Go RedHat!

Those who say you cannot make money from FLOSS are ignoring RedHat which exceeded expectations handsomely. Investors are loving them.

While M$’s fans here are saying M$ is in control of the market, RedHat keeps expanding, being well over $1billion while selling service for a free OS (free as in freedom and beer). Businesses like the fact that someone is taking care of their software, they want to use GNU/Linux and RedHat is doing well. 28% growth rate is handsome.

“Total revenue for the quarter was $281.3 million, an increase of 28% from the year ago quarter. Subscription revenue for the quarter was $238.3 million, up 28% year-over-year.”

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Go RedHat!

  1. oiaohm says:

    I did not say what model communism.

    I should have be more correct corrupt communism. Most communism does not have free and fair ways of people rising up threw the ranks. Not even Marx define of communism.

    Capitalism comes in many forms. Marx define of Capitalism is the same as corrupt communism and corrupt Capitalism. Power focused on small entries with no means to compete and if you attempt to compete you will be destroyed.

    bazaar style Capitalism that open source pushes with healthy competition is about democracy.

    All the Marxism-Leninism and other communisms go away from democracy by killing there competition.

    Yes there is a reason why the corrupt Capitalism that does not believe in a fair go for all fails.

    In fact “Capitalism is the LAST stage BEFORE communism.” Is one key point.

    But the key point of all is.
    “The logical conclusion is the revolution of the proletariat. No more class society, no more private property, technological progress for the sake of all.”

    Read this very careful. What is the goal of a corrupt Capitalism. Destruction of all competition with themselves the only thing left.

    Effectively Marx communism is the most extream form of corrupt Capitalism. Where the government becomes the last entity standing with all the power. So Marx solution was make the most extream form of corrupt Capitalism so of course is was going to fail.

    Basically D-G your a idiot if you think majorally corrupt Capitalism and Communism are different in any major way. Only difference is that one is a government has all the power and one is a private company has all the power. Drug lords putting people in government in particular countries even that the country was a democracy yes this is corrupt Capitalism at the extrema end.

    End result for the people at the bottom is exactly the same no power no freedom.

    Remember a fair go for all is a key point of democracy, open source and bazaar model Capitalism.

    Also read my words. “Really Microsoft is more communism” I never said MS was communism. I say Microsoft was more communism than redhat. So meaning more in the form of corrupt Capitalism right up to directly controlling governments. Yes Microsoft is the type of companies that lead countries to communism. Companies Marx attempt to go against by coping them so leading to failed countries.

    Due to the fact Microsoft is the type of company that leads countries to communism we should not particularly like that type of company.

    D-G really I did explain the link between Democracy and Open-source. Its the freedom to choose your path. The freedom to vote with your actions.

    Freedom is the most important think in this world. That power does not end up forced on a limited set of people with no means to compete against them.

    Open source model of commercial business is the best we have got. Something that did not exist in any volume and Marx was trying to find a solution to the problem corrupt Capitalism.

    Yes its a common mistake to say Open Source and communism are related. Sharing of wealth is not just a trait of communism is a trait of a healthy bazaar. Bazaar have operated for centenaries without major problems. Yes we found the model that worked long ago and were too stupid to see it.

  2. D-G says:

    “I can read. Can you?”

    You obviously haven’t looked at the presentation. I told you where to find it. There’s a big, fat diagram in it that even you should be able to understand.

    Also: if you think that Red Hat can survive on their OS alone, then why have they bought JBoss in the first place?

    Red Hat expects that very nearly HALF of market will be NOT OS-related in 2013. And this number will without a doubt grow. To put it another way, since you love percentages so much: from 2005 to 2013, Red Hat expects 50% growth for OS, while Middleware, Virtualization, and Cloud grow infinitely since they started from 0%.

    Again: has Red Hat bought JBoss to ignore this expanding market?

    But do keep playing dumb. Pog. It suits you.

  3. D-G says:

    “Really Microsoft is more communism than Redhat and open source.”

    What the hell are you talking about? Do you have any idea what communism is? I don’t think so. Microsoft is communist? How so? If you viewed this whole situation like Marx did, then Microsoft is a capitalist, and nothing else.

    I will enlighten you what Marx actually said:

    – Capitalism is the LAST stage BEFORE communism. Communism is Marx’s achievable utopia.
    – Capitalism means the exploitation of humans by humans.
    – In Capitalism a relatively small group of capitalists (as compared to the whole society) is able to gather ALL private property, backed by a state supporting these capitalists. A great part of the population is left without property. Thus they are forced to sell the only thing they’ve left: their ability to work.
    – Capitalists cannot but grow.
    – It follows that a) capitalists try to get rid of their competitors, and b) the market for the products of capitalists is continually shrinking due to the continued impoverishment of great parts of the population.
    – The logical conclusion is the revolution of the proletariat. No more class society, no more private property, technological progress for the sake of all.

    Now you tell me where Microsoft is a communist.

    Also: Marx’s concept of communism as laid down in his works is, despite it being a rather thoughtful analysis, a utopian fairytale. Marxism-Leninism has failed, Stalinism as the most perverse form of communism has failed, Maoism has failed. Communism is alive in North Korea and Cuba where its people suffer for it. China is a communist state in appearance only, when it’s really much closer to capitalism. You can even discover aspects of feudalism in it.

    I don’t really believe in the “End of History” thesis Franci Fukuyama has put forward, essentially saying that capitalism is the best we’ve got and there will be nothing else. But capitalism is alive and well. And communism is not.

    Anyway, I’m not surprised that open source fanatics so often speak about communism despite having no clue.

    “Open source you are free to vote with your feet. Open Source everyone is free to attempt to step up and take any leadership position of course may not succeed in getting the vote of the people. Open Source is Democracy.”

    Yeah, sure, whatever. Another moronic statement without any kind of explanation. How exactly is open source democracy? Care to explain that? Or should we simply swallow it whole?

  4. I can read. Can you?

    “Subscription revenue increased 25.9% or $46.5 million, driven primarily by additional subscriptions related to our principal RHEL technologies, which continue to gain broader market acceptance in mission-critical areas of computing, and our expansion of sales channels and geographic footprint.”

    From RedHat.com at http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/. There’s a lot of “principal RHEL technologies” and it’s not middleware. See, it’s right there above, bold, and green to help you find it.

  5. D-G says:

    “D-G lied when he wrote of RedHat …”

    That’s BS, Pog. Learn to read. Do you understand the meaning of “to thrive” and “growth”? Red Hat’s own projections show Middleware, Virtualization and Cloud as the NEW growth factors. Not the operating system. (I’m not saying the operating system will not generate revenue anymore, I’m saying Red Hat’s other offerings will generate more revenue much, much faster.)

    Find the relevant presentation here:

    http://investors.redhat.com/events.cfm

    Look for “Baird’s 2011 Growth Stock Conference” from May 10, 2011.

  6. This month is more than July but less than August. We might have peaked but I doubt it.

  7. oiaohm says:

    “Which explains the vast number of developers working on removing Pulse Audio.”

    Really Ivan you are full of it. There are a lot of different parties resisting what Pulseaudio is doing.

    Upcoming Alsa include sysdefault. Guess what this is.

    A Alsa configuration setting that Pulseaudio cannot alter or otherwise tamper with. That for cards without mixing points to dmix. Now there is a nightmare here. Results of sysdefault could be that Pulseaudio gets cut off from audio feed because an application started before it so now forced to use dmix.

    I see conflict very soon between Alsa and Pulseaudio.

    Just because you are not in the right places to see the vast number of developers lining up to mug Pulseaudio from under it does not mean I am not.

    Democracy does not always run smooth. Rogues get away with trouble for a while before the force of the people catch up with them. Yes the force of the people from the Alsa side is starting to catch up with pulseaudio.

  8. Ivan says:

    “Open Source is Democracy.”

    Which explains the vast number of developers working on removing Pulse Audio.

    You are full of it, Pete.

  9. Mr Quibbles says:

    Ohio Ham said (before taking his meds):

    Really Microsoft is more communism than Redhat and open source.

    So Pogson, do you ever consider the possibility that potential employers have looked on your site and seen the types of stupidity that you seem to encourage here?

    Also notice that most of your visitors are posting even less now due to Ohio Ham’s incoherent mumblings and your obsessive and irrational hatred towards Microsoft. I give this blog another 6 months before it’s just you and Ohio Ham.

    Your blog is dying even faster than FLOSS is.

  10. oiaohm says:

    oldman you like that old eastern block saying.

    There is reason why open source development supports the put money in trust model with the money released when feature is done. Yes even redhat and others will work by this model.

    “They pretend to pay us…

    And we pretend to work.”

    Redhat and other open source supporting companies get paid. So its not pretend to pay us.

    To be correct Microsoft is.

    We get paid and we pretend to work.

    Because we have no motivation to work because we will be paid either way. Yes the very reason for the down fall of Russia. Eastern block is a very good example of what is wrong with Microsoft.

    Really what is the eastern block saying why communism failed. Really Microsoft is more communism than Redhat and open source. Open source you are free to vote with your feet. Open Source everyone is free to attempt to step up and take any leadership position of course may not succeed in getting the vote of the people. Open Source is Democracy.

    Serous-ally Redhat is forced to keep on investing money to meet there customers requests.

  11. oldman says:

    “You get paid in advance to develop features end user is an requirement with open source if you expect to be paid for it.”

    They pretend to pay us…

    And we pretend to work.

    (old eastern bloc saying.)

  12. Novell had painted themselves into a corner. The legacy stuff was too large a component to simply drop but it was shrinking rapidly. No matter what they did with it the shareholders would take a hit. I would have deprecated the legacy stuff and promoted GNU/Linux heavily. That was a risk Novell did not seem to want to take. They preferred the certainty of the sell-off. Suse lives on, however.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian. Novell was historically a closed source company. Who was stuck to closed source ways of doing things who though they could solve there problems by acquiring open source without changing there internal management systems for open source projects to be compatible.

    Really its a shame that the SUSE board of directors was lowed to internal management when Novell took over. The take over by attachmate the first thing they did was get rid of the large section of Novell board and premote the ex SUSE board that was still in Novell as managers for SUSE section of Novell up to the board with full board powers.

    Really they had the board of directors they required the complete time Contrarian just they were not given the power required to prevent Novell disaster.

    Also Novell board was not getting the most critical idea about Open source. You get paid in advance to develop features end user is an requirement with open source if you expect to be paid for it.

    This is inverse to closed source model where you develop and expect to be paid after the fact.

    Apply closed source model to open source you have screwed self so bad. Now apply open source model to closed source you are still ok.

    Simple fact to people like me and Robert Pogson lot of what Novell did was complete bonkers Contrarian. This is why they got into trouble. Of course complete bonkers to anyone who knows how open source development for profit is meant to happen.

    Paying to develop mono while not being paid by anyone to develop it was kinda insane. Developing a music player from nothing while not being paid by a customer again insane move when you are releasing it open source. Long list of insane expensive moves Novell that killed them was very much death by 1000 cuts of stupidity. Creating more and more non profitable dead wood. Sucking up more and more funds until Novell could not support itself.

    Novell master the art of how to waste money trying to make presence in open source world.

    Yes the waste makes what Google spending on android look like sanity.

    Novell is a very sad story that has been repeated many times. This is why firms like attachmate exist it ride in as Corporate raiders to fix up disasters like this.

    Good movie to watch is Danny DeVito, Other People’s Money. Most of these Corporate raiders are not evil they take on companies that are under performing normally due to miss management find what the management should have been doing and do it.

    This is why SUSE will be back bigger and stronger. So will sections of Novell. Dead wood will be killed incorrect management processes will be killed. Result will be a functional company. A company that might give Redhat a run for its money. This is a good thing.

    Last thing I want to see is SUSE completely dead. It would not be healthy for Redhat to lack decent competition.(Microsoft and Oracle are not decent competition for redhat neither are other open source distributions)

    Hopefully others learn from Novell mistakes.

  14. D-G lied when he wrote of RedHat, “Their growth is primarily happening by means of their JBoss Middleware. There’s NO company which can sustain itself by only offering commercial support for a free OS.”

    “For the three months ended May 31, 2011, total revenue increased 26.6% or $55.6 million to $264.7 million from $209.1 million for the three months ended May 31, 2010. Subscription revenue increased 25.9% or $46.5 million, driven primarily by additional subscriptions related to our principal RHEL technologies, which continue to gain broader market acceptance in mission-critical areas of computing, and our expansion of sales channels and geographic footprint. The increase is, in part, a result of the continued migration of enterprises in industries such as financial services, government, technology and telecommunications to our open source solutions from proprietary technologies. Training and services revenue increased 30.4% or $9.1 million for the three months ended May 31, 2011 as compared to the three months ended May 31, 2010. The increase is driven primarily by customer interest in new products and technologies and an improving economic environment in which enterprises are increasing discretionary spending in areas such as IT training and consulting.

    Subscriptions. Our enterprise technologies are sold under subscription agreements. These agreements typically have a one- or three-year subscription period. The subscription entitles the end user to maintenance, which generally consists of a specified level of support, as well as security updates, bug fixes, functionality enhancements and upgrades to the technology, when and if available, during the term of the subscription. Our customers have the ability to purchase higher levels of subscriptions that increase the level of support the customer is entitled to receive. Subscription revenue increased for the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and sequentially for each quarter of fiscal 2011, 2010 and 2009 and is being driven primarily by the increased market acceptance and use of open source software by the enterprise and our expansion of sales channels and geographic footprint during these periods.”

    Also, according to Datamation, “In terms of where the money is coming from, Peters noted that during the first quarter Red Hat we had 14 deals over $1 million or greater, including one deal in excess of $5 million. He add that within the top 30, approximately 40 percent included a middleware component, with 5 being standalone middleware deals.

    “I think you can probably tell by the overall numbers that RHEL [Red Hat Enterprise Linux] was strong since it’s a really very large portion of the total business,” Peters said. “Having said that, JBoss also performed quite well. They represented 40 percent of the top 30 deals. So it was really hitting on all cylinders.””

  15. oiaohm says:

    Biggest thing I have to remember windows machine don’t just rip harddrive out and connect to new motherboard to upgrade hardware.

    I have got to use to Linux high tolerance to common sense upgrade system.

  16. Contrarian says:

    “Novell made a lot of money on Suse. It was the old Novell stuff that was an anchor”

    And Noverll was too stupid to see this? They sold the company for its parts value because they couldn’t do the kind of arithmtic that you say applies? #oiaohm seems to have a similar theory. It is a shame for Novell employees and stockholders that you two were not on their board of directors when it came time to make the hard decisions.

  17. It’s all about the application. Drupal is used to make first-rate web applications.

    FLOSS is chosen in many places in IT. Those installations/adoptions/migrations are wins for FLOSS and there are many. Ask M$ if those are not wins.

    The desktop is only one application of GNU/Linux. To the best of my knowledge there is no reason GNU/Linux cannot be successful in every way on the desktop. I have seen it succeed many times in education. It has succeeded in business and non-profits.

    Definitely, the larger the community using GNU/Linux, the better will be the GNU/Linux desktop. For example, in my own house, my wife is now finding fault with GNU/Linux because it does some things that that other OS does not do that she wants tweaked. She has moved on from that other OS which pigeon-holed her into Bill Gates’ vision of IT. Her latest demand? She wants to move from her office to the dining room table and, wirelessly, see the same desktop session on a 20 inch monitor she saw in her office. I can do that trivially in GNU/Linux but the wireless makes it a bit jerky. I will have to run a cable or upgrade the wireless… In her mind, GNU/Linux is above and beyond anything that other OS gave her and the needed/wanted improvement to the desktop is merely configuring it the way she wants.

  18. oiaohm says:

    D-G That was only one document. If you look deeper. You find J&J linked to particular features in alfresco and many other open source projects. Projects they are in fact depending on for there operations. One of there biggest savings has come from there development of business process management software.

    Of course D-G most open source people are Capitalists not ideologists. J&J uses open source because they can add the features they need when they need them so there business is more profitable. Its costly waiting for MS to serve up a feature you need. Sometimes more costly than the price of implementing it yourself from the time waiting.

    Still D-G start doing you homework. What J&J have been doing in the open source world and wake up your joke was really in bad taste. Most companies are developing project in the open source world because its helping there bottom line.

    Sorry to say you are right on J&J and Redhat they are not user interface focused heavy. Some Redhat growth will help desktop. But over all its a no-op compared to other players.

    For desktop the parties of Interest are the direct supporters of KDE http://ev.kde.org/supporting-members.php Notice Google presence. Kinda out of place right?

    This is the thing the best thing for the desktop of Linux has been the growth of android. Since internal graphical stack errors have at long last had to be faced up to and be fixed.

    RedHat has always sold developer time to fix things along side the OS. So as SUSE.

    Mandriva just tried licensing support not selling people the means to make there own internal custom software ie developer time. Yes how to screw the open source model up.

    IBM and HP also provide services to help customers make there required internal software.

    Basically there is a very well defined model to be a profitable Linux distribution. Oracle also is following this method and is not doing too bad. Developer time sales side is more profitable than Oracles OS sales. Basically that is normal.

    Ubuntu Ok I really don’t know the exact model they are trying to make work but it sure does not look like the tried and tested RedHat, SUSE, Oracle, IBM and HP model for profiting from Linux.

    In fact no Redhat is not the accept-ion to the rule there are a lot of open source companies that follow a very relegated model to redhat. Sell developer time as well as support. It what you do if you want to be profitable using a known model.

    Google model is more just scorched earth.

    Most of the successful open source projects have some way of selling developer time or companies requiring the developers so paying developers.

    D-G there is a model its a repeated model. Redhat and SUSE were the two largest of the model before SUSE got acquire by Novell. SUSE operations since attachmate take over of Novell are returning to the model they had before Novell.

    So sorry no Redhat is not a lone example. SUSE and Redhat are both successful examples of the model.

    Other successful examples include codeweavers supporting wine. The company behind Drupal and many other projects. Kolab and many others.

    The model is simple to follow and it works. Don’t sell the software sell the support and the developers. Requirement for it work you must sell both. So you are selling support for the programs you developed for the consumer as well.

    Liveable is just selling developer time.

    Not liveable as mandrivia found out is just selling support alone.

    Yes history learn to study it completely D-G do you are not making a fool out of yourself pulling up examples of what way you should not do things.

    You should be comparing what Mandrivia did compare to Redhat and Suse to work out what the key to success is. The key is surprisingly simple.

  19. D-G says:

    “http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9981697-16.html Yes they have been employing open source developers directly over the last 10 years.”

    You’re killing me! I’m rolling on the floor laughing. You cite a “report” by Matt Asay (yes, the guy who became Canonical’s COO in 2/2010 and left 12/2010, meaning that he’s no *that* dumb as his writing suggests) from 2008 informing us that J&J has an opening for a Drupal developer. And that’s proof that open source has arrived? No, it’s proof that J&J apparently uses Drupal. And why shouldn’t they? It’s a tool. And if it gets the job done, so be it.

    They are capitalists, not ideologists like you. And I still can’t figure out the ludicrous thinking behind all this, when you people tell that open source/F(L)OSS/Linux/whatever has “won”, because some company is using it. Well, gee, my Western Digital TV Live also uses Linux as a base. Has this improved the Linux Desktop? No. Not one bit. And neither J&J’s hiring of Drupal developers nor Red Hat’s growth will improve the Linux Desktop. Or anything else related to the user.

  20. D-G says:

    “Why do you want to put limits on people? RedHat makes money on all the services it provides.”

    That would be because you claim that Red Had makes its money by selling services for their OS. That’s false. Their growth is primarily happening by means of their JBoss Middleware. There’s NO company which can sustain itself by only offering commercial support for a free OS. And Red Hat isn’t as naive as you to believe that fairy tail. Hints:

    – Red Hat stopped providing individual patches for their Enterprise Linux releases in order to make it harder for competitors like Oracle (a company offering a Linux based on Red Hat and services for their own OS and Red Hat, and also offering their own take on Linux).

    – The free Red Hat Enterprise Linux clones Scientific Linux and CentOS have considerably more market share than Red Hat itself, making it pretty unlikely that growth can happen by means of purely selling OS services. For many companies it’s just much cheaper to hire a well-versed Linux systems administrator than to buy a Red Hat subscription.

    Red Hat at least possesses some kind of sense, expanding into other areas because they know that relying exclusively on selling OS services won’t do them any good.

    But do show us the other successful pure Linux vendors, Pog. I’m somewhat at a loss where to find them. The last company that tried to sustain itself by exclusively concentrating on the Linux operating system was Mandriva. And they’re dead in the water.

    Therefore I can see two things:

    1.) Red Hat is a capitalist much smarter than the usual Linux ideologists.

    2.) Red Hat is merely an exception to the rule.

  21. Novell made a lot of money on Suse. It was the old Novell stuff that was an anchor.

    There are a lot of successful private companies doing GNU/Linux and a few public ones you ignore. IBM is having huge success with GNU/Linux. They have thousands of customers engaging them for GNU/Linux expertise.
    ● Linux is supported on all modern IBM Systems.
    ● Over 500 IBM software products run natively on Linux
    ● IBM offers a full line of implementation, support, and
    migration services and has facilitated thousands of migrations to Linux.
    ● IBM has completed tens of thousands of Linux customer
    engagements.
    ● IBM offers the widest range of hardware, middleware, and
    services products for Linux in the industry.

  22. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian You love earning reports so much. Go read Novell.

    The Linux support division of SUSE was always making a profit. Massive profit. Even before SUSE was acquire by Novell it was making profit year after year.

    Problem here was the closed source parts and mono of Novell was costing them more than what SUSE was bring in.

    By the way SUSE is not defunct they are now part of the attachmate group. Who specialist in taken companies miss managed like Novell was trimming away the dead wood and releasing them back as public companies. Attachmate is basically bringing SUSE vs redhat back.

    So Redhat is not the only success public Linux Company. SUSE has been a successful public Linux Company and will be again after the dead wood from Novell closed source projects are removed from it. Project that did not sell we and were costing Novell more than what they were worth.

    This is clearly in the Novell balance sheets.

    Novell blew there own feet off. This is not Linux fault. If you want to keep on paying the full support costs on software that is not selling and not making you a profit you are very much a idiot. This is exactly what Novell managers did.

    Novell could have saved themselves any time in the 7 years leading up to take over. Infact SUSE could have serviced the debts if Novell had shut all the other divisions that were non profitable.

    So how is this not successful.

  23. Contrarian says:

    “Redhat is dwarfed by SUSE in the super computer world”

    And SUSE was so successful that Novell had to sell all its parts to pay its creditors and went out of business. You are as stupid as they come, #oiaohm. You invent silly story after silly story and none of them are true.

    Red Hat is the ONLY successful public Linux company, #oiaohm. All the others are now defunct.

  24. oiaohm says:

    Ivan your joke is about to backfire. Problem is its not a joke it is fact.

    Johnson & Johnson in there research departments in fact use a lot of FLOSS software.

    So you statement is 100 percent true both ways.

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9981697-16.html Yes they have been employing open source developers directly over the last 10 years.

    In fact all Johnson & Johnson internal operations depend on FLOSS.

    Next time learn to do you jokes better or don’t try.

  25. Ivan says:

    Redhat’s income is selling security updates, however, Johnson & Johnson makes more money from floss: http://www.investor.jnj.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=592473

    If you don’t like the joke, stop using the acronym.

  26. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian Redhat is small in Linux world as well. Redhat is dwarfed by SUSE in the super computer world. And SUSE is dwarfed by all the self supporting Linux. You move to web space Redhat beats Suse but the self supporting still is the most dominate Linux. Mind you the self supporting is bit of a miss interpret of the numbers. Reason companies paying support companies like IBM or HP for Support not bonded Linux distribution show up as self supporting. So section of the Linux supported end users is cloaked.

    “To make twice as much money, you have to have twice as much staff to sell and twice as much space to house them within and so on.”

    Yes Contrarian this is exactly why I like Linux. Your payments turn into staff. Where payments to Microsoft turn into payments to share holders.

    “Microsoft has done even better in that they have the OEM make the copies and do the first level support in exchange for a lower license fee. MS can get it down to almost no effort at all in terms of fulfillment costs.”

    Yep less staff less reporting of problems less fixing. Most OEM don’t provide very much in the way of first level support unless you pay for it. So yes cheaper license to customer less support over all is the OEM way of Microsoft. The box sets of Windows these days have the same support level as the OEM versions when you read the fine print.

    Microsoft is greed basically.

    Redhat is not the only public company selling Linux support. Redhat is the only public company selling support that is not a hardware maker. There were three that were listed.

    Wind River that is Intel sells support on Linux to the embedded market. Wind River was a listed company at one point before being aquired by intel.

    SUSE/Novell also was a Listed company before being aquired.

    IBM and HP sells technical support contracts that covers many different forms of Linux.

    Oracle also sells Linux support contracts.

    Yes running Scientific Linux or debian and the customer wants outside support HP and IBM are options.

    Basically 5 listed companies that you can choose to buy Linux support from that I can list off top of head. 4 are hardware makers.

    There are others than the 4 hardware makers I listed that are also hardware makers who do provide Linux support issue is those I don’t know what ones are stock exchange listed.

    So yes just like Microsoft and OEM the OEM do sell Linux support.

    In number of customers in support for Linux IBM and HP has more than Redhat. Yes a 1 billion dollar company is truly a small fish in the Linux world. So of course it should appear to be a small fish when compared to the broader world.

    Redhat is in a very highly competitive market. This is why it making 1 billion dollars is such a big thing. Particularly when they don’t see hardware.

    Redhat leading supplier is basically a myth. IBM and HP are the leading suppliers and support contract providers of Linux. They just happen to supply Redhat as a option to end users as well as many other Linux options if asked.

    Dell has never really matured there Linux side offerings.

  27. Contrarian says:

    “RedHat makes money on all the services it provides.”

    One thing is fairly certain, though, Red Hat is essentially selling services which is just selling engineering by the pound and that does not scale well. To make twice as much money, you have to have twice as much staff to sell and twice as much space to house them within and so on. With licensing, all you have to do is dash off another agreement and give someone a copy of the software to use. After all these years of being the leading supplier of Linux in the server world, Red Hat is just a tiny fraction of the size of Microsoft and a very small potatoe in the limited server business overall.

    Microsoft has done even better in that they have the OEM make the copies and do the first level support in exchange for a lower license fee. MS can get it down to almost no effort at all in terms of fulfillment costs.

  28. Why do you want to put limits on people? RedHat makes money on all the services it provides.

  29. Ray says:

    There’s also Oracle.

  30. D-G says:

    Red Hat thrives on Middleware these days, Pog. Middleware they’ve bought.

    Do you know any more companies that actually are able to gain a bit of money with selling support for F(L)OSS operating systems exclusively?

  31. Contrarian says:

    Well, sure, #pogson, Red Hat is the only public company left selling services for Linux now that Novell has taken the pipe. Red Hat capitalizes on the unix customers who refuse to pay the sort of prices that IBM and Sun once demanded for unix computers. Linux is a clone of unix and can adequately perform most of the routine things that unix shops need with the same essential administration techniques. So why not save the shekels?

    Red Hat long ago abandoned any commercial activity for the desktop, you may have noticed. They fully understand that desktop Linux is a lost cause.

Leave a Reply