SuSe and Compaq

Don Flynn djf2@danu.ili.net
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 19:32:57 -0500 (EST)


On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Marcel Kunath wrote:

> 
> I like SuSE's distro but heck its not producing much in revenue. I sure hope
> for the sake of the main players that all the little ones die out because they
> are diverting investor money from the ones that have the highest chance to
> survive. In my mind it is time for IBM to buy RedHat, Compaq to buy SuSE,
> Caldera to get into bed with Sun or something.

     The fact that making a distribution isn't like having a liscence to
print money isn't lost on the "main players".  I don't even think Red Hat
had sales from their distrition as the main revenue generator when they
filed for their IPO.  I guess a downturn in the stock market all of a
sudden registers that as 'news'.  Its tough being a new company, but
I think they'll all eventually make it on their own.  They'll have some
growing pains, but better that than have IBM, Compaq, or someone else
mismanage their product and run it into the ground.
  
     One of the main reasons why these distributions have any success
right now is that they're vendor neutral and not goverened by the politics
inside these larger companies.  Do you think its a good idea for a RedHat
division owned and operated by IBM to compete with the OS/400, OS/390, and
AIX for IBM's resources?  Would you, as an executive, pour more resources
into something without a truly proven track record and a negative revenue
or something that has proven itself and making money? Could you justify
taking resources away from the OS/400 groups while they're doing well and
have a potential for increased revenue?  Compaq would face a similar
situation - VMS and Tru64 still make a whole lot of money for Compaq.  No
Linux distribution would survive long in that kind of situation without
being marginalized and pushed out of the way.  Redhat, Caldera, and Suse
all benefit from having a fairly narrow focus for where their limited
resources go.  I don't think its time for any of them to hit the panic
button yet.

> 
> funding. No funding no distro. I lost a lot of money personally but I am not
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     This is a pretty common fallacy.  This is what is concerning most
people that are interested in the success of Linux (or even free software)
as a whole.  I've heard a whole bunch of people say "If
Redhat/Suse/Caldera/Turbo go down Linux will fail because those
distributions will disappear!"  True, if one of those companies died, I'd
have trouble finding a new distro, but I could still easily get the old
ones.  Would it be that hard for me to continue supporting
it in the way I do now?  Would it be even harder for me to continue
development on it? Wasn't that kind of the point of the GPL? Linux ain't
gonna go away just because some distro maintainer has to close its doors.

     Maybe misunderstanding the role of commercial distributions is what's
causing people to really worry about this.  I never saw these vendors as
the sole proprietors of Linux.  I only saw them as a way to creatively
fund development and make some cash on the side.  But, that development
happened before Suse/RedHat/Caldera and believe it or not, it'll happen
after them too.  There are plenty of free software projects that are
surviving without a commercial vendor behind them.
     

--
"Is that sound you're hearing the trumpeting of St. Peter's angels
 or the screams of Memnoch's tortured souls?"
Don Flynn        djf2@ili.net                   Sayge@IRC