- Yes, Sun should compete against Linux
- Microsoft to Renault: It's tax time!
- Red Hat by the Hour
- Nokia N810 Tablet with Keyboard
- Selling your soul is clearly worth the money (Novell)
- Saving Power With Linux
- SCO may shut down operations
- SCO Group files for bankruptcy protection (ding dong, the witch is nearly dead)
- Microsoft Silverlight to Illuminate Linux
- UBS Analyst: Is Linux Adoption Slowing?
February 20, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Yes, Sun should compete against Linux
When I read Dana's post about leaving Jonathan & Sun alone, I couldn't help but side with Dana. But then I read Amanda McPherson (Marketing director at the Linux Foundation) original post and now I'm torn. Then I read comments on Amanda's blog from Sun employees, and I'm even more confused. (BTW, I urge you to read Amanda's post...she makes some great points).
The core of this discussion boils down to whether it is "okay" for Sun to compete against Linux with OpenSolaris. I have written in the past that I believe it is perfectly valid for Sun, or any company to compete with Linux or any OSS project/product. I am a fan of competition. I believe it helps all parties raise their game.
How is the OpenSolaris vs. Linux discussion different from MuleSource vs. WSO2, JBoss App Server vs. Apache Geronimo or JasperSoft vs. Pentaho, etc?
In the past, Mike Dolan (a fellow IBMer) commented that the issue isn't whether Sun should compete, but why they don't collaborate:
"Instead of "competition", think about what could happen if Sun worked proactively and in a contributory manner to help fight "Bug #1"? (See Ubuntu bug database...). If Sun's so relevant and its technologies are so great, why waste time fighting a community that consists of HP, IBM, Dell, Oracle, SAP, Cisco, Google, BEA, and thousands of others? Why not join in that community and provide your value-add? In my opinion, competing for OS lock-in is "so 90's" (as my youngest sister would say)..."
I can't argue with Mike from a pure "OSS religion" standpoint. But, regardless of what Sun wants us to believe, pragmatism is behind their OpenSolaris vs. Linux strategy more than "OSS religion". Few vendors would be able to walk away from the significant revenue that Solaris drives to Sun. And remember, Linux grew largely at the expense of Unix (Solaris was the #1 Unix OS vendor). It's a tough position for Sun to be in....especially since they want OSS to spell SUN.
Personally, I encourage Sun to continue competing against Linux. Let the market decide.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on February 20, 2008 10:44 AM
January 31, 2008 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft to Renault: It's tax time!
InformationWeek is reporting a deal between French automaker Renault and Microsoft:
"Under the arrangement, Microsoft will provide Renault with 1,000 "certificates" for Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise server product. The deal also includes a controversial "IP assurance" provision under which Microsoft pledges not to sue customers who use Linux distributed by its partner Novell."
I've asked this before, but why should a customer care about IP assurance? IP indemnification is a vendor issue, just like ensuring environmental rules or workplace safety regulations are being adhered to. It's a disgrace that vendors have made indemnification a customer concern.
"Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer implied that users of Linux distributions from vendors other than those with which it has patent deals -- the list also includes Xandros and Linspire -- could be hearing from the company. "We've spent a lot of money licensing patents," Ballmer said."
For all the positive moves that Microsoft has made towards OSS, silly statements like this must drive Sam Ramji & team to pull out their hair.
You know, I'd actually love to see Microsoft sue a customer because of IP issues. Exactly how much would they sue for to offset the millions of dollars worth of negative publicity and brand destruction?
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on January 31, 2008 07:05 PM
November 07, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The move away from commodity boxes running Linux continues. It's nice to see Red Hat getting in front of this market trend. Very cool news about RHEL being offered through Amazon's EC2.
"The combination of Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Amazon EC2 changes the economics of computing by allowing customers to pay only for the infrastructure software services and capacity that they actually use.Base prices are $19 per month, per user and $0.21, $0.53 or $0.94 for every compute hour used on Amazon's EC2 service, depending on whether customers choose a small, large or extra-large compute instance size, plus bandwidth and storage fees."
It's in limited private beta testing, but you can ask to join the beta here.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on November 7, 2007 02:14 PM
October 18, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Nokia N810 Tablet with Keyboard
Long time readers of this blog or my old one at www.theopenforce.com know I've been very interested in finding a portable internet device with a keyboard. Over the last 20 years, I've probably tried just about every pocketable computer there is ranging from the Poqet, Psion 3, Psion 5, HP100LX, Oqo and many others. The Nokia N800 tablet has been a good device with built-in wifi, but without a keyboard it's never going to be perfect for me.
Engadget scooped the launch of the new Nokia N810 which adds a slide out keyboard while still maintaining a small size, light weight and great browsing experience. I think this puts the N810 miles ahead of the ill-fated and since abandoned Palm Foleo. The N810 is not going to be for everyone though. It's likely not as slick as the Apple iPhone or iPod Touch, but with the keyboard it's a different animal.
Quick summary:
-7.3 ounces (approx 200g)
-5.7 x 3.0 x 0.5 inches
-800 x 480 touch screen display
-Built-in wifi and GPS
-Slide out keyboard
-Linux mameo interface
-Built-in email, media player, Opera browser, Skype support
-2 GB memory + SD card support
-4 hours battery life
-List price $479 (ouch!)
Of course, we'll have to see how the whole package works together, but I think this could be a winner. What do other folks think? Would you buy this instead of a Palm Foleo? What do iPhone users think? Let me know your thoughts...
Posted by Zack Urlocker on October 18, 2007 06:54 AM
September 29, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Selling your soul is clearly worth the money (Novell)
I am hesitant to even mention Novell at this point but I saw this article "Novell credits Microsoft for soaring Linux sales" wherein Novell gushes about how well they are doing thanks to their satanic pact with Microsoft.
Novell says its Linux business has grown by 243 percent over the last three quarters, and it largely credits its deal with Microsoft.
Of course it credits Microsoft as there is nothing else going on at Novell that would cause anyone to buy their products. What are the odds of this growth continuing after the initial ramp from the certificates hits the wall? Unless Microsoft buys Novell I would bet pretty low.
I am not even interested enough to finish this post. The whole thing is just so lame.
We've already covered this plenty of times for those of you who think I am picking on Novell.
Previous:
The other 20% on Novell or, When interop isn't
Picking apart Novell's Linux numbers (Larry Dignan/ZDNet)
Novell - Microsoft Agreements Revealed
Reading between the lines with Bill Hilf: Microsoft must really be hurting
Ignorance (of open source), thy name is Microsoft
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 29, 2007 03:52 PM
September 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Via Stephen Shankland at CNet - Very cool news about an effort to run Linux more efficiently on servers, laptops & mobile devices. The effort was kicked off by Intel, but is open to all.
According to Stephen's report:
"On a current laptop, running Fedora 7 from Red Hat uses about 21 watts. "If you apply six little changes we propose, that same laptop takes 15.5 watts," Hohndel said. "You have just added a more than an hour to your battery run time.""
"Taking Intel's advice and fixes can trim about 10 watts of power consumption off a modern dual-processor server, said Dirk Hohndel, chief technologist of Intel open-source technology center. That's not a gargantuan amount--until you consider that if done correctly it's free power savings, that each watt of server energy saved cuts another 1.3 watts from air conditioning (according to Intel figures), and of course that 10 watts per server is a lot when multiplied by the thousands of servers that populate larger data centers."
There is a lot of pressure to consolidate commodity hardware onto, bigger more efficient systems. The competition between commodity systems & larger systems may well result in Linux becoming "the most energy efficient" operating system on servers. It appears that Intel is focusing on this goal from a commodity server standpoint. How long until the larger systems vendors decide to do the same with Linux? (Note: they may be doing so already - so please comment and update us all!)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 20, 2007 10:09 AM
September 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Anyone surprised that SCO may have to fold? They should just do it quietly in hopes of ever having jobs again.
"The revenue from this business has been declining over the last several years, primarily as a result of increased competition from alternative operating systems, particularly Linux, and from the negative publicity of the SCO litigation.
Link: SCO Group admits it may fold
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 19, 2007 02:12 PM
September 14, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SCO Group files for bankruptcy protection (ding dong, the witch is nearly dead)
Cnet Reports that SCO filed for Chapter Eleven
"The Board of Directors of the SCO Group have unanimously determined that Chapter 11 reorganization is in the best long-term interest of SCO and its subsidiaries, as well as its customers, shareholders and employees," the company said in a statement. Added Chief Executive Darl McBride, "We want to assure our customers and partners that they can continue to rely on SCO products, support and services for their business critical operations."
It couldn't have happened to a less likable company
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on September 14, 2007 02:10 PM
September 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Microsoft Silverlight to Illuminate Linux
In Microsoft's announcement today that it had released Silverlight 1.0 to the Web, the company lavished special attention on Novell's continuing efforts to extend Silverlight (Microsoft's Flash killer) to the Linux platform via its Mono project. Obviously this is one of those non-announcements announcements if you're a Linux and open source fan, as Novell has not yet created anything you could consider an installable package.
Still, I applaud Microsoft for actually positioning Linux prominently within its release, and I tip my hat to Novell not just for porting Silverlight to Linux and beyond, but for bringing the .NET framework to Linux. Certainly .NET (as with most Microsoft technologies) is antithetical to open source, but consider for a moment the size of the .NET development community and power behind its VAR and ISV ecosystem. Moving beyond simple "compatibility" with .NET on the server side will only further solidify Linux as the platform of choice for heterogeneous enterprise environments where J2EE and .NET often play, albeit somewhat uncomfortably at the moment.
Posted by Brad Shimmin on September 5, 2007 07:51 AM
September 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)
UBS Analyst: Is Linux Adoption Slowing?
Just read this on Barron's Online:
Is the growth rate of Linux adoption slowing down? UBS software analyst Heather Bellini asks that provocative question in a rundown this morning on the findings of her firm’s latest survey of CIOs.Bellini writes that of the 47% of CIOs in the survey who said they were not Linux users, just over 90% indicated that they would not deploy the open source operating system in 2007. She writes that this is a deviation from previous surveys which about 60% of the respondents did not plan to deploy Linux. Her conclusion: “We believe it should be expected that Linux operating system growth will slow from the significant grow rates of the past few years.”
It's difficult to comment on this news without seeing the survey data being used to make this prediction.
Setting aside the Linux adoption question, we should consider the Linux usage & revenue question. The analyst doesn't appear to address the growing use of Linux in shops that already use Linux; the whole, 'try it, like it, use more' scenario. Also not accounted is whether the 10% who are going to adopt Linux will add one copy each or add 100 copies each.
In any case, I'd guess that Linux adoption, usage and revenue is doing just fine, thank you very much.
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 5, 2007 06:50 AM
September 04, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Solaris Will Go After Low Hanging Fruit
There's more noise about Solaris competing with Linux over at slashdot.
I can understand the argument that Sun should direct their efforts to Linux. You know, Peace, Love, Linux. But which business would throw away their crown jewel to compete in the delivery of a product that already has a leading vendor (by some distance over #2)?
Can you imagine asking MySQL to get into the Oracle support business (imagining that Oracle open sources their products)? Or let's pressure Alfresco to jump into the (future :-) open sourced MS SharePoint project. Yes, I know, it's ludicrous to ask MySQL or Alfresco to throw away their assets and jump into a market with a much stronger competitor who essentially owns the market in question, through the OSS product/project in question.
And yet, that is what some would suggest Sun do. But this ain't no disco. Sun is going to do what any (logical) business would do. Compete.
While I have no issue with Sun (or any other vendor) competing, I finally see what all the fuss is about. When a vendor competes, they start with "low hanging fruit", meaning customers that are the easiest to win. These customers are easiest to win for several reasons, including the fact that they are current or were previous customers. Often, the low hanging fruit market isn't very large. As a result, vendors climb higher up the tree into more difficult competitive situations.
For Solaris, Linux is the low hanging fruit and Windows is the fruit higher up in the tree. Don't be fooled by the hype that Solaris & Linux will work to take out Windows. That sounds great on paper, but take a look at which operating system was most often replaced with Linux (hint: not Windows) and you'll see where Solaris is heading.
As HW vendors continue to sign distribution deals with Sun, Solaris will be able to close the broad platform availability gap vs. Linux. I can't think of a HW vendor that will be against adding Solaris as an option for customers. (OSS religion aside, more choice is good for customers, which is good for HW vendors.) It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Linux penetration is so widespread that the Solaris vs. Linux competition shouldn't come down to a: "there can be only one" scenario ;-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on September 4, 2007 10:42 AM
August 17, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Is Sun Exiting the Server Business?
Dana's post on the Sun & IBM deal has two very interesting statements:
"This is part of Sun’s exit strategy from the server business."
And:
"In many ways, Sun is becoming Red Hat."
On the conference call, Schwartz & Zeitler spoke about early work to get Solaris running on IBM mainframes. This work is very early and nothing may come of it, but it was apparently kicked off because of customer requests. Keep in mind that RHEL & SLES both run on IBM mainframes already. Maybe Dana's right; Sun is becoming Red Hat.
Dana's prediction on Sun's server exit centers on:
Why stay in the hardware business with X percent profit margins when the software business has nearly 3X the profit margins? (Based on IBM results - See pg. 27/124 )
With KKR's investment in Sun, this is a question I'm sure has been asked. However, such decisions are never so cut and dry. The majority of Sun's revenue comes from their hardware business. I wasn't able to find a HW/SW/Services split of Sun's revenue. If you take their FY06 revenue of $13.068B and use IDC's estimate of 2006 Sun software revenue you end up with a little less than 15% of total revenue is driven by Software. What's more, the majority of Sun software revenue is attached to Sun hardware. While deals like this one with IBM will help to reduce the SW+HW linkage, I suspect Sun software revenues will remain largely (85%+ ?) driven from Sun hardware. Remember that Schwartz claims that Sun isn't a hardware company, they are a System's company. If Sun's goal is to be a System’s company, then there is no way they can "exit the server business".
I think that this deal is simply Sun's realization that Solaris is a valuable asset that has been tied to Sun hardware for the most part. This would be fine if the market only used Sun hardware. According to Gartner estimates, in 1Q07, Sun's server share was 10.3% of the total market spending. Remember when Apple came out with iTunes & the iPod for Apple systems only and then expanded to support Windows to address a larger market. Same story here; it just took a little longer for Sun to consider expanding the market reach of Solaris.
So, maybe Sun is becoming Apple? Nah ;-)
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on August 17, 2007 08:43 AM
August 16, 2007 | Comments: (0)
IBM to OEM Solaris on x86 Servers
I really try not to write about IBM news but this one is more about Sun than IBM.....
IBM & Sun announced:
"IBM will distribute the Solaris Operating System and Solaris Subscriptions for select x86-based IBM System x servers and BladeCenter servers to clients through IBM's routes to market."
This definitely sounds like Sun isn't competing with Red Hat ;-) Note that I believe that there is nothing wrong with Sun (or anyone) competing with Red Hat. Competition is good for customers and good for vendors.
The deal is essentially an OEM relationship in which IBM sells the hardware and, based on customer requirements, could sell Linux, Windows or Solaris. If customers choose Solaris, the support subscription is delivered by Sun. IBM is compensated by Sun for their part in driving the sale of the Solaris support subscription. Note that the deal is different than what IBM or HP are currently doing with Solaris on x86. Yesterday, neither IBM, nor, HP were able to OEM or sell support subscriptions to Solaris on x86 servers. Today (well in 90 days apparently?), IBM becomes the only OEM vendor for Solaris on x86.
I was pleasantly surprised to hear Schwartz and Zeitler (IBM) that this deal is about customer choice. A few questions on the conference call asked:
"Won't this deal increase the likelihood of an IBM HW customer who chooses Solaris to later move to Sun hardware? Or a Solaris customer who chooses IBM HW to later choose AIX or Linux?"
The answer from Sun & IBM was:
"You're better off to meet customers with solutions that they are seeking versus trying to restrict the customer to one stack or another".
Choice is a wonderful thing.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on August 16, 2007 11:52 AM
August 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Matt Asay interviews Jonathan Schwartz (A must read Q&A)
When Matt told me he was interviewing JS I was infuriated that he hadn't invited me along. However since we share but one brain, I feel like I was there too.
It's a fantastic interview and makes me realize that companies that seem as screwy as Sun still have a lot of life left in them.
Best quote:
What's the business model? I don't know. But if you don't have adoption, it won't matter what business model you use. Companies that sell open source are prioritizing community and adoption over instant monetization. We will win.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on August 9, 2007 02:37 PM
July 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
There seems to be a lot of discussion about whether Project Indiana at openSolairs is a Linux clone or not.
The Project Indiana website states:
"Project Indiana is a new project to create an OpenSolaris binary distribution. This distribution will focus on providing a single CD install with the basic core operating system and desktop environment, with the opportunity of installing additional software off network repositories."
Ian Murdock, of Debian fame, now with Sun, says:
"It is not a Linux copy thing," .... "It's a best of both worlds thing."
Most folks responding to the story at Slashdot and apparently those in attendance at an OpenSolaris user group in NYC (which fellow IBMer Mike Dolan attended) think Project Indiana is either (1) a Linux copy thing that should Sun should give up on, (2) not something that Solaris customers want, so Sun should stop wasting time and resources on it, or (3) both 1 & 2.
Jack Loftus writes:
"Now, from what I can understand the problem here is that Sun has continued to competitively position itself with Linux users with features like DTrace and ZFS when perhaps they should take a page from the Linux playbook and start siphoning off some Windows market share."
Hint, it's because the guys that buy/run/administer Linux servers are typically not the same guys that buy/run/administer Windows servers. Linux hurts Solaris (& other Unix OSes) much more than it hurts Windows. Sun has realized this and is trying to win over the "low hanging fruit" who used to be, or could be, Solaris customers.
What's wrong with Sun trying to build a Linux clone with OpenSolaris? Why shouldn't Sun compete with Linux if that is what Sun's strategy calls for? We participate in a free market, let Sun compete as they wish. The strength of the Linux ecosystem, backed by a truly open and extensive community should take care of the rest.
Nothing personal here, it's just business.
PS: I should state: "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions."
Posted by Savio Rodrigues on July 30, 2007 12:40 PM
June 20, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dell: Freedom to choose Ubuntu...but only if you don't have a job
Hopefully, this is just one person's experience, but a would-be Ubuntu buyer was denied by Dell when he informed Dell that he wanted to buy his Ubuntu-on-Dell machine for (gasp!) a business. Perish the thought....
I called the Home office department. I asked the representative if I could buy one of the ubuntu computers for my company. She said (and I quote), "these Dell computers are designed for personal use only, as long as you use it for personal use, you can purchase one."...Answer: a lame one.Next, I tried to buy it on our business credit card. They would have none of that. She told me that I had to buy it through a personal card....
I really wanted to support Dell and I am just blown away that they would REFUSE MY MONEY because I was buying it to use for a business. What company goes around telling its customers how they can use their products? What business model does that fall under?
Now, to Dell's credit, it's at least selling Ubuntu (if only for Home and Home Office use). It's ahead of the pack on this.
But why not let the market decide where Ubuntu will go today? Or was that part of some agreement with Microsoft? "We'll only let individual Linux freaks buy Ubuntu - we won't let corporate Linux freaks buy it." Muppets.
Posted by Matt Asay on June 20, 2007 08:39 AM
June 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Several people have asked when I think Red Hat is going to do a IP protection deal with Microsoft and the answer is that I don't think they will. Certainly not while Microsoft continues to be light on facts and heavy on hyperbole. There is one simple reason why not to do a deal with Microsoft.
Red Hat is not desperate.
Through bad management and lack of focus Novell totally blew the Suse opportunity, giving Red Hat ~70% (UPDATED--I had 90% which was a typo) market share for Linux. The Microsoft deal is a sad attempt at bringing Suse (which is a good OS BTW) back to the light. Sadly for the Suse guys I think the only way it becomes relevant again is if someone takes Novell private and spins out Suse as a separate company. Otherwise it will continue to languish as a good, but also-ran product.
For a long time Red Hat was a company that I loved to mock, primarily because I was annoyed at how much power they have over Linux. But I recently realized that they are the ones that are sheparding the growth of the Linux industry while the rest of these chumps plunder along and take the weak way out.
The video of Matt Szulik at OSBC just reinforced this position for me. And made me admire the company's leader a great deal.
Going back to an earlier thought. For all you companies that want to work with Microsoft, I would suggest you get them to acquire you. Anything else is a dead end.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on June 15, 2007 10:21 AM
June 06, 2007 | Comments: (0)
You could spend a lot of money on proprietary virtualization technology and run it on UNIX. Or you could get the same (or better) performance out of Xen on Linux, like Audi and BMW are doing. As Softpedia writes:
BMW and Audi car makers rely on Novell's SuSE Linux Enterprise Edition Server (SLED) for maintaining their data center. BMW Group combined SuSE's Linux with the Xen virtualisation software on its servers equipped with Intel x86 dual-core processors. As the results seemed to be highly promising so far, BMW stated that it also considers taking a chance on Novell ZENworks Orchestrator, for managing its virtual data center system.And here's a bit more detail on BMW from Novell's press release:
According to BMW, Xen virtualization technology built into SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 10 will allow the company to increase flexibility in managing server life cycles. BMW will also gain operational and cost advantages in other areas, in addition to having a flatter support structure through the integrated operating system and virtualization layer. Hardware resources can be more efficiently used through server consolidation, and BMW is able to cluster virtual servers and migrate them live from one physical server to another as needed. The company is also currently evaluating Novell ZENworks® Orchestrator as a way to manage the resulting virtual data center systems.Finally, Novell is getting down the "value message" that Red Hat has been trumpeting for some time. It's about lowering costs, yes, but also about improving efficiency and productivity. If Novell can keep this up - and stop distracting itself with Microsoft coupons - it just may turn the corner and become a real company again. News like this indicates it has come a long way.
Posted by Matt Asay on June 6, 2007 11:38 AM
May 31, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Max Spevack on Fedora 7, community building
Fedora 7 is hitting the streets, and I was fortunate to catch up last week with Max Spevack, Fedora Project Leader, to discuss new features in this release, and Fedora's contribution to the Linux community and to Red Hat. Fedora tends to get lost in the discussion about Red Hat, but Max made it clear that Fedora is very much an integral, vibrant part of Red Hat's value.
On the cool new features...
Some people want a live CD, some want an installable ISO, some want full remixability. These are the three big new things in Fedora 7. On the last item, we have a massive library of packages with open, robust tools that allow a user to build a custom spin of Fedora to build an ISO in the user's image. So, it's about freedom of development in a very wide sense.Fedora's business value for the company:Some of these things (live CD, for example) are not new to the industry. Ubuntu and Knoppix and others have had this for some time. But the Revisor tool is very new and innovative. It's a graphical appliation built on top of Fedora's other build tools that gives incredible flexibility to build an ISO, a live CD, etc. Building becomes an open exercise.
[Or, as the press release notes:
Fedora 7 provides the first appliance development platform that is 100 percent open source with an entirely free distribution build toolchain. The Fedora 7 source code is hosted in a public version control system, the RPMs are built on an external build system and the distributions are built with an external, open source compose tool that allows access by the entire Fedora community.Not bad....]
Fedora represents Red Hat's open research platform. From the perspective of the techie, Fedora is the upstream source for everything Red Hat ships (in Linux). There have been a number of things over the year's that first saw the light of RHEL day in Fedora, like virtualization, SE Linux, etc.Are there business customers running Fedora?But it's also about mindshare. It's the soul of the old Red Hat, and is the part of Red Hat where the most open, honest, back-and-forth work happens.
Anecdotally, if you go to Wikipedia you'll see that it's Fedora (mostly) that runs the site. There are a number of organizations that use RHEL and Fedora in tandem (with Fedora in the staging and QA environments). So, yes, but it depends on how you define "business use." And the Fedora dorm room users of today will be the Fortune 1000 IT customers of tomorrow. It's important to win those customers early.Talk to me about Ubuntu. Lots of traction. Is it a competitor?
More Linux use - whatever the flavor - is a great thing.Now, if I put my Fedora-only hat on for a moment, Fedora has an open, robust build system/tool chain that allows a customer to spin a highly tailored version of Fedora. Ubuntu is very good at producing multiple versions of its own OS (niche products), but the process by which these are created still feels like a bit of a black box. Fedora is more focused on open tools to allow people to build their own niche.
How many Fedora systems?
Unique IP addresses looking back to Fedora for updates show up to 3 million Fedora Core 6 installed systems, but this may include double counting [and, frankly, it may undercount systems, too, that don't ping back for the updates].Why would anyone outside of Red Hat contribute to Fedora?
Fedora has more package maintainers that don't work for Red Hat than that do. Some of the most innovative Fedora work has been done by non-Red Hat paid community members, including the Fedora Infrastructure Project (at least, up until February 2007).There are lessons in Max's words for all those (like I) that need to build community around a company. "Let go" seems to be the crutch of it. Hard words to live by, but they seem to be paying off for Fedora.Why does the community contribute? It's all about relationships. The people on Red Hat's payroll have, over time, proven that Red Hat is not the Fedora community, but rather is just another important member of that community. Half the Fedora Community Board is made up of non-Red Hat employees.
Outside developers like the fact that Fedora is a popular community, so that they don't have to build from scratch. Assuming they can have an impact with Fedora, there's really no reason to go elsewhere. My job is to make sure that community people who see Fedora for the first time see that they can make strong contributions without working for Red Hat, and that their voices will be heard and matter.
Fedora 7 introduces a completely new way for how the product is built. Development now happens outside the Red Hat firewall. Fedora benefits from Red Hat's involvement, but is not dependent on it.
Posted by Matt Asay on May 31, 2007 03:00 AM
May 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Upcoming desktop discussion w/ InformationWeek and Jason Maynard
Jason Maynard is moderating a discussion this week on the changing desktop landscape with Charlie Babcock and Paul McDougal of InformationWeek. The call will discuss Vista adoption, new offerings on the Linux front from Ubuntu and Red Hat, and thoughts on Apple’s OSX.
The call is this Thursday (May 31) at 11:00 EDT.
Listeners will be invited to join the discussion and ask questions as well. Here are the dial-in details:
Sounds like fun. I just want it to denigrate into an OSX cheerleading session, so I'm going to try to join. :-)
- US/Canada Dial-in #: (888) 814-5961
- Int'l/Local Dial-In #: (973) 638-3112
- Conference ID # 60277556
Posted by Matt Asay on May 30, 2007 08:17 AM
May 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)
A tale of two companies (is one lying?)
Mike Dutton, a good friend and co-founder of OSBC, was reading one of my blog entries and found this hilarious discrepancy:
So, on the left you have E*Trade declaring that Linux has driven huge value for it. On the right, in an advertisement, you have Microsoft claiming almost the exact opposite.
Who's lying? Well, I'd trust the customer every time, but I'd be interested to hear how Microsoft comes up with its data....
Posted by Matt Asay on May 23, 2007 10:35 PM
May 09, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Making the move to Linux tutorial
Will at MaximumPC did a good job explaining how to get Ubuntu up and running. The only downside is you still need to use the command line...which will definitely freak some people out. Let's see if the Ubuntu community can write some nice GUI apps for the command-line components.
Link: You Can Switch to Linux!
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on May 9, 2007 08:47 AM
April 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Word on the street is that Dell has chosen Ubuntu for a line of desktops and laptops. Good for them--now to rid the world of MS Office...
DesktopLinux.com: Dell to choose Ubuntu
Fabian Rodriguez: It's D Day
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 30, 2007 09:09 PM
April 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Qantas proves that time travel is possible
Who knew? I always thought those children's fantasies about going back in time were...fantasies. But in a surprise move announced today, Qantas Airlines has revealed that it has decided to turn back the clock on industry momentum and replace Linux with AIX. I'm sure even IBM isn't super-proud of the announcement, though of course it still has a warm spot in its heart for AIX.
"We're moving from a Linux platform to an IBM AIX environment. We did that to address some stability issues we were having," said Suzanne Young, the airline's group general manager for finance improvement and segmentation. The decision was made last year as part of the planning for eQ, a Qantas initiative designed to improve the company's technical and management operations.I know nothing about Qantas' IT setup, but it does seem strange that it should have the exact opposite experience of, say, 99.9999999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of the industry. A nimble architecture? No way! Give us big iron and big price!!!
Seriously, I'm exaggerating, because Qantas surely wouldn't have made the decision if it weren't in its best interests.
But hark! What light from yonder window breaks? This should have been an Oracle Unbreakable Linux deal:
The new platform for the project will be based on Oracle's 11i database and applications, Hyperion's financial management and consolidation tools and a Teradata data warehouse.Seriously, why didn't Oracle get this deal instead of IBM's AIX? This would hae been a perfect opportunity for OUL (Oracle Unbreakable Linux) to shine. I'm really surprised that this Oracle shop had to shop elsewhere....
But whatever. We'll take the rest of the world's enterprises that are moving to Linux, not away from it.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 27, 2007 09:58 AM
April 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
I have to admit that I am impressed and somewhat surprised that Michael Dell runs Linux at home. Good for him. Specs below:
Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn
VMWare Workstation 6 Beta
OpenOffice.org 2.2
Automatix2
Firefox 2.0.0.3
Evolution Groupware 2.10 (this is the shocker if you ask me)
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on April 19, 2007 01:06 PM
April 12, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Sumitomo Electric buys into Novell (Xen, SUSE)
This is what I love to hear: Sumitomo Electric is moving to Novell's SUSE Enterprise Linux. Apparently, a key driver for Sumitomo's investment is Novell's vision of virtualization, as Dan Kusnetzky recently captured:
Novell thinks that virtualization is a useful tool but, should not be the single focus of an organization's IT department. A more important focus, in Novell's view, is creating a management environment that allows organizations to select the best platform for a given task and know that platform will fit into the overall management framework. Virtualization is just a tool that enhances that environment.A very rational approach to virtualization, amidst a sea of hype. And one that plays well to Novell's technology strengths.
Why, specifically, do I like this Sumitomo news? Because there's no mention of the !%!%!%% patent deal with Microsoft (Sumitomo is apparently buying into Novell because the technology works - this is what Novell should be focused on 100% of the time: selling value). And because Sumitomo Electric is seriously old guard when it comes to enterprises. If a company that is hundreds of years old (though the Sumitomo Electric subsidiary is "only" 100+ years old) buys into open source, open source is definitely mainstream.
From the press release:
Sumitomo Electric Industries is using SUSE(R) Linux Enterprise Server from Novell(R) with integrated Xen* virtualization software to extend the useful life of its platforms, minimize additional hardware investment through more efficient use of resources, and operate an effective disaster recovery site. By running SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and Xen on hardware containing Dual-Core Intel* Xeon* processors with Intel Virtualization Technology, Sumitomo Electric Industries is extending the life of valued applications on virtual servers, thus optimizing data center resources and running a more efficient business.This is seriously great news. It shows that Novell can still compete in terms of customer value/innovation, and really doesn't need its Microsoft crutch.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 12, 2007 07:34 AM
April 05, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Mike Olson on Oracle's 'Unbreakable Linux'
It's no secret that I'm not a fan of Oracle's attempt to co-opt Red Hat Enterprise Linux. But I have to admire Mike's recent post on the topic. Mike makes no apologies and lays out very good, business-driven reasons for Oracle's use of RHEL. Again, I still believe that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But let's listen to Mike:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux has established itself as the most popular distribution for enterprise use. When Oracle considered the best way to add Linux support to our services portfolio, we considered our customer base -- primarily enterprises -- and made the obvious choice.An interesting and valid point, and goes a long way toward explaining why Oracle's download numbers have been so low. It's parasitic, which I don't like. But it has been effective, and it's the customer's voice that matters most.As a result, Oracle is able to offer services to enterprise users who already have RHEL installed. This is crucial. The leading role of the RHEL distribution in the enterprise is exactly why Oracle chose to support it, and not some other distribution, in our Unbreakable Linux support offering. Enterprises running RHEL today can switch to Oracle's services without downloading a new copy of the operating system. Naturally, any enterprise running production systems is reluctant to reinstall anything at all in order to switch vendors. It's just too risky to change the tires while the car is moving.
The effect is that Oracle is able to convert downloads to paying customers without requiring a download.
But here's what I don't like. Oracle's Linux depends on Red Hat being successful without actually giving money to Red Hat to help it be successful. Quite the opposite - it actually sucks money out of Red Hat, potentially undermining the very ecosystem it's building its Linux support on. I guess the rationale is that if Oracle's Linux does succeed in killing Red Hat Enterprise Linux, by that time Oracle will have enough momentum that it could take over as the lead Linux distribution.
But this is precisely what I don't like about the Oracle move, Mike. It doesn't build the Linux ecosystem. It draws from it, without giving back. Yes, I know that Oracle contributes to the Linux kernel. That is not in dispute. Oracle has been doing this for a long time. (I remember Rene B. speaking at the Enterprise Linux Symposium back in 2002 and talking about its contributions to Linux, though he made it clear then as to why: cheaper operating system, commodity hardware, and Oracle databases. Everything but the database gets cheaper, making customers think the database TCO is lower....Shrewd.)
But the argument you've laid out depends on Red Hat's success, without contributing to it. I can see a range of ways that Oracle could have done this - could still do this - and get the "superior support" that Oracle has suggested is the reason behind the move. If this is so, why not work with Red Hat rather than against Red Hat?
You correctly identify that service/support is the wellspring for Oracle's Linux success:
Fundamentally, though, [our] success is driven by the work of the team that produces and supports [Unbreakable Linux]. Oracle's long-term success with Linux depends on our continued collaboration with the Linux community, and on our ongoing contribution to the kernel and related software. It's only by investing in that work that we will continue to succeed commercially.But what you say before that is that your success depends upon building on the success of another company, which success you are no longer contributing to in the same way that you did as a Red Hat partner.
Your post makes a lot of things much clearer, and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that the success has been as real as the customer testimonials point to. But don't you think that your success could be that much more real if you were working with Red Hat on this, and not against Red Hat? I mean this sincerely.
Posted by Matt Asay on April 5, 2007 11:57 AM
March 30, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell dissolves its Linux Impact Team
Novell this week dissolved its Linux Impact Team (LIT), headed by Nancy Faigen, and rolled the members of LIT into the regional sales teams. While disruptive to the individuals involved (and the LIT had some of Novell's very best employees - John Vigeant before he went to XenSource, Seth Shaw (not sure where he landed), Walter Knapp, etc.), I think this is a good move for Novell. It's time to stop treating Linux as a distinct part of the company's business, and make it the company's business. Everyone in the company's business.
This has been the case since SUSE was acquired, of course, but having a distinct team to focus on Linux almost gave others an excuse to focus on it a little less. A psychological thing, perhaps, but very real in my opinion.
At any rate, I think it's a good move on Novell's part. I'm sure there will be members of LIT who won't like it, but this is in the company's best interest.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 30, 2007 10:15 AM
March 28, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Oracle Linux customers: Finally they're talking (UPDATED)
Oracle today announced a range of customers that have signed up for Oracle Linux. It's an impressive list.
How much money changed hands is not known, and won't be. In fact, it's completely unclear from the language used in the press release that anyone is actually using Oracle Linux at all. They're paying Oracle for support, but are they paying Oracle support on top of Red Hat support? Or are they using Red Hat's software and simply paying Red Hat to support it? (This is another way of saying that they'd be paying both for Red Hat Enterprise Linux/support and Oracle support on top of that.)
In short, it's not clear to me anymore in re-reading it that anyone is actually swapping out Red Hat Enterprise Linux for Oracle's Unbreakable Linux at all. Read a few of these glowing quotes:
"We at IHOP see tremendous value in the enterprise-quality, lower cost support delivered by Oracle's Unbreakable Linux program," said Patrick Piccininno, CIO, IHOP. "Oracle provides the responsive support we need to deploy and maintain Linux-based solutions, and the switch from Red Hat support couldn't have been easier."See what I mean? The phrasing certainly seems to point to continued use of RHEL, while supplementing it with Oracle.
"At Timex, we are excited to take advantage of the opportunity the Oracle Linux support alliance offers," said Archana Deskus, CIO, Timex. "With the Oracle Unbreakable Linux offering, we are now able to rely on one partner to meet the Linux and Oracle support requirements, greatly increasing our efficiency and reducing our costs.""At Diebold, we run Oracle Business Intelligence on Linux, supported with Oracle Unbreakable Linux Support," said Sean Forrester, Vice President, Information Technology, Diebold. "We take advantage of Oracle's global support organization, giving us access to the comprehensive, integrated, enterprise-quality support we demand."
I'm willing to bet Red Hat hardly loses a dime in this. It's great if Oracle gains a few, but I don't think this is a win for Oracle against Red Hat.
If any of these customers are using Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I'm guessing they're going to keep doing so, just as Yahoo! is. In fact, Red Hat confirmed today (March 29) that Yahoo! is as committed to Red Hat as ever. Maybe more so.
Same thing as when Novell announced its Microsoft customers, some or all of them got screaming deals on the software to induce them to announce for SUSE, and none of them dropped their Red Hat installations.) So, it's not as if Oracle's gain is necessarily Red Hat's (or Novell's, in case these were SUSE customers) loss.
But it's still an impressive list:
Yahoo!, IHOP, Timex, Diebold, GlobeCast, ABC Stores, Stuart Maue, Replacements, Ltd., Mutual Materials and Hays Medical Center, BNP Paribas, Raley's, Powell Industries, Columbia Forest Products, Deseret Power, Fulcrum Analytics, New York State Insurance Department, The Cobalt Group, Stemilt Growers, The Gem Group, Stanford University, Vcommerce, Knife River Corporation, Primavera Systems, Centre de Services Partages du Quebec, and Spaulding Equipment Company.I still don't understand why, other than out of spite, Oracle doesn't simply adopt Ubuntu and run with that, but perhaps it's the same reason that we used to start with Red Hat Linux back in my Lineo days (as did every other embedded Linux vendor of which I'm aware) - it was just easier to start with what was perceived to be the best.
Anyway, it's good to see Linux thriving, even if Oracle feels it needs to do so at Red Hat's expense. I'm assuming the world is big enough for both, especially if Linux sales start to cut into Windows' growth. So far, that hasn't happened. If Oracle can drive Linux into Windows shops, I'm all for that.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 28, 2007 08:10 PM
March 27, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Linux Foundation announces BoD
The Linux Foundation, the combined OSDL/FSG group just announced it's BoD. Not too different than before.
The Linux Foundation board of directors includes:
James Bottomley, Linux subsystem maintainer and vice president and chief technology officer at SteelEye. Bottomley is an active member of the open source community and maintains the SCSI subsystem, the MCA subsystem, the Linux Voyager port and the 53c700 driver. Bottomley is the LF's Technical Advisory Board representative.
Wim Coekaerts, Linux VM tester and director of Linux engineering at Oracle. Coekaerts manages Oracle's Unbreakable Linux strategy. His group is working on and contributing to the first Cluster File System to be accepted into the Linux mainline kernel in 2006.
Masahiro Date, general manager, Fujitsu. Masahiro Date is the general manager of Fujitsu and has been involved in operating systems at Fujitsu including development and development management of Fujitsu proprietary operating systems and Solaris and Linux. Mr. Date has been active in the Linux community for many years, including serving as director of OSDL and FSG.
Doug Fisher, vice president, Intel's Software and Solutions Group (SSG) and general manager of SSG's Systems Software Division. Fisher is a veteran IT executive with a rich history at HP and today at Intel. He leads a worldwide organization responsible for a wide range of software development, including Intel's Linux and open source initiatives, and is the Intel corporate owner for virtualization.
Dan Frye, vice president, Open Systems Development, IBM. Frye is responsible for overseeing IBM's Linux technical strategy and IBM's participation in the open source Linux development community. He has also led IBM's Emerging Technologies and Business Opportunities team and co-authored the original IBM corporate strategies for Linux and open source.
Tim Golden, senior vice president, Bank of America. For the past five years, Golden has worked exclusively with Linux and open source software and has led several enterprise-level solution architecture, risk management, and infrastructure lifecycle management initiatives. He is also affiliated with several community-based organizations, provides consultation to industry financial analysts and occasionally works for select clients as an Olliance Group senior consultant.
Hisashi Hashimoto, section manager, Hitachi. Hashimoto is responsible at Hitachi for both workstations and mainframes. He also works with the Open Source Software Technology Center and is responsible for collaboration with other vendors and the OSS community, including the work with the Open Source Software Promotion Forum in Japan.
Christine Martino, vice president of the Open Source & Linux Organization (OSLO), at HP. Martino is responsible for HP engineering, marketing, open source community participation and linkage, as well as HP's Open Source and Linux indemnity and IP protection programs.
Marc Miller, open source software expert in the AMD Developer Outreach program. Miller is currently entering the seventh year of his tenure with AMD and is bridging a critical gap between industry-leading software development and cutting-edge microprocessor technology.
Brian Pawlowski, vice president and chief technology officer of Product Operations, NetApp. Pawlowski has been working on open protocols for storage since his earlier position at Sun Microsystems and was co-author of the NFS Version 3 specification.
Markus Rex, chief technology officer for the Linux and Open Source Group, Novell. At Novell, Rex is responsible for guiding the strategic direction of the technology platform and providing insight and guidance to the product development organization.
Tsugikazu Shibata, senior manager, NEC. Shibata has an extensive background in the development and management of proprietary operating systems, including work with mainframes and super computers, and belongs to the Open Source Software Promotion Center of NEC where he works collaboratively with vendors and the open source community.
Mark Shuttleworth, founder of Ubuntu. Shuttleworth is founder of the Ubuntu Project, an enterprise Linux distribution that is freely available worldwide and has both cutting-edge desktop and enterprise server editions.
Andrew Updegrove, co-founder and partner, Gesmer Updegrove LLP.
Regarded as one of the most influential legal experts on open standards and how they relate to open source and IP, Updegrove has worked with more than 75 consortia, accredited standards development organizations and open source consortia, and has assisted many of the largest technology companies in the world in forming such organizations.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on March 27, 2007 11:34 AM
March 22, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell responds: 'Stop fixating on the patent deal'
In case it's not abundantly clear, I despise Novell's patent pact with Microsoft. But, as Bruce Lowry wrote me today (because comments are turned off on the blog, due to a massive spike in comment spam), there may be some bright spots on the Novell horizon that I have not reported. I'm willing to "concede" that, and am happy to hear about it. (I was there in the early days of Novell's Linux movement, after all.)
I just wish Novell wouldn't stifle its positive movement with a massive step in the wrong direction. The patent deal represents this. Do you think Microsoft offered this (as well as the interoperability work) to Novell first? Read between the lines of Bill Hilf's earlier comments on the topic. Of course Microsoft tried Red Hat first. Red Hat almost certainly went along with interoperability, but wouldn't swallow the patent pill, because it's hugely negative for Linux and open source generally.
I wish Novell saw this.
In the meantime, Bruce wishes I saw a few other things. His words, with his permission:
Your opposition to the Novell-Microsoft patent deal is pretty clear. But I'd challenge you on a number of statements you're making, as well as some of the assumptions you seem to be working under. First, you suggest we're getting nowhere in our Linux business in the absence of the deal. That's just not true. Numbers from the leading market research firm who counts these things (whom I won't name because I haven't gone thru the formal process of getting approvals) show us picking up almost 10 percentage points in their most recent report. This has not been at the expense of Red Hat as much as at the expense of other distros. But we are picking up share. This is showing in our financials as well - we had 46 percent year on year recognized revenue growth in Linux last quarter, which had very little to do with the Microsoft deal. Invoicing for Linux last quarter, even absent the Microsoft deal, was up 50 percent, as we said on our earnings call. So we have been growing our Linux business. The Microsoft deal will help grow it faster, but we were growing it before.I'm sincerely glad to hear things are going better than they appear, Bruce. I truly am. Please continue to pass along good news. Except when it's Microsoft delivering Novell's good news. Because I just can't believe that Microsoft has your best interests at heart, or Linux's. It has a fiduciary duty that cuts firmly in the opposite direction.Second, I'd take issue with your claim we aren't doing much to protect Linux. You mention SCO, and I appreciate that. By the way, that case is ongoing, and we continue to spend money fighting that. We were founding members of the Open Invention Network, spending millions of dollars to buy the CommerceOne patents and put them out to the community. We made a patent pledge several years ago that said we'd use our patent portfolio to defend a patent attack on open source. We see the Microsoft patent agreement as just another level of protection for those customers who want it.
Third, you seem to suggest we're waving the IP flag to get customers to buy our stuff. This is just flat wrong. Our approach to this deal has been focused on interoperability. That's what the customers care the most about. As Ron has said before, Microsoft introduced the patent proposal. We felt that the overall package was important enough for customers that we worked with them to come up with the patent agreement. You seem to suggest we've been inconsistent on this issue. We haven't. We've said from the get-go that this was about interoperability for customers. Some may care about the patent issues. Others may not. What our agreement does is remove the issue from the table for them.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 22, 2007 02:00 PM
March 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell: Nothing is wrong with Linux (Better sign with us or you may be sued over Linux)
Am I the only one who finds Novell's continued backtracking and silliness over its patent scheme with Microsoft reprehensible? Ron Hovsepian went on the defensive (again - you'd think that Novell would learn that its opprobrium from the patent deal is not something that is easily explained away) with eWeek, suggesting:
Novell does not acknowledge any patent infringements with open source "in any way, shape or form. We would never do that, as we believe there aren't any," he said.Great! But earlier...
He argues that the deal has been good for Linux adoption as well as for Novell, pointing to several large deals done recently that would not have happened had the Microsoft agreement not been in place.How would Ron know? What Linux adoption has Novell been responsible for? Very little, if you look at its financials. As for "several large deals done recently," it's interesting that he would call a deal large that, in several cases, involved Novell giving away the software. For free. To get a reference. (Don't believe me? Ask the customers. I did.) Novell's Microsoft sell-out isn't driving Linux adoption, even for Novell - not much, anyway.
After all, how is it good for customers to tell them out of one side of your mouth that there are no IP problems, and then out of the other side to tell them, "Pssst! Buddy, buy some protection. You never know...." Is that supposed to give them confidence to buy?
The best thing that Novell could do for Linux is to sell it, and to stop participating in FUD around Linux. If customers have IP concerns, they don't seem to be stopping Red Hat. Even Oracle today announced that it is tearing it up (though its claims are a bit suspect, given that a few of its customers also happen to be hardware companies that depend on it for sustenance). No one is slowing Ubuntu, either.
So, is it just Novell with an IP problem? Or is Novell casting about for some excuse for why it continues to remain a distant second in the Linux race?
Hint: The answer is not to try to disqualify the race itself, Novell, but rather to start to run faster. On the same course. With a better offering. Until you do that, you deserve to lose, and need to stop trying to paper over the ugly walls of your shameless patent pact.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 21, 2007 08:08 PM
March 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Oracle's Linux business - the jury is still out, but why not go Ubuntu?
Oracle reported its third-quarter earnings yesterday, with some good news on its Linux front (and good news overall). Clearly, Oracle's move to consolidate the known universe of software is paying off, and it's doing a good job of integrating PeopleSoft and its other acquisitions into the Oracle fold.
Despite announcing that Yahoo! has left Red Hat for Oracle, however, the jury on its Linux business is still out, as Matthew Aslett writes. Oracle recognizes this: "We're not going to build a Linux business overnight," suggested Larry Ellison. And it's likely that some of its other customer wins are more significant than Yahoo! Most companies simply won't serve as reference customers, and I'm sure that's true for Oracle, as well.
The Yahoo! win is not a significant win, in my view. It has decent PR value, but I suspect it's not a big financial loss for Red Hat. Yahoo! is like Google in its IT makeup. Google is, or was, also a Red Hat customer, but high-end geek shops like Google don't spend a lot for commercial Linux - they may start with a copy of Red Hat, but they hack it into their own. They support themselves.
That said, this move isn't a loss at all for Red Hat, since despite Oracle's claim, Yahoo! continues to use Red Hat:Red Hat and Yahoo both said that Red Hat hasn't been kicked out of the account, though.
"Our current infrastructure leverages both Red Hat and Oracle Linux products," Laurie Mann, Yahoo's vice president of engineering, said in a statement. And Red Hat spokeswoman Leigh Day added, "Red Hat and Yahoo continue to enjoy a fruitful relationship."This reminds me of when Novell announced its big deals with Credit Suisse et al: you know, the ones where Novell agreed to give these companies software for free for years to existing customers in exchange for a press mention, and the companies that were using Red Hat kept using Red Hat.
Still, I'm still left wondering why Oracle doesn't simply adopt a Linux distribution that it could truly call its own. Why not Ubuntu? It's one of the best distributions out there - it may trail Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE, but it's very popular, and Oracle could give it a huge uplift. (Stephen Shankland has reported before that Oracle might move to Ubuntu, though it ended up trying with Red Hat.)
Why not? It makes a lot more sense (except if you put pure spite into the equation, which I think does suggest one primary reason that Oracle chose to go after RHEL). No need to fork RHEL and try to outsupport Red Hat (which Oracle will never and can never do, as it contributes a negligible fraction of the Linux kernel, compared to Red Hat). No need to do anything more than provide an exceptional product to customers, which is what Oracle suggests it wants to do.
Why not Ubuntu, Oracle?
Posted by Matt Asay on March 21, 2007 01:57 PM
March 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The Linux desktop market is growing... (WSJ)
It's about time. Today's WSJ has an article on the Linux desktop that could have been written five years ago. 
Same reasons for why companies would consider the Linux desktop (cost savings on single-purpose desktops, e.g.). Same cast of characters making the quotations. Etc.
The only thing that has changed is that there are real numbers behind Linux desktop growth. Finally.
The allure of desktop Linux is the low entry cost: A typical license for Linux from Novell is $50 a year per PC versus the $299 Microsoft charges for Windows to businesses that don't have a long-term contract with the software maker. (Contract customers, mostly large businesses, pay less than $299 for Windows; Microsoft charges $199 for an upgrade.)Dell has made noise about being open to Linux, and maybe it is. The jury is still out.Also, a Linux PC doesn't use Microsoft's Office, which has its own price. And companies willing to go without the support that comes from paid versions can install free versions of Linux.
Linux still goes into only a tiny proportion of the desktop and laptop PCs sold. But in a recent report, market researcher IDC said licenses of both free and purchased versions of Linux software going into PCs world-wide rose 20.8% in 2006 over the previous year and forecast that licenses will increase 30% this year over last. That compares with 10.5% growth in 2004, according to IDC.
Whether Linux gains a stronger footing in PCs depends partly on whether PC makers start supporting it more strongly.
One thing is clear (to me): Novell, for all its problems, is doing a great job of pushing the LInux desktop. I would probably classify it as the top Linux desktop vendor. Interestingly enough, it's selling its own Linux desktops, without help from Microsoft. Odd how these things happen. :-)
Posted by Matt Asay on March 13, 2007 12:26 PM
March 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell the gateway to Linux in public schools?
While Red Hat may be the key to Linux in emerging markets (through the One Laptop Per Child project), Novell continues to push Linux in the Education market, especially in EMEA and North America. Successfully, more often than not, given Novell's strong foothold in the Education market.
Why move? Money.
Do these numbers make sense to you - $2,500 versus $100,000? This is the price difference felt between migrating over to Linux or instead, upgrading to the next version of Windows. What's interesting is that I’m noticing that more often than not Novell is the company making this possible for schools.Enterprises may not feel the risk is worth the cash. Schools, notoriously hard-pressed for cash, do.
Importantly, the price comparison above may not be representative of reality, as Microsoft will likely discount to zero to keep a strong foothold in the Education market. Why? Because the best way to own the future is to tutor its inhabitants. Microsoft is a long-term player - those who want to own the future need to be the same.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 13, 2007 07:18 AM
March 11, 2007 | Comments: (0)
SCO blames IBM for failing business
We all know things are bad at SCO, but this is ridiculous--blaming IBM for SCO's business failure while continuing to try and bleed IBM and other companies dry for still unproven infringement on Linux code.
In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball, an attorney for Lindon-based SCO said IBM "pressured" companies to cut off their relationships with SCO. And "the effect on SCO was devastating and it was immediate," Mark James said.
Link: SCO says IBM hurt profits
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on March 11, 2007 04:15 PM
March 02, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Novell's earnings on Microsoft life support
Novell's inability to execute on a comprehensible open source business continue to plague the company, as it reported earnings this week and investors fled at the news.
"Overall, our quarterly results were mixed, and we will need to improve our execution in our identity, security and systems management businesses," said Ron Hovsepian, the chief executive officer. "We feel confident that we are on the right path to put Novell on target for sustained profitability."I feel confident that Ron feels confident, because Ron is a great, execution-oriented leader. But I feel no confidence that Novell will turn around what has come to be a decade-long slump. It's amazingly sad when the company's Linux business is now wholly dependent on its biggest competitor, Microsoft, based on the numbers.
Jason Maynard of CSFB, who has an "Underperform" rating on Novell, analyzed the results as follows:
Revenue and EPS came in slightly below our estimates however Linux invoicing showed some signs of life and management maintained prior guidance for F2007. Management specifically indicated that identity management sales were disappointing due to internal execution issues. Although the vast majority of Linux activations came in the form of Microsoft coupons, organic invoicing of $18M was up 50% year-over-year. At this point, very little of this activity has transferred into Linux revenue, and it remains to be seen what renewal/attrition rates will look like once these contracts are up for renewal. Total revenue continued to decline on a year/year basis, and it is unclear when or if Linux sales can grow enough to compensate. In the mean time, Novell is continuing to add headcount in lower cost regions before eventually lowering headcount in more expensive regions. The intent is to provide for a lower expense structure in F2008, however the effect is higher expenses in F2007. Management believes it must add new heads first in order to preserve revenue at current levels.Jason's analysis reads more like an obituary than an earnings analysis. Novell has underperformed in its proprietary business, and is on life support in its Linux business due to the company with the most to lose from Linux.With the prospect of continued revenue declines coupled with higher expenses in the next couple quarters, we see little potential for optimism in FY2007, and believe it is too early to ramp expectations for FY2008. As a result, we are maintaining our Underperform rating on the stock....Pro forma EPS came in $0.01 below our estimate at ($0.01), and cash flow of $348M was above our $260M estimate due to more payments from Microsoft than we were modeling. Cash flow would have been zero in the quarter without the Microsoft payments.
Is there a glimmer of hope here?
I can't see it. Until Novell abandons its past and moves solidly forward into the open source future, I can't see things changing. Will it be able to do so and maintain profitability/etc. over the transition period? No. But I suspect that investors would be forgiving if Novell could clearly lay out where it's going, and actually go there.
On the "go there" front, I really do believe that Ron can manage that. He's solid. But what Novell has lacked ever since Chris Stone originally set the company on the open source trail, is a visionary like Chris. Someone to move the company forward into the future, rather than constantly reliving the worst moments of its past.
Move on, Novell. Your future is open. You've just got to embrace it fully, not half-heartedly.
Posted by Matt Asay on March 2, 2007 07:21 PM
February 26, 2007 | Comments: (0)
HP: $25 million EMEA revenue directly related to Debian
Via InternetNews: Big Debian Linux Payday For HP
In fiscal 2006, $25 million in hardware sales in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa) were directly related to HP's Debian support.
Pretty amazing that you can make money from free software. Maybe Dell will take a page and start putting Ubuntu on laptops.
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on February 26, 2007 04:15 PM
February 23, 2007 | Comments: (0)
LWN.net has an interesting article [Sub req'd] detailing the contributors to the Linux 2.6.20 kernel. The author attempts to determine just who (as in individuals) and who (as in their employers) writes the Linux kernel. It's not an easy task.
It is not uncommon to see Linux referred to as a volunteer-created system, as opposed to the corporate-sponsored, proprietary alternatives. There has been little research, however, into how much work on Linux is truly "volunteer" - done on a hacker's spare, unpaid time.LWN goes at it in a few different ways (measuring patches, lines changed, lines removed, etc.), one of which is to measure those developers that change the most lines of code.In general, the assumption that Linux is created by volunteers is simply accepted.
Determining the real provenance of free software can be a daunting task. There is a wealth of information available for those who look, however. In an attempt to shine some light in this area, your editor hacked up some scripts to do a lot of digging around in the kernel git repository. The idea was that, by looking at who is putting changes into the kernel, we can get a sense for where our source is coming from.
Perhaps most interesting for readers of this blog, however, is who employs these developers.
Keep in mind that some people don't use their corporate email address when working on the kernel, so LWN filled in this information when they knew it, and reached out to developers when they didn't. So, this list is imperfect, but probably as good as anything else one could put together.
The list gives Red Hat a lot of support in its claims to be innovating in the kernel space. With nearly 15% of the heavy lifting being done by its developers (nearly double that of any other company, and triple its nearest competitor), it also means that Red Hat (as well as Novell, which does a fair amount of kernel work, too) can legitimately offer superior support on Linux. Support that Oracle's PR fluff just can't match. (Oracle contributed less than 1% of the kernel work.)
But this isn't really about any one particular company. It's about how you do business in open source. To be credible in open source, you must write code. Great code. And lots of it. Marketing only takes you so far in the open source world. At some point, you must show substance.
That substance, unfortunately, doesn't automatically translate into sales. For that, a compelling business model is required. You know that I'm a fan of Red Hat's model. (So much so that Alfresco just adopted the same 100% GPL model.) But there are others. The key point is that you must have substance both in code development and in business development.
Not easy, but definitely worth it.
Posted by Matt Asay on February 23, 2007 09:56 AM
February 19, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Dell Ideastorm: Give us Linux and OpenOffice
Dell's new Ideastorm site launched last week--it's interesting to see how quickly a few main issues came to light:
1. Pre-installed Linux option
2. Option to not have all that extra software installed
3. OpenOffice pre-installed
Makes me wonder if only geeks know about the site or the rest of the world is annoyed with Microsoft as I am. The person who submitted the first two summarized very nicely.
CHOICE is what consumers want on their new PCs, not annoying surprise circus-ware (the typical smattering of 3rd party popup-infested software found on most new Dell PCs). Quality free and open source software is well behaved, and may be legally pre-installed on PCs, and legally shared with friends and family, sharing is encouraged!
Posted by Dave Rosenberg on February 19, 2007 06:50 PM
February 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Internetnews: Linux ecosystem worth $40B by 2010
IDC believes the Linux ecosystem is worth $18 billion today, and will jump to $40 billion by 2010:
For 2006, Al Gillen, research vice president of system software at IDC, told an early morning audience that the research firm has pegged the Linux ecosystem that includes servers and software to be worth $18 billion. By 2010, Gillen said, the market will be worth $40 billion.No matter which way you parse that message, $40 billion is a big number. I wouldn't mind having it in my bank account. :-)In terms of Linux operating system deployments, a surprising finding that Gillen described is that there are almost an equal number of paid Linux server deployments, which include Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server, as there are unpaid "free" Linux deployments such as Debian and Fedora.
A lot of growth in Linux deployments is coming through increasing workloads moving to databases among other enterprise applications. Tim Grieser, IDC's program vice president of enterprise system management software, explained that Oracle's recent move to formally support Linux directly is proof positive of how important Linux is for the database market.
Posted by Matt Asay on February 15, 2007 11:15 AM
February 13, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Red Hat joins Microsoft's Interop Alliance
Today Red Hat announced that has joined the Vendor Interop Alliance, the group that Microsoft chartered with other top software companies, but which has not involved Red Hat to date.
Interestingly, as Matthew Aslett notes, Red Hat's participation seems to be limited to its JBoss middleware, which already had partnered with Microsoft to improve interoperability. So what, if anything, does this agreement get Microsoft? Or Red Hat?
Red Hat's membership in the alliance builds on the interoperability work started by the JBoss Division 18 months ago to optimize JBoss Enterprise Middleware on the Windows platform. To date, those efforts have been primarily in the Web Services arena, including the critically important World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) WS-Addressing specification and several plugfests around WS-Security, WS-Transactions, and WS-Addressing. In addition, Microsoft completed Hibernate certification for Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) driver. Now, Red Hat can extend and deepen interoperability beyond standards to the native level on Windows for its JBoss Enterprise Middleware.All good, it would seem. This agreement does not touch on Microsoft's controversial patent tax work that it has done with Novell, which is a huge positive for Red Hat and for the industry. But I do think it's a sign of good intentions, if nothing else.And "nothing else" may well be accurate. These industry consortia tend to be worthless. Decent PR for a few weeks, and then no real work. Why? Because real work is done for real customers, and these vendor-led consortia never involve customers in any meaningful way. And why? Because customers have better things to do than to sit on endless committees which are designed to do little more than to benefit one company's intellectual property position over another's, but have it look like they're collaborating.
Call me a cynic, but I don't see much coming from the Vendor Interop Alliance that wouldn't be better solved by individual companies working with each other. You know, just like JBoss and Microsoft already were doing.
Posted by Matt Asay on February 13, 2007 07:14 AM