"I've been saying for years that Linux was well along on its way from being the tech fanboy operating system of choice, to becoming one of big business' favorite operating systems. Well, I was right all along, but in 2006, that progress smacked many Linux fans in the face. This is my list of the five most significant changes in Linux this year. They are not changes, however, that many who have embraced Linux in the past will appreciate. Like it or lump it, these are the changes that I also think clearly predict Linux's future in the mainstream."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
A whole distribution is incredibly more complicated. I don't know if you are a technical person... It is not just "configure, make, make install" repeated X times.
It can be a lot of work...but then again you have Slackware, which was mostly the work of a single person, and PCLinuxOS, also maintained by just a few people.
In any case, you're missing the point: the fact is not that it's not costing RedHat any money, the fact is that their business plan is not to recoup their costs on sale of software, but rather on sale of support contracts.
Oracle, on the other hand, can provide same or similar functionality with much lower costs, and that is the great advantage.
Not really. They still put a distro together (even though it's based on RedHat), so that requires some work as well.
In any case, it's not as if RedHat didn't know this could happen. It has happened before after all: Mandrake forked out of RedHat, and so did CentOS and other derivatives. It happens all the time in the Linux world, and it's an integral part of it - which is why RedHat sells service contracts (and is making a profit).
Member since:2006-12-07
In any case, you're missing the point: the fact is not that it's not costing RedHat any money, the fact is that their business plan is not to recoup their costs on sale of software, but rather on sale of support contracts.
I don't understand what are you talking about. Of course it costs Red Hat money. You sound like a reasonable person, I don't believe that you think that the work is getting done by itself. Red Hat must recoup the costs in order to keep going, and they must calculate the costs in the support price(s). The support must pay for all the cost, and bring some profit.
There is an education, too. I was offered JBoss courses recently, by Red Hat represenative, but it was too expensive for me.
Oracle does not create any distribution. They are just removing Red Hat brand. That means some images and some portions of text.
The fact is that Oracle DID offer a cheaper support.
DG
Member since:
2006-12-07
chances are Oracle wouldn't have been interested and RedHat's distro's use would therefore had been limited
Why ? They just need an OS to offer a full software stack. They don't seem very eager to take part in OS development.
Fortunately, the software is *not* developed by RedHat, but rather inherited from the FOSS community
Creation of the distribution is complicated. Once I have creted a CD with couple of Linux programs for academic community (mail, browser, ftp, office, e-learning etc.). I wanted to make it distribution independent, so I supplied dynamic libraries compiled by myself, in a way that they would not interfere with other libraries. Then there were instalation scripts that were called by web (flash) interface provided by somebody else. It took more than a week to make everything work and test it on different machines.
A whole distribution is incredibly more complicated. I don't know if you are a technical person... It is not just "configure, make, make install" repeated X times.
So, yes, they did not write those programs, but they did create the distribution. They don't sell it, but it costs them. They have to pay their employees, full and part time. They have other costs, as well, that are not diectly related to business process. I am not native English speaker, but we call them "fixed" as oposite of "dependent".
Oracle, on the other hand, can provide same or similar functionality with much lower costs, and that is the great advantage. It is no wonder that Oracle offered support for lower price. Red Hat has to calculate the distribution costs and support costs in the support fee. Oracle does not have to, because, they have only support costs (call center, etc.).
I don't see RedHat complaining. Do you?
A far as I remember, they were not very happy about it. Depends on what you mean by complaining. I remember what they said, and I can repeat it....they did not applaud it, that's for sure.
I suggest that you open your mind a bit more, because you're clearly missing the point of FOSS by only seeing software as a product to be sold.
I understand a bit about costs, profit, etc. I am running a small business myself. The software is kind of "loss leader" here. The term "loss leader" was known
much before FOSS.
DG