5 ms·

The many thousands of ubuntu-server installs are probably eating into RedHat's earnings.

sliverstorm 13y ago
Maybe... but the companies buying support contracts and sending real dollars RedHat's way are going to be mostly the big shops, the enterprise shops, and I've never seen ubuntu-server in an enterprise shop.
- leobelle 13y ago
  What's an enterprise shop? I've worked at a big public company that used ubuntu-server.
  - sixbrx 13y ago
    One that values support from companies like Oracle, is a good first approximation.
    - leobelle 13y ago
      If you define an enterprise shop to mean a company that doesn't use software like ubuntu-server, congratulations, you are right, but you have also made a completely meaningless observation.
      - sixbrx 13y ago
        Well good thing that I didn't define it tautologically like that then. Instead, I suggested - as did your parent comment - that support contracts are very important to "enterprise" shops. That can be considered a defining characteristic in so much as nebulous terms have defining characteristics. And if you don't understand the importance of those support contracts, a lot of their behaviour will appear strange. It's simply a fact that a lot of these companies officially support RedHat, often Suse, sometimes CentOS, but rarely so far for Ubuntu Server. That may change, but Ubuntu is definitely not there yet.
        leobelle 13y ago
        Ok sure, that makes sense, if the qualification is SLAs and the like. I bet RedHat dominates in that case.
        StillBored 13y ago
        Support isn't just about SLA's, its about your vendor actually providing software/drivers/etc for your environment. I think you will find many commercial applications only support recent versions of RHEL, SLES or in some industries Oracle Linux. These products don't ship with source code, and they tend to fail spectacularly when put on machines that don't happen to have the "right" kernel, library and system tools. Frankly, having shipped binary products on linux in the past, it can be a real PITA just maintaining an application over three or four versions of RHEL or SLES (which have a lot more in common with each other than they do with debian based distros). Two random links to prove my point: http://www.3ds.com/support/certified-hardware/simulia-system-information/abaqus-610/system-requirements-for-abaqus-610-products/ http://www.3ds.com/support/certified-hardware/simulia-system... Random hardware link: http://driverdownloads.qlogic.com/QLogicDriverDownloads_UI/DefaultNewSearch.aspx http://driverdownloads.qlogic.com/QLogicDriverDownloads_UI/D...
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    I don't have a formal definition, but in my head "enterprise" is somewhere around the "10,000+ headcount" line. I of course have only worked for a few enterprise shops; my evidence is purely anecdotal, and I know that. An important part of the equation though as to how much this matters to Canonical or RedHat; was this shop you worked in paying for a support contract? (Support contracts are perhaps not a defining feature of "enterprise", but they are a common theme)
    - spikels 13y ago
      Enterprise is where the people who choose the software don't use the software. Software is sold there not bought.
  - abrowne 13y ago
    US Army (2007): “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open source. It may come as a surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is ‘the’ single largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.”[1] [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110521185400/http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/61302 http://web.archive.org/web/20110521185400/http://www.linux.c...
    - rbanffy 13y ago
      Isn't "General Justice" a great name for a superhero?
    - mpyne 13y ago
      U.S. Navy uses Red Hat too, though perhaps not to that same extent as the Army.
    - dfc 13y ago
      Baghdad is cool, I guess, I'd rather go to the space station with Debian: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-international-space-station-laptop-migration.html http://phys.org/news/2013-05-international-space-station-lap...
    - SimHacker 13y ago
      That's because the US Army is still fighting the cold war, and thought it was "Red Hate Linux".
eggnet 13y ago
Probably not much. If ubuntu didn't exist, most of those installations would just be some other free distribution.
raverbashing 13y ago
Depends... do they pay Canonical for support? If yes, then, yes, they're eating into RH earnings Otherwise, it's a battle between Ubuntu Server and CentOS
nl 13y ago
Canonical made around $50m revenue last year (and lost $20m). RedHat made $1.5 billion and was profitable. It's a pretty big difference!
- kazagistar 13y ago
  That does not address the above comment. Just because they aren't getting money for the installs does not mean that ubuntu isn't being used as a replacement for RHEL.
  - nl 13y ago
    It addresses the 'buying support contracts' part.
  - flowless 13y ago
    CentOS and Scientific Linux are used as replacements for RHEL.
piratejon 13y ago
I think your statement is more true of CentOS than Ubuntu. Many Ubuntu server installations choose it because it is free and reputedly easy, and pass up CentOS because it doesn't have a lot of selling points that appeal directly to non-Linux users, nor RHEL because it costs money. Also your comment reminds me of an argument against stealing music on the Internet, lol.

Maybe... but the companies buying support contracts and sending real dollars RedHat's way are going to be mostly the big shops, the enterprise shops, and I've never seen ubuntu-server in an enterprise shop.

leobelle 13y ago
What's an enterprise shop? I've worked at a big public company that used ubuntu-server.
- sixbrx 13y ago
  One that values support from companies like Oracle, is a good first approximation.
  - leobelle 13y ago
    If you define an enterprise shop to mean a company that doesn't use software like ubuntu-server, congratulations, you are right, but you have also made a completely meaningless observation.
    - sixbrx 13y ago
      Well good thing that I didn't define it tautologically like that then. Instead, I suggested - as did your parent comment - that support contracts are very important to "enterprise" shops. That can be considered a defining characteristic in so much as nebulous terms have defining characteristics. And if you don't understand the importance of those support contracts, a lot of their behaviour will appear strange. It's simply a fact that a lot of these companies officially support RedHat, often Suse, sometimes CentOS, but rarely so far for Ubuntu Server. That may change, but Ubuntu is definitely not there yet.
      - leobelle 13y ago
        Ok sure, that makes sense, if the qualification is SLAs and the like. I bet RedHat dominates in that case.
        StillBored 13y ago
        Support isn't just about SLA's, its about your vendor actually providing software/drivers/etc for your environment. I think you will find many commercial applications only support recent versions of RHEL, SLES or in some industries Oracle Linux. These products don't ship with source code, and they tend to fail spectacularly when put on machines that don't happen to have the "right" kernel, library and system tools. Frankly, having shipped binary products on linux in the past, it can be a real PITA just maintaining an application over three or four versions of RHEL or SLES (which have a lot more in common with each other than they do with debian based distros). Two random links to prove my point: http://www.3ds.com/support/certified-hardware/simulia-system-information/abaqus-610/system-requirements-for-abaqus-610-products/ http://www.3ds.com/support/certified-hardware/simulia-system... Random hardware link: http://driverdownloads.qlogic.com/QLogicDriverDownloads_UI/DefaultNewSearch.aspx http://driverdownloads.qlogic.com/QLogicDriverDownloads_UI/D...
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  I don't have a formal definition, but in my head "enterprise" is somewhere around the "10,000+ headcount" line. I of course have only worked for a few enterprise shops; my evidence is purely anecdotal, and I know that. An important part of the equation though as to how much this matters to Canonical or RedHat; was this shop you worked in paying for a support contract? (Support contracts are perhaps not a defining feature of "enterprise", but they are a common theme)
  - spikels 13y ago
    Enterprise is where the people who choose the software don't use the software. Software is sold there not bought.
- abrowne 13y ago
  US Army (2007): “When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open source. It may come as a surprise to many of you, but the U.S. Army is ‘the’ single largest install base for Red Hat Linux. I'm their largest customer.”[1] [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20110521185400/http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/61302 http://web.archive.org/web/20110521185400/http://www.linux.c...
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    Isn't "General Justice" a great name for a superhero?
  - mpyne 13y ago
    U.S. Navy uses Red Hat too, though perhaps not to that same extent as the Army.
  - dfc 13y ago
    Baghdad is cool, I guess, I'd rather go to the space station with Debian: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-international-space-station-laptop-migration.html http://phys.org/news/2013-05-international-space-station-lap...
  - SimHacker 13y ago
    That's because the US Army is still fighting the cold war, and thought it was "Red Hate Linux".

eggnet 13y ago

Probably not much. If ubuntu didn't exist, most of those installations would just be some other free distribution.

raverbashing 13y ago

Depends... do they pay Canonical for support? If yes, then, yes, they're eating into RH earnings Otherwise, it's a battle between Ubuntu Server and CentOS

nl 13y ago

Canonical made around $50m revenue last year (and lost $20m). RedHat made $1.5 billion and was profitable. It's a pretty big difference!

kazagistar 13y ago
That does not address the above comment. Just because they aren't getting money for the installs does not mean that ubuntu isn't being used as a replacement for RHEL.
- nl 13y ago
  It addresses the 'buying support contracts' part.
- flowless 13y ago
  CentOS and Scientific Linux are used as replacements for RHEL.

piratejon 13y ago

I think your statement is more true of CentOS than Ubuntu. Many Ubuntu server installations choose it because it is free and reputedly easy, and pass up CentOS because it doesn't have a lot of selling points that appeal directly to non-Linux users, nor RHEL because it costs money. Also your comment reminds me of an argument against stealing music on the Internet, lol.