't mean it's restrictive.
Posted Sep 18, 2004 3:26 UTC (Sat)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (1 responses)
When we create a pervasive monopoly or duopoly in keeping the gate between the serious enterprise user and the Free Software community, we run the risk that all of the people who are not active Open Source developers will see us not as a community operating pro bono publico but as one or two for-profit companies who have enjoyed very lucrative IPOs. And they will see the advantages of our software not as what we are actually offering, but as what those companies offer. The existence of White Box, Fermi Linux, and Gentoo will not be terribly visible to either the enterprise user or the legislator.
So, when next we have to argue in Europe about Software Patents, there will be Microsoft and its friends on the other side, making the point that we're not a "community", we're Red Hat and Novell. And to anyone who hasn't spent a lot of time with people like you and me, it sure will look as if that's true. And that will completely disarm us as far as fighting the effect of patents on Free Software is concerned. Pretty soon after that you really will need to get your Linux from Red Hat or Novell, because those folks will be the only ones with valid patent licenses. And if they need to challenge the GPL to do that, they will, with the help of OSDL and all of the large companies that now hold copyrights on the Linux kernel.
I can't see any way to fight this unless we get the community a lot closer to the end-user. Allowing a few big companies to be the gate-keepers isn't going to help us do that.
Thanks Bruce
Posted Sep 18, 2004 11:31 UTC (Sat)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
Who is "we"?!
I think you are not showing a lot confidence in the strength of the Open Source community, and the means it has to enforce its ideas -- the GPL being the most prominent of those means. Also, I think your view on what is happening with the commercialisation around Open Source software is flawed. What companies have to offer is different from what the Open Source community has to offer, and I think the general public is perfectly capable of making that distinction, possibly with some help from Open Source advocates like yourself.
There is no need to complicate things. The patent problem is really not restricted to the Open Source ballpark, and to solve that problem we have to change the system. I'd prefer we do that with Red Hat, IBM and Novell, instead of fighting against them. Open Source users and developers have different ways of fighting this battle than Open Source companies -- let's join forces.
Posted Sep 18, 2004 3:37 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (4 responses)
The are certainly entitled to run their own business as they see fit, don't you think?
Posted Sep 18, 2004 4:12 UTC (Sat)
by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
[Link] (3 responses)
I think that the Open Source developers are stake-holders, simply because it is their software much more than it is Red Hat's. They should be concerned with how Red Hat is representing them, they have a right to complain, and ultimately they should be able to help someone else preferentially over Red Hat. I think we have a right to disrupt their business by competing with them successfully, and then they certainly would not be operating as they see fit. Regarding whether they are operating like Microsoft or not, I am going back to the advantages that we historicaly have claimed for Open Source: it's free both in terms of liberty and price, you can put it on any number of systems, you can get service from any number of vendors, you can change it as you like, and everybody's a fair partner. Contrast that to RHEL: there's a per-seat fee that is structured to be about 90% of what you would pay for Windows. If you have seats running the software that you haven't paid for in your company, they actually go after you about that, and threaten to cut off your service and block your access to updates. And your proprietary software vendors (Oracle is the example everyone mentions) won't support their software on White Box or Fermi Linux.
That is the face that Open Source now presents to most enterprise users, and with them to the legislators that they influence. Bruce
Posted Sep 18, 2004 10:53 UTC (Sat)
by hppnq (guest, #14462)
[Link]
So, all the "I think we have a right to ..." type statements are pointless, because your rights are well defined.
You seem to miss the whole point of Red Hat's subscription model. You keep confusing the support you buy per seat with the software covered by the support. It's hard to understand why you of all people do not get this, it is really very simple.
Actually, reading the subscription agreement, I was quite impressed by the way it captures the idea of supporting Open Source software.
Yes, there are threats, countermeasures, unfriendly terms in it. Are you one of those people who never reads the VCR manual? This is all commonplace. Red Hat would be nuts if they didn't say things like "if you abuse the subscription we'll have to cut off the service".
For someone who is so keen on playing by the rules, you seem to not know the rules too well?!
Posted Sep 18, 2004 11:02 UTC (Sat)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link]
As long as they aren't breaking any laws (and AFAIK, they aren't) they should be entitled to do precisely that. The market will than be the judge of their approach.
> I think that the Open Source developers are stake-holders, simply because it is their software much more than it is Red Hat's. They should be concerned with how Red Hat is representing them, they have a right to complain, and ultimately they should be able to help someone else preferentially over Red Hat.
Of course it's their software - they have a copyright in it. However, they have given Red Hat a licence to do certain things with those works. And Red Hat are doing them. I don't see how Red Hat are representing them, apart from what copyright law says about the integrity of the author etc.
> I think we have a right to disrupt their business by competing with them successfully, and then they certainly would not be operating as they see fit.
Now that is something I agree with and support 100%. So, rather than badmouthing them for something that is just their way of doing business (and let's remember, they aren't doing anything illegal), we should just do the competition bit. For instance, what you're doing with UserLinux may work well. Anyhow, the future will tell.
> And your proprietary software vendors (Oracle is the example everyone mentions) won't support their software on White Box or Fermi Linux.
Of course they won't. They are not stupid. Business is a lot about relationships. I bet that Red Hat spent a lot of time doing this whole thing with Oracle, precisely to achieve what they have achieved so far - a dominant distro position. But, that's early days. Linux is still just a minority OS in enterprises and once that changes, the pie will get bigger. Then, other slices will get bigger too. Just a normal balancing act.
Posted Sep 19, 2004 5:36 UTC (Sun)
by AJWM (guest, #15888)
[Link]
That is, first, NOT a "per-seat" fee -- it's a "per Installed System" fee -- and a, for example, 8-way SMP server with 16GB RAM can support one heck of a lot of seats. Secondly, the fee is for support, it isn't a software license fee.
If you have seats running the software that you haven't paid for in your company, they actually go after you about that,
[Insert obligatory joke about the inability of seats, vs systems, to run software.]
Uh, no. Read the contract. Particularly that part where they define "Installed System", and "Software". Note carefully that "Software" is not defined the way you and I might normally think of software, it specifically mentions subscription. Basically they're saying something to the effect that if a user takes fraudulent advantage of the support services and subscriptions for a system that they haven't paid that subscription fee for, Red Hat will be very annoyed. They don't care if you install one copy of RHEL on ten systems, so long as you only use the support service for the one system you paid for.
Seems fair to me, although the accounting might be a bit tedious.
(Your repeated mention of "seats" implies to me that you're hung up on the model of application software licensing that requires a "license server" so that no more than N seats, er, users can be using the software at any given moment. It's also been a restrion on some proprietary Unices -- I admin an old HP-UX box (among others) that declares its "2 user license" whenever I log in. Linux, Red Hat or otherwise, has nothing like that.)
Posted Sep 18, 2004 14:28 UTC (Sat)
by dkite (guest, #4577)
[Link]
This is an extremely intelligent strategy of Microsoft's, and will be very successful. No longer need they fight a community, something they have never been effective at. Now, they need only fight a company. It's not Open Source, it's Red Hat. Just another piece of boxed software, sold the same way, paid for the same way, for the same amount, and with essentially the same rights that you get with the Microsoft box.This will be an extremely effective strategy
"and boy have we squandered it!" This will be an extremely effective strategy
Well, I am attempting with the UserLinux project to get the community much closer to the end-user, reserving for business only the pieces that business needs to do and replacing the one monolithic business with a community of businesses all working on the same product.This will be an extremely effective strategy
There is already a community of businesses working on the same product. Look at the variety of companies like Novell, Red Hat, and IBM which contribute to the same Linux kernel, the same GNOME project, etc.This will be an extremely effective strategy
My reaction was primarily the same as yours. However, 2 points.This will be an extremely effective strategy
What is this near-obsession you have with Red Hat?This will be an extremely effective strategy
I should answer the part of the question about Caldera, IBM, too. My feelings on the malignant tumor that took over Caldera are a matter of record. Before then, my main criticism of Caldera was concerning Ransom, who is the nicest guy in the world if you know him but made a number of ill-advised public statements that did not further his company's ambitions. Caldera was never in a dominant position (as RH is for Linux) so there was less reason to care about their business methods.This will be an extremely effective strategy
Sounds like you have a personal gripe against Red Hat, which seems true of some other folks in the OSS community. Probably something about the RHEL licensing, I guess.This will be an extremely effective strategy, NOT!
Is my objection to the RHEL business model, shared by other folks as you say, really a "personal gripe"?This will be an extremely effective strategy, NOT!
I (think I) understand your problem with the RHEL business model. But I would have thought that, given someone like White Box is able to come in and compete directly with RHEL using RHEL itself as the base, it isn't _that_ evil.Red Hat
OK, didn't see your second response to my other post until after I had sent this. I haven't seen your comments about HP. Could you enlighten me? (either by recap or links)Red Hat
I think the last thing I was critical of HP about was the fact that their indemnification terms were under NDA.Red Hat
However many people may share it, it's a personal gripe in that (a) it seems directed solely at Red Hat and (b) it seems based more on emotion than on logic.
This will be an extremely effective strategy, NOT!
This will be a Good Thing. For many in the General Public, Linux correlates to Red Hat. With someone taking aim at Red Hat, alternatives will be sought and found.Good Thing (tm)
Fortunately, if MS manages to take down Red Hat and Novell, they still don't take down Linux.This will be an extremely effective strategy
You must have had very different experiences with software from FNAL than I did if you take comfort in that switch.This will be an extremely effective strategy
I don't have any personal experiences with it at all, as I didn't switch to it.This will be an extremely effective strategy
Hey, my response ended up under the wrong parent. Sorry.
This will be an extremely effective strategy
I first used CERNLIB on what was then OSF1, later Digital Unix, later True64. Now that I'm using Linux full-time at work (rather than a DECterm) and have left particle physics, I still use PAW for all of my serious data analysis. I plan to spread PAW to other computer scientists -- just another World Domination plan. I was amazed to see that with Debian I can "apt-get install paw" and be set to go. Much easier (and faster) than compiling the source.This will be an extremely effective strategy
I would think that the arrival of Fermi Linux does not have so much to do with the "approaching irrelevance" of RedHat, but more with one of the nicer things about Open Source software: it invites and enables you to adapt things to your needs.
This will be an extremely effective strategy
...but if you look at the reason that Fermi Linux was created in the first place, it was in response to Red Hat licencing changes.This will be an extremely effective strategy
This will be an extremely effective strategy
However, the reason that brought about that exercise was a symptom of the approaching irrelevance of Red Hat in many circles due to their licencing changes.
This will be an extremely effective strategy
Some do and some talk.This will be an extremely effective strategy
From my point of view Redhat have done more for the success of open source than you.
Please! Your point is that everyone that is/was involved with Red Hat has This will be an extremely effective strategy
done more than one person?
That is a profound point indeed!
I guess you have a point but it doesn't really bother me. There will always be Debian and embedded Linux is a strong and growing market -- one that doesn't rely on boxed products with unfriendly licensing.This will be an extremely effective strategy
I'm not too worried. First, I think people will see through Microsoft's marketing fluff. Second, isn't this business as usual? Third, Red Hat is not Linux.
This will be an extremely effective strategy
As long as we let companies with restrictive business practices stand as the gatekeepers between the community and the consumer, we have no high ground and can not expect to be treated as anything but another company.
He doesn't need to back it up with any facts, actually. It's a tautology. "If we act like every other company, we will be treated like every other company."This will be an extremely effective strategy
Well, so far in the Netherlands, you have been successful in getting acceptance for Open Source as an alternative to proprietary software because Open Source has been viewed as operating for the public good rather than that of a particular company or companies.This will be an extremely effective strategy
This will be an extremely effective strategy
When we create a pervasive monopoly or duopoly in keeping the gate between the serious enterprise user and the Free Software community ...
I'm not getting this whole "Red Hat is a new Microsoft" line. Where's this coming from? Red Hat have always released their software as open source and one can build a complete distribution based on thier RHEL source. What's the beef?Not getting this...
Well, no, they are not entitled to run their business as they see fit. They don't exist in a vaccumm, and that would be the only way that anyone could ever get to do that. Otherwise, business is always between at least two people.Not getting this...
Of course companies are entitled to run their business as they see fit. As long as they stay within the boundaries set by law, contracts and licenses. That is a given fact, there is no way around it. It works the other way around too: by choosing the GPL (or any license, for that matter) for your software, you accept the fact that all your rights to your software are defined and limited by that license (and your copyright, obviously).
Not getting this...
> Well, no, they are not entitled to run their business as they see fit.Not getting this...
Contrast that to RHEL: there's a per-seat fee that is
Not getting this...
To misquote and take completely out of context... This will be an extremely effective strategy
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Distributions like Redhat and to a lesser extent Suse have gotten linux
into the enterprise. IBM, HP, SGI, now Novell have thrown their weight
behind Linux, selling it as a solution. Rather successfully I might add,
causing Microsoft to lose marketshare. Microsoft is now lining their
sights upon them.
These distributions will have to be more than a better Microsoft than
Microsoft. Many users have started using Linux with Redhat or other
commercial distros, them migrated to the free distributions due to their
inherent advantages (there is a reason why debian has a crappy
installer). The commercial instincts towards closed and hidden and
selling upgrades and proprietary lock-in are very strong. But these
tendancies will (and have) caused the failure of some distributions,
because it is impossible to compete head to head at Microsoft's game. The
ONLY competitive advantage any Linux distribution has it due to the open
and free software community. I wouldn't worry too much.
Derek