Matt Asay, who quit Novell recently, has written an opinion piece on the differences between Red Hat and Novell in the Linux industry. “Red Hat has long dominated the Linux market. In part this has resulted from serendipity – the company raised gobs of cash in a boom-time IPO and so was the first big player to market – but it also results from the company’s rabid focus on customers. Importantly, Red Hat has never wavered from a core understanding that the low-hanging fruit is Unix.“
The Differences Between Red Hat and Novell
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
IMHO, this is not a bad article. Personally, I think RH are rubbing their hands with glee as Novell keep on looking at Microsoft and lets them get on with Unix to Linx conversions. Look at how much Sun hates RH! They see them as the main threat to their core business.
So, Novell, don’t spread your resources too thin and please concentrate on the Desktop. Let RH look after the Server side. RH’s business plan is to concetrate on the Server and not the desktop.
These plans are complimentary and not really competitive. The end result could be a much more focussed and coherent Linux product offering. If you think it would help, why not sign up for a joint promotion plan and attach Microsoft & the likes of Sun on a much broader front. (I know this would never happen but I can’t help to have a dream can it?)
Finally, a word to Novell. Please try to OpenSource all the stuff you have which is currently closed. If RH can do it then so can you.
what an incoherent piece of, goes from saying novel focuses more on MS to say novel is focusing more on linux? and he does look to me like a redhat fanboy.
“nd he does look to me like a redhat fanboy.”
Argh right. Get a clue. The news item starts “Matt Asay, who quit Novell recently..” and it has full of references to praise on Novell and you call this guy a Red Hat fanboy?
Kind of a fun observation. You said, “what an incoherent piece of…” about the article, but it took me three times of rereading your contibution to understand what you were saying. I think this is known as irony.
A valid point there, I did have to read it with the grain of salt that few people quit a company because they love it.
Sphinx: “A valid point there, I did have to read it with the grain of salt that few people quit a company because they love it.”
Maybe not *because* they love it, but very possibly in spite of it. My last previous job before my current one was like that: I loved the people, loved the work, loved the direction we were going — but I had a family to feed. I couldn’t turn down triple the income, and a job that has its own things to love.
I left on very good terms with my previous employer, and my old boss and I still get together from time to time when he comes into town.
So yes, you can quit a job and still have very nice things to say about your former employer — I do.
Of seeing Microsoft “Get the Facts” ads tied to any article associated with Linux.
adblock is your friend
Is there a problem with OSNews RSS feeds? I get 100+ new items each time a new artiocle is added.
Load http://www.osnews.com/files/recent.xml in your browser.
Notice that there are 10 items.
The problem is with your feed reader.
If you are using the Bloglines service as your RSS reader, than this is a problem with Bloglines, not OSNews. I noticed the same problems on numerous other RSS/Atom enabled sites with Bloglines, and I finally just quit using the service and put all of my feeds on my Yahoo homepage. Hope this helps.
I feel as mentioned by shotsman that RedHat must focus on the server side of linux and let Novell (SUSE) manage the desktop. Not that vice-versa is bad..but each of the company , I feel is much more inclined that way. Besides as mentioned in the article Novell needs to be more open to FOSS projects and Redhat needs a concrete business plan to succeed
I feel as mentioned by shotsman that RedHat must focus on the server side of linux and let Novell (SUSE) manage the desktop.
Focus on what? There’s no bloody Linux desktop, and no money to be made from it.
Novell need to revamp their server offerings, and make sure Linux is a first class citizen. Drop support for Windows servers, for example. However, they still have massive conflicts between open source software and their own proprietary stuff. eDirectory versus OpenLDAP and RHDS and Groupwise versus open source groupware. They can’t just expect to spout ‘open source’ as they have been doing and layer their OES distribution with proprietary software.
…and Groupwise versus open source groupware.
Linux groupware is even less a reality than the linux desktop.
Edited 2005-12-18 16:32
Linux groupware is even less a reality than the linux desktop.
That’s because neither Red Hat or Novell is doing it. I can’t quite understand that from Red Hat, but I expect they’ll get around to it.
Groupwise is a totally dead product in the face of Exchange. Novell need to lower the cost, lower the barriers to entry and make open source, Linux based, groupware a reality. There’s certainly money to be made, but Novell won’t because they think they’re protecting Groupwise revenues.
Focus on what? There’s no bloody Linux desktop, and no money to be made from it.
Don’t confuse NLD with a general purpose distro-of-the-day. NLD is a centrally managed, locked down desktop. Updates/patches are scheduled as service packs. The target market for this desktop won’t be concerned with mp3 codecs, frames per second, dvd playback or gaming. They won’t be installing it themselves on hardware. It will be managed and deployed the same way any other corporate platform would. It is not sold as a license, it is sold as an annual subscription, and annuity expenses are often more friendly to IT budgets than capital/licensing expenditures are. It is also covered by Novell’s IP indemnity assurance, for any customers that may still be buying into the SCO-threat of IP infringement.
It is eminently usable as a computing desktop and particularly suited to enterprise deployment. Now, if you’re going to argue that there “is no bloody desktop” because of the lack of applications supporting it, then that it a different argument. But for users with generic requirements like email, document editing, thin-client etc., of which there are many, it is a viable option and there is likely no other linux desktop alternative on the market that is better suited to enterprise deployment.
Novell need to revamp their server offerings, and make sure Linux is a first class citizen. Drop support for Windows servers, for example.
Customers are much more likely to run a mixed environment than a mono one, it would be ridiculous to pretend that MS doesn’t exist in the server rooms and data centers.
Positioning your tools to work in environments with Microsoft, Red Hat, Novell/Suse etc. makes more sense than telling everyone they have to standardize on a single platform, it kind of goes against the whole point of exploring OSS in the first place.
However, they still have massive conflicts between open source software and their own proprietary stuff. eDirectory versus OpenLDAP and RHDS and Groupwise versus open source groupware. They can’t just expect to spout ‘open source’ as they have been doing and layer their OES distribution with proprietary software.
What is wrong with proprietary software, particularly if the OSS alternatives are weaker? Most of the companies still running Netware environments are doing so because of eDirectory, or have resisted migrating to ActiveDirectory. Novell embraced linux because the operating platforms has been commodotized and, reading between the lines, to attempt to deflect from Microsoft’s stranglehold on the OS. It would have been a death sentence to expect that Netware could continue as an operating system in the face of advances from linux plus Microsoft’s domination. Better to move Netware services from a proprietary Netware OS to a proven and more widely accepted one. Embracing OSS doesn’t mean having to OSS everything you do.
If they OSS’d or dropped their proprietary offerings, there would be little to differentiate them as an organization, and there are still many customers willing to pay for it, so it really makes no sense.
Where Novell has fallen down, by their own admission, is focusing their sales force on their “open” strategy. Their legacy sales team has strayed away from pursuing enterprise-wide linux opportunities, and their channel has far too many legacy Netware partners and not enough partners looking at Novell’s “big picture”. In short, they chickened out and kept pursuing the easy revenue rather than working for the harder stuff.
Their core strategy is sound, even the analysts more or less agreed, it’s their execution that has been weak to date, what remains to be seen is if they can turn that around.
Don’t confuse NLD with a general purpose distro-of-the-day.
I’m not. It still doesn’t make any difference.
NLD is a centrally managed, locked down desktop. Updates/patches are scheduled as service packs.
Which isn’t selling.
Now, if you’re going to argue that there “is no bloody desktop” because of the lack of applications supporting it, then that it a different argument.
No. There’s just simply no market for it. The vast majority of people are getting a free distribution, or getting one like Suse Linux Professional, and installing it for themselves or within small business environments.
But for users with generic requirements like email, document editing, thin-client etc., of which there are many, it is a viable option
You can do that with many distributions, and ones that are more on the cutting edge and an awful lot cheaper than the NLD. You hardly need a slower development cycle and to pay for service packs to be able to do that.
and there is likely no other linux desktop alternative on the market that is better suited to enterprise deployment.
There is no enterprise Linux deployment. That has been a myth that has done the rounds for many years now, and the issues involved their aren’t going to be solved by a distro like the NLD.
it would be ridiculous to pretend that MS doesn’t exist in the server rooms and data centers.
They don’t, and they don’t have to in the server world. Make sure your own server software is a first class citizen on your own operating systems, even your free ones, but that doesn’t stop you from interacting with Windows desktops and servers to manage them. Think Samba.
What is wrong with proprietary software, particularly if the OSS alternatives are weaker?
Because it causes issues and conflicts with licensing that doesn’t exist on other distributions. I’d rather run Red Hat and their directory services offering, pay for the support and legally install it anywhere I like rather than keep track of multiple licenses. Many others agree. That’s the whole advantage of open source software.
Suse have actually been through this themselves. It just creates a roadblock for your own software, and trust me, Novell don’t just need to be bringing in revenue – they need to actually get people even using their software again!
Embracing OSS doesn’t mean having to OSS everything you do.
It does. You inevitably come into conflict with the very open source software you claim that you’re promoting, and your customers feed off that uncertainty.
If they OSS’d or dropped their proprietary offerings, there would be little to differentiate them as an organization
Try telling that to Red Hat.
>NLD is a centrally managed, locked down desktop. Updates/patches are scheduled as service packs.
Which isn’t selling.
Sure it is, just not in substantial numbers and not really within NA.
>Now, if you’re going to argue that there “is no bloody desktop” because of the lack of applications supporting it, then that it a different argument.
No. There’s just simply no market for it. The vast majority of people are getting a free distribution, or getting one like Suse Linux Professional, and installing it for themselves or within small business environments.
>But for users with generic requirements like email, document editing, thin-client etc., of which there are many, it is a viable option
You can do that with many distributions, and ones that are more on the cutting edge and an awful lot cheaper than the NLD. You hardly need a slower development cycle and to pay for service packs to be able to do that.
Small business is one thing. Larger companies do not embrace cutting edge or rapid update cycles. That is one of the criticisms frequently levelled against linux on the desktop.
Not everybody interested in linux deployment will embrace the grassroots model of community support and hacked fixes. Many companies are much happier if they have a professional support infrastructure to rely on. This is no different than companies like Tripwire or SourceFire that have built successful and credible enterprise-class applications based on popular and freely available OSS applications. Companies still buy them even though they can download them for free. Go figure.
>and there is likely no other linux desktop alternative on the market that is better suited to enterprise deployment.
There is no enterprise Linux deployment. That has been a myth that has done the rounds for many years now, and the issues involved their aren’t going to be solved by a distro like the NLD.
There is, the myth is denying it. Most of the major banks in China have migrated to linux desktops. It’s started happening slowly but surely at the government level in Europe. I read an article the other day about a Dutch record chain migrating to Suse on 1000 systems because it was ideal as a locked down platform and for their POS applications.
It’s hardly a tidal wave, and it certainly isn’t happening in great significance within North America, but there’s a bigger world out there.
Will it change things over night? Of course not. But don’t criticize Novell’s vision for the enterprise desktop because of your lack of vision.
This perpetuation of the roll-your-own-distro is anathema to businesses. That’s why Ubuntu will never be taking over businesses any time soon. But it’s ridiculous to think that when a company with Novell’s global support infrastructure can produce an easily deployed, easily managed and fully supported desktop, that companies investigating any sort of a linux strategy would poo-poo it the way you are without giving it due consideration.
>What is wrong with proprietary software, particularly if the OSS alternatives are weaker?
Because it causes issues and conflicts with licensing that doesn’t exist on other distributions. I’d rather run Red Hat and their directory services offering, pay for the support and legally install it anywhere I like rather than keep track of multiple licenses. Many others agree. That’s the whole advantage of open source software.
That’s your preference, and I won’t argue it wouldn’t be the preference for many.
But most organizations are capable of managing licenses and separating services and middleware from the OS platform. If Novell’s proprietary offerings can provide a compelling enough advantage over OSS products, then companies will consider that before making their choice.
Once again this “everything should be OSS” mentality is not something enterprises are embracing.
>Embracing OSS doesn’t mean having to OSS everything you do.
It does. You inevitably come into conflict with the very open source software you claim that you’re promoting, and your customers feed off that uncertainty.
Novell is promoting linux as a platform only, to the corporate customers they are promoting their proprietary services and admin tools to run on linux, I’m not sure I see the conflict.
Suse embraced many different OSS projects to run as part of their distribution, but I don’t see Novell doing that with their enterprise offerings.
There strategy is no different than IBM’s, certainly open to criticism depending on your perspective but no less valid.
>If they OSS’d or dropped their proprietary offerings, there would be little to differentiate them as an organization
Try telling that to Red Hat.
Novell’s got a wider long-term vision than Red Hat does, for better or worse.
We’re coming at this from two different points of view, so I don’t think we’ll find a middle ground. You seem to be of the opinion that OSS is the best ultimate strategy and will be confined to the server rooms and data centers. I think OSS and proprietary can (and must) happily co-exist and strengthen linux’s chance of succeeding as an enterprise platform.
I won’t deny my POV may bear more optimism than the current IT situation justifies, but I won’t believe that things have to be black and white either.
Sure it is, just not in substantial numbers and not really within NA.
It’s not selling enough to make it anywhere near viable. then. I think we’ve agreed on that.
Small business is one thing. Larger companies do not embrace cutting edge or rapid update cycles.
Larger companies, or companies in general, are not embracing desktop Linux. Your point is, well, pointless.
Most of the major banks in China have migrated to linux desktops.
Sun’d JDS or similar? Sorry, but that really is a myth.
Will it change things over night? Of course not. But don’t criticize Novell’s vision for the enterprise desktop because of your lack of vision.
I do have vision, and desktop Linux needs to improve exponentially for it to be viable for these busnesses. This mythical desktop market you’re talking about isn’t making money for Novell either, so again, it’s pointless.
But most organizations are capable of managing licenses and separating services and middleware from the OS platform. If Novell’s proprietary offerings can provide a compelling enough advantage over OSS products, then companies will consider that before making their choice.
That’s not an answer. The evidence says otherwise though I’m afraid. Novell is making no headway against Red Hat.
Novell is promoting linux as a platform only, to the corporate customers they are promoting their proprietary services and admin tools to run on linux, I’m not sure I see the conflict.
Here’s the conflict:
Novell is promoting linux as a platform only
I think OSS and proprietary can (and must) happily co-exist and strengthen linux’s chance of succeeding as an enterprise platform.
Within the context of Novell they have to work out what they’re selling to customers. It simply isn’t going to gel well.
but I won’t believe that things have to be black and white either.
When you’re in an environment like Novell things have to be as black and white as is possible. That’s why Novell have failed so miserably over the years.
>>There’s no bloody Linux desktop, and no money to be made from it. <<
Although I use Linux as my primary desktop, I’ll have to agree 100%.
At best 2% of the desktop market uses Linux, and about 95% of that 2% don’t want to pay for Linux, and certainly don’t want to pay for support. That doesn’t leave much of a market.
“I feel as mentioned by shotsman that RedHat must focus on the server side of linux and let Novell (SUSE) manage the desktop. Not that vice-versa is bad..but each of the company , I feel is much more inclined that way. Besides as mentioned in the article Novell needs to be more open to FOSS projects and Redhat needs a concrete business plan to succeed”.
Sigh, Novell’s expertise is the server side. Red Hat has nothing even close to the tools that Novell has for management. Novell’s biggest mistake was trying to stray into the desktop area, and that is why they are in the pickle that they are in today. The fact is that MSFT rules the desktop and that will stay that way for the forseeable future. Trying to fight that with FOSS crap is a futile and money lossing quest.
Your best advice to Novell is to not compete? Rather clueless way to grab market share that. No bloody desktop, what are all these linux users using then? There is plenty of money to be made in linux, sure there’s a lot of work to be done but it is being done, linux is getting better not worse ever more acceptable and being explored by a bigger and bigger segment, maturing and creating a growing market not a shrinking one.
Your best advice to Novell is to not compete?
Compete with what?
There is plenty of money to be made in linux, sure there’s a lot of work to be done but it is being done, linux is getting better not worse ever more acceptable and being explored by a bigger and bigger segment…
Well, yer. However, if this comment applies to desktop Linux I refer you to my comment that you’ve replied to. There’s no market.
The point of this article is to give an impression of how Red Hat and Novell are seen by a Linux insider who works in the business (and, one assumes, by other Linux insiders who do the same). Inevitably, this means paiting with a broad brush. The point of the article is not to offer “advice” or make predictions.
I am not a Linux insider, I don’t work in the business and I wouldn’t presume to offer “advice”. It seems to me that the fate of these two companies is likely to be decided by the stock market, anyway. Red Hat is a tightly run, profitable company and the stock market loves it. Novell is an unprofitable company, the ship is in need of some major repairs and the stock market doesn’t like it one bit. Stretch those polar opposites out over a couple of years and, yeah, well. Novell’s Linux side has some cracking good products, underrated ones. But that isn’t enough to make a company.
“it also results from the company’s rabid focus on customers.”
On getting customers perhaps, but certainly not helping customers. I’ve had work with RH tech support on no less than 10 occasions, and have never — not once — been given any help to speak of. Generally, the response is “We don’t support that.”
If you can point to an bug in code they do support, they fix it quickly – certainly more quickly than a bugzilla submission – but is that really worth several thousand dollars a year (I’m assuming here that you have at least a few servers)? Especially if the bug is redhat specific? I really do appreciate that redhat gives so much back to the community, and as an end user I see that. However, when I put my IT hat on, I have to say that I honestly haven’t seen any advantage to using redhat over, say, debian or one of the bsds.
There is money to be made out of the linux desktop, it’s just it’s going to be hard to do it when your real competitors are Microsoft and Apple. But on the plus side you’ve got a potentially huge market and it’s not that difficult to see a space between Apple and Microsoft where you could make money if your costs are low enough.
I wish them good luck, I hope they succeed, and if anyone is listening … I’d like something like the KDE desktop, with Windows like devise driver and hardware support on nice shiny Mac hardware with Google providing the web integration.
From a business standpoint, most certainly the biggest area of profit, and future growth, is the server side, mostly with Unix to Linux conversions.
However, there is a good opportunity for Linux on the Desktop, especially in big business.
Being that most corporate applications these days are distributed with server side web apps (making what OS is on the client workstation irrelevant), and being that at least 90% of the Offic product market can do what they need with OpenOffice, Linux is a great fit on the corporate desktop in many cases.
The main thing is that it is easy to deploy, easy to administer, and is fairly light on resources (at least light enough to run well on legacy hardware).
The Novells and Linspires and Xandros’ of the world have the opportunity to swoop in on shops that are at a crossroads of having to either upgrade to the latest in WinXP, or Vista, and can get a cheaper option through Linux while still using their legacy hardware (upgrading hardware to run Vista will be a huge expense, in many cases).
That said, Linux business desktop is not a huge market, but big enough potentially to make it worthwhile for Novell.
I wish Red Hat would push their desktop offering more vigorously as well (they offer it, with RHD), but with them it’s really an afterthought. I don’t blame them, since they are rolling in the money with their server offerings. But I think the desktop is a nice compliment to their server offerings, and help spur on more sales.
“I wish Red Hat would push their desktop offering more vigorously as well (they offer it, with RHD), but with them it’s really an afterthought.”
Red Hat knows better than to push their desktop offering. They attempted this once at the retail level, and failed horribly.
This is the secret to the current success of Red Hat. They know where their market IS, rather than where they would like it to be.
Red Hat is more forthcoming than the others about allowing nature to take it course. For this reason they are willing to freely open source anything which might help the desktop Linux market, SOMEDAY.
I agree. Red Hat isn’t trying to invent the Linux Desktop. They tried that already. They know where the money lies.
Novell is wasting time and money on their desktop focus. It is bad enough that they have gutted SuSE in order to create NLD. But to make matters worse, they have people on their staff getting paid to write desktop applications such as F-Spot, a photo app for God’s sake. It’s absolutely absurd. They drank the Ximian Koolaid.
There were multiple large IPO’s before RedHat:
VALinux Systems.
Cygnus.
RedHat has lived because they’ve done something, or a lot of things, right. To act as if what they have was given to them is ignoring years spent in the red ink.
At first it was nice to read about linux, how it will take some of the market share away from Microsoft, and how in the future every software will be open source, well it’s still blah blah. I still see nothing but Microsoft products being used by professionals in every type of market. I believe the only way linux will be more respected in the desktop, if red hat or any linux distro,company focus on making good business apps that measures up to Microsoft’s business apps and use a smart marketing plan. yeah i know open office exiest but it sucks, I don’t see banks or any other types businesses using it, so it sucks. like i said it was nice to read how linux will be it, talk is cheap it’s FREE like linux, but the only one delivering is Microsoft. I have alot of faith in linux and open source, but i don’t like it when nobody takes me seriously when i mention about using Linux.
Novell uses mono a broken technology.
RedHat uses java and python.
Actually, while the iFolder/Simias stuff is mono based, most of the “porting” Novell has done of old services (iManager, ZenWorks, GroupWise, the Identity Management stuff) are all java/tomcat/apache2.
So server side, Java still rules the roost, since they’ve gotten a stable cross-platform (in this case, Netware and SLES9) JVM going that they can provide these services through.
The difference between Novell and RedHat can be plainly seen in the difference between eDirectory and RedHat Directory Services. Personally, I’m a big fan of RedHat because of their track record. Whatever they have done, the result has always been something that is very beneficial for the entire Linux community. In a few years, the RedHat Directory Service will either become the defacto standard (or will heavily contribute) for Linux directory services. Linux never had a free, fully functional, multimaster directory service. RedHat had to actively go out and purchase it. Novell, on the other hand, has been sitting on top of their proprietary directory service and have been trying to use it as a way to gain business. This alone speaks volume of each companies commitment to Linux and opensource. Shame on you, Novell. You are not a believer in the opensource business.
In a few years, the RedHat Directory Service will either become the defacto standard (or will heavily contribute) for Linux directory services. Linux never had a free, fully functional, multimaster directory service. RedHat had to actively go out and purchase it. Novell, on the other hand, has been sitting on top of their proprietary directory service and have been trying to use it as a way to gain business. This alone speaks volume of each companies commitment to Linux and opensource. Shame on you, Novell. You are not a believer in the opensource business.
LDAP is the de facto standard, it’s irrelevant whether LDAP services are provided by Red Hat/Fedora’s directory server, or by Novell eDirectory, as long as both products remain LDAP-compliant and don’t break compatibility with applications for the sake of proprietary lock-in.
Plus, Red Hat has yet to GPL the entire package, they’ve released the building blocks.
Novell wrote the book on directory services, has a long history with them, and once again, don’t assume that the banks and big corporate customers that are running Novell services today are going to get all giddy because they can download Fedora Directory Services for free. Novell has built a suite of management and integration tools around their services that can’t be de-valued just because they’re proprietary.
Yes, Red Hat is true blue OSS and have given much back to the community, I’m not trying to detract from that and I do respect them for it, but that is also the foundation upon which their company was built, they’d be re-inventing themselves to do otherwise. And if your philosophical leaning is to support them because of that, there’s nothing wrong with that either.
Just don’t assume big business feels the same way. OSS and proprietary can co-exist and will, the only important thing is to ensure customers have choice in what they deploy. Red Hat and Novell, among others, all have their strengths and weaknesses and customers will choose based on what works best for their requirements, not philosophical zealotry.
“Plus, Red Hat has yet to GPL the entire package, they’ve released the building blocks. ”
Wrong. sonny. follow the news.
http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page
Simple, SuSe is made by germans who believe in Linux desktop viability while Red Hat is made by americans who don’t believe in Linux desktops success and recommend Windows or Mac OS X to desktops. It’s a question of mentality.
I will only believe in linux american commercial distributions when americans believe in desktop linux viability and crappy DMCA was extinguished.
“Simple, SuSe is made by germans who believe in Linux desktop viability while Red Hat is made by americans who don’t believe in Linux desktops success and recommend Windows or Mac OS X to desktops. It’s a question of mentality.”
Completely false. Red Hat is a global company with engineering people all over the world. How about GTK, hal, dbus, cairo, NetworkManager and large amount of GNOME and so on. Who do think is maintainers of those code?