Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sun's COO Pretends Linux Belongs To Red Hat

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the well-kinda-anyway dept.

Sun Microsystems 391

An anonymous reader writes "Ever mindful of minting phrases likely to spread virally through the Net, reports JDJ, Jonathan Schwartz's blogging gifts were used Friday to assert that "it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux." The article comes up with a new angle on one of the most-talked about members of the tech-exec digerati, saying of Schwartz: "He's the Winston Churchill of technology - he mobilizes the English language at least once a week, and sends it into battle against Sun's rivals." But Churchill would never have tried to pull a fast one by disingenuously describing Linux as "Red Hat's Linux" - the community will upbraid him, for certain. Churchill Schmurchill, Schwartz is a technology mischief-maker not a technology statesmen."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could be worse... (4, Funny)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017141)

At least he doesn't claim it's Sun's Linux.

SCO's? (5, Funny)

Zentac (804805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017175)

or for that mather SCO's

Re:SCO's? (1)

juhanio (770843) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017241)

Yes, it belongs to SCO! Latest investigations show that very clearly

Re:Could be worse... (1)

bladerunner81 (837736) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017194)

more and more i come to think i might just be an undiscovered legasthenic... in this statement he certanly missed "patched version of" right after "red hat's".

Re:Could be worse... (1)

broyles (838024) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017196)

or SCOs for that matter :P

Wazzamatter ? Post 1 is on topic! (4, Interesting)

ehack (115197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017250)

Anyway, I think the comment applies to servers. With IBM selling its PC division, the company will be heavily committed to Unix-likes for survival - M$ may be the 300 pound gorilla, Sun sees itself as a raptor, but IBM is a tyranosaurus - no speed but lots of weight and sizable claws. It's a dangerous mistake to count out the animal that is too big to see :)

Re:Wazzamatter ? Post 1 is on topic! (0, Redundant)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017310)

I apologise for the on-topicity of my post. I will endeavour to ensure that I only post on-topic material to old stories.

I realise that my actions have harmed the interests of thousands of trolls, astroturfers and karma-whores; and I am truly sorry.

I won't let it happen again.

Phil

Re:Wazzamatter ? Post 1 is on topic! (0)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017381)

You're fired.

Re:Could be worse... (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017364)

At least he doesn't claim it's Sun's Linux.

But he did. [slashdot.org]

Re:Could be worse... (2, Interesting)

EvilAlien (133134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017397)

I'll one-up that... at least he doesn't claim its SCO's Linux.

Unfortunately, Sun has the ear of lots of the UNIX community in the corporate realm, including the PHBs and admins who still think Linux is a toy. There are, unfortunately, a lot of them with their heads in the sand. That is why I run Linux on my U5 at the office... and remind them of how fast and stable it is fairly often ;)

Re:Could be worse... (2, Insightful)

inflex (123318) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017425)

But linux is a toy... relative to the big Sun iron boxes.

Seriously, Linux is useful for things but it's still quite young and toyish, especially when compared to the likes of OpenVMS, Tru64 *sigh* and yes, even Solaris.

Division? (1)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017144)

Thosed that are divided with be conquered?

They should play pretty until they knock off more of the Microsoft market.

Dumb!

Re:Division? (1)

BoldAC (735721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017164)

Thosed that are divided with be conquered?

...will be conquered?

Sorry, coffee is not kicking in yet.

Stupid (5, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017146)

Didn't RTFA, but when referring to the various Linux-based operating systems, it's not uncommon to refer to them as "Red Hat's Linux" or "Slackware Linux", etc.

It's just a convenient way of specifying a particular operating system with certain conventions and features. Maybe if you spent a little less time reading blogs and submitting stories to Slashdot and a little more time doing... oh... I don't know... something with Linux... you'd know that.

Re:Stupid (-1, Flamebait)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017167)

If he had said "Red Hat Linux" that might be a legit argument. But since he didn't it's obvious that he is trying to marginalize Linux down to just Red Hat.

Saying "Slackware's Linux" would be the same as saying "Red Hat's Linux", both of which would be wrong. But thanks for playing, asshat.

Re:Stupid (1, Insightful)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017255)

Yes, except this is an "OS War" not a company war. If you were doing a tech write-up you'd have to deal with a specific distro. By saying it's between Microsoft's Windows, Sun's Solaris (ha!), and Red Hat's Linux, it is saying it deals with only Redhat, not Linux as a whole. The war is not between MS, Sun, and Red Hat. It is between MS, Sun, Apple, and the OOS movement, with each of them teaming up once in a while.

Also, I would make the argument that "Red Hat" is not as well known as "Linux" noawadays, so appending "Red Hat's" to it is worthless.

Re:Stupid (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017396)


you might remember also that Linux is not an OS.

Re:Stupid (2, Insightful)

the_mad_poster (640772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017413)

Linux is not an operating system, it's the kernel on which multiple operating systems are built.

Since Red Hat is the most prominent Linux-based operating system, it is, in fact, perfectly legitimate to compare "Red Hat's Operating System" to "Microsoft's Operating System" and "Sun's Operating System".

Comparing "Linux" to "Windows" would not make sense since "Linux" is a kernel and "Windows" is an operating system. That's like saying "The Chevy 454 Engine is better than the Dodge Charger". It doesn't make sense to compare a base component to an entire finished product.

Re:Stupid (1)

bradleyland (798918) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017313)

I'm completely clueless here, but would he be correct in stating the Red Hat's Linux is the biggest contender amongst distributions? If it is not, where did he get the idea, and why would he choose to anoint Red Hat over any other distro?

Re:Stupid (1)

Shaper_pmp (825142) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017370)

Wait one second. Are you actually upbraiding CmdrTaco for taking a (possible, merely inferred) shortcut, when in the paragraph above you admit you can't even be arsed to RTFA before commenting?

You, sir, are either an amateurish troll or a world-class prat.

Re:Stupid (1, Insightful)

dont_think_twice (731805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017393)

Maybe if you spent a little less time reading blogs and submitting stories to Slashdot and a little more time doing... oh... I don't know... something with Linux... you'd know that.

I don't think a person named "The Mad Poster" has the right to tell people they spend too much time on slashdot.

he's right though (-1, Troll)

tblake (138260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017153)

In general, I think when it comes to linux, 90% of people(not linux users, PEOPLE) equate it with redhat. So when he says redhat's linux, I beleive he's absolutely correct.

Re:he's right though (2, Informative)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017214)

In America, yes. Not in many parts of Europe, and increasingly not in the UK.

Re:he's right though (2, Insightful)

Leonig Mig (695104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017261)

true - i'm no expert, but i would say that most enterprise customers are not going to be too chuffed about running their airline reservation system/power station/supply chain on gentoo's linux, or even for that matter debian's linux.

if something goes wrong then basically you need support, you need someone take liability and fix the problem. with windows that organisation is MS, with solaris it is sun, and hey at the moment, most of the time, with linux, it's red hat.

Re:he's right though (1)

mebob (57853) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017371)

Not true with the people I've talked to recently, linux users obviously know what it is( and seem to be using suse, slackware or Fedora. Newbies know its not just redhat even with the trend to use Fedora. And non-users often have not even herd of redhat at but definatly Linux or Unix. Among non-users there seems to be more confision of what unix, linux and the BSD's are. I heard quite a few people who thing linux is used in MacOS X even

Re:he's right though (2, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017389)

But it's far more likely that he meant Red Hat's Linux in the sense that, "the flavor of Linux that Red Hat produces" - which probably makes commercial sense in that context.

Besides, it's just a blog, for cryin' out loud. If Sun officially made such a statement it's another thing.

For all you know, it's just the way he writes - people often use colloquialisms in informal writings, such as Blogs. Doesn't mean a thing.

Remember the time he and HP had a problem [boingboing.net] ?

What's the problem? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017155)

Red Hat's Linux clearly in this context means Red Hat's version of Linux. Ok, it's ambigous but let's not get stupid with the nit picking.

Re:What's the problem? (-1, Redundant)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017307)

Red Hat's Linux clearly in this context means Red Hat's version of Linux. Ok, it's ambigous but let's not get stupid with the nit picking.

Nitpicking? He's still wrong, a very sigificant portion of all Linux installs by businesses and corporations, are in other distros than Red Hat. In my particlular corner of the world Suse is the distro of choice for most businesses. In fact I'd say Suse actually has Red Hat on the run over here. Red Hat may be the distro of coice in the US where a DoD official is reported to have expresed the following opinion of Suse: We don't use that German ****! [theinquirer.net] but then again the Linux using world is alot larger than the USA alone.

Re:What's the problem? (4, Informative)

davecb (6526) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017417)

He's speaking to businessmen who buy particular vendor's products. They didn't buy DOS, they bought MS-DOS, and ignored DR-DOS.

Similarly they buy Red Hat in the U.S., so he's obviously adressing U.S. businessmen. If he were adressing German businessmen he'd have said "SuSE's Linux".

In neither case would I expect him to say "version of". The listener is expected to get that from context.

--dave

Non-inclusive possessive pronoun.... (5, Insightful)

SuperDuck (16035) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017159)

I think he meant Red Hat's "offering" of Linux, not necessarily implying that they were the only one, just the only contender at that level.

Re:Non-inclusive possessive pronoun.... (0)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017278)

I think he meant Red Hat's "offering" of Linux, not necessarily implying that they were the only one, just the only contender at that level.

Seeing as how the other two examples are possessive, I think he meant to confuse the issue.

Whatever (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017160)

I really think this is being overblown. I'm sure he just meant to say "Red Hat's flavour of Linux." To suggest that Linux is owned and solely maintained by Red Hat would be ridiculous, and I'm sure this guy's not that dumb.

Mac OS X? (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017162)

There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote [apple.com] ). According to Apple, this eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of "UNIX-based"[1] systems in the world. (Probably over 13 million now, according to sales since then.)

"With the release of Mac OS X, Apple became the largest vendor of Unix in the world" [computerworld.com]

More... [google.com]

[1] Please, whether or not Mac OS X is or isn't "UNIX" or "Unix" or "UN*X" or "UNIX-based" or "UNIX-like" or "not UNIX", etc., etc., etc., is the subject of another discussion, and really derails the essential, widely accepted concept (by normal, sane people, anyway) that Mac OS X is "UNIX"-based.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

CapnOats.com (805246) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017188)

OSX Doesnt run on x86 tho

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017251)

No, but the article is talking about OS competitors. It just ignores something that's bigger than both of the *nixes mentioned. Unless they're making a judgment to ignore anything but x86, ignoring one of the fastest growing OSes, especially in the server market, is a little contrary to their own aims by making such blanket statements.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

carboncopy79 (619156) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017254)

Yes Mac Os X runs on x86. PearPC is the answer.
Though I don't see the point of it.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017195)

Since when have normal, sane people known anything about unix?

Phil

Re:Mac OS X? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017211)

Which is about as relevent as saying a cell phone maker was the single largest vendor of unix-based systems in the world if they shipped 12 million phones that run Linux. My left nut has more in common with unix than osx does.

Re:Mac OS X? (2, Interesting)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017227)

There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). According to Apple, this eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors.

So what? Linux distros are compatible enough that only the most old-school care about whether Red Hat or Debian or Novell or whoever have more "market share". The only thing that's interesting is how many people are using Linux vs XYZ platform.

I've not seen any hard statistics on this because there aren't any. You cannot count Linux installations, so it's pointless trying to use statistics to prove a point here. In my world (a university) I'd say I know more people using Linux than using Macs, just, but that's probably because it's a university. If I worked at a design house I'd probably have to say the opposite.

Re:Mac OS X? (3, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017302)

Wow. Why do people think the only place Macs are used are in "design"?

My world is also a University. One of the largest public research Universities in the country, the University of Wisconsin - Madison. I don't know where you are, but there are ridiculously far more Mac OS X users here than Linux users. Linux is probably used for server applications more than Mac OS X Server, but on the desktop, it's so laughably not even close. Walk up and down the halls of our life and biomedical sciences buildings, physics and astronomy, engineering, medical, and other research areas, and you'll see Mac OS X, Mac OS X, Mac OS X. You'll see the same thing at DoE National Laboratories. (Incidentally, our CS department just bought 33 5.6TB Xserve RAIDS for a grid computing project, for a total of 185TB. No Mac OS X in that order, but still...)

Wow. I'm still kind of floored at what you said, considering Mac OS X is *everywhere* at every large academic research institution I've been to lately (Caltech, Stanford, Umich, MIT...)

Re:Mac OS X? (3, Insightful)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017353)

He goes to Durham University in the UK, and his comments fit in with what I saw when I was at Imperial College. Maybe it's a UK thing.

Maybe, though, it's a non-US thing. You have to remember that apple outside of the states is at best a sales and aupport franchise. Jobs and co don't care about europe, and consequently europe doesn't care about apple the way the states seem to.

Phil

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

Tiberius_Fel (770739) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017228)

If we are to be technical it is BSD-based, but this is is an excellent point. I get the feeling, though, that he's not talking about the desktop market, because I don't imagine Solaris has a large desktop share (but I might be wrong about that... if somebody knows more, please correct me. :-) ).

Re:Mac OS X? (2, Funny)

SCSI-Wan (168595) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017280)

Apparently Mac OS X is the Switzerland of Operating Systems in this context.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017434)

Don't you mean Poland? :-)

You forgot Poland!

Re:Mac OS X? (0, Redundant)

canuck57 (662392) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017398)

Mac is based on BSD thus is more pure UNIX than is Linux.

So in my books, yours (and others) assertion that Apple is now the largest per unit hardware sold UNIX vendor in the world, I bet your right.

But unfortunately Apple's progress isn't going to last. With China fastly becoming computer literate they could assign 300 million people to program and develop software on Linux. And are starting to do just that. Cheap OS, cheap hardware and source will make it a powerhouse. This is why Sun, Microsoft, CA and others are shaking in their boots. Microsoft has trouble selling it's OS for $29. As a Chinese programmer is not going to buy a Mac ar Apple prices let alone Oracle, Microsoft, Sun or others. But Apple will succeed in a niche market.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

Eudaemonic Pie (821484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017408)

There are now over 12 million Mac OS X systems in use (source: 23:40 of WWDC keynote). According to Apple, this eclipses shipments by all other UNIX/UNIX-like system vendors. Apple is the single largest vendor of "UNIX-based"[1] systems in the world. (Probably over 13 million now, according to sales since then.) Single largest vendor of "UNIX-based" systems in the world on a per-year basis, perhaps. I don't think Apple's sales have eclipsed all the UNIX hardware ever sold by Sun, Digital, HP, etc, which is what your comparison sounds like.

Re:Mac OS X? (1)

sporty (27564) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017430)

Tell that to the Unix group. It is Unix by their definition. :)

Have to say "Red Hat"'s if you're a corporate thug (0, Flamebait)

shoppa (464619) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017171)

Schwartz's mindset (much like SCO's, you will note) precludes the possibility that a bunch or loosely connected hackers could put something together that rivals and exceeds his company's sweat and tears.

Unlike SCO, which claims that they're precious source code was stolen, Schwartz instead presumes that Red Hat's software development works exactly like Sun's or Microsoft's OS division. It's just a matter of tiny minds.

This is made obvious not only by this comment but by others he has made in the past (see Groklaw etc.)

Sun Selling Windows server too (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017172)

Sun has to make a living somehow. Linux has already eaten into its marketshare. Not only sun wants to bad mouth linux it has started selling Windows too. Refer to this article http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp ?liArticleID=135547&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID =1&liChannelID=9&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage= 1/ [computerweekly.com]

I disagree (2, Insightful)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017176)

I don't agree what he is saying is that Linux belongs to Red Hat. He said Red Hat's Linux. Meaning, the distribution of Linux Red Hat sells. If I say "Bob's HTML is the best", does everyone assume I'm implying that he created HTML? No. They know I am referring to the HTML Bob writes.

Re:I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017239)

That obvious, he was referring to Linux that RedHat has writen.

--Bob

Re:I disagree (2)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017266)

Perhaps not, but if you said, "There were only three major technologies used for displaying webpages, XML, CSS, and Bob's HTML." then you would be saying that. And that's exactly what he did. If he wanted to say "Red Hat's Red Hat Enterprise Linux" or some shit, that'd be different. But Linux is NOT the exclusive name of Red Hat's product. Notice how he said "Microsoft Windows", because windows is a generic term that does not belong to Microsoft and the name of their product is "Microsoft Windows" not "Microsoft's Windows". But he said "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact owned by Sun.

Well, why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017181)

I think he meant what he said, that the dominant Linux is RedHat and that is the competition. The others don't matter.

That's not my view however.

typical of executive staff being insanely stupid. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017183)

Oh come on people, this should NEVER suprise you when a CEO,CTO, COO,CFO or other moron in the executive offices says something stupid.

they certianly are not hired for their smarts.

they are hired for their SALES ability.

they are all nothing more than high profile sales people... and we all know what kind of people are in sales.

Grammatical ambiguity (3, Insightful)

kahei (466208) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017186)


"Red Hat's Linux" could be parsed as:

"Linux, which belongs to Red Hat"

or

"That Linux which belongs to Red Hat"

In this case the latter is accurate and is probably what was meant.

---

Side note -- another way to express the second choice is:

"The Linux that belongs to Red Hat"

By adding the article, you clearly indicate that you refer to one of many linuxes. To me, this control of definite/indefinite and countable/uncountable is one of the strongest and most unusual features of English -- although other European languages have it to some degree.

Market Share (3, Insightful)

gregarican (694358) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017187)

Everyone should admit that for North America at least Red Hat has the major market share for Linux distribution. From what I have read it sounds as if SuSE has a foothold in Europe, but from Sun's North American perspective it's pretty much true. I'm sure (as others have pointed out) he probably meant Red Hat's version or distribution of Linux, but even if he didn't he's pretty much on target.

Re:Market Share (5, Insightful)

Soylent Moose (222480) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017372)

Okay, think about it from an IT manager's perspective. Say I'm an IT manager at a medium-sized bank and the applications we use are based on Oracle. I'm about the buy a bunch of machines so I can run Oracle on them. This is a production environment, so I don't want to just download some random Linux build without support -- I need to pick someone who will sell me real support, with guaranteed response times, etc.

What are my choices? Oracle on reliable hardware is a huge market for Sun, so that's obviously one choice. Which Linux would I pick? Probably RedHat to get their support offering. Oh, and yea, I could always go the Microsoft way.

I don't know, Jonathan's comment doesn't seem that bizzare to me.

Umm you may want to reread that (2, Insightful)

musawilliams (750285) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017199)

As much as I don't like Schwartz, he's talking about sales, not who owns linux. The use of "Red Hat's Linux" is used to distinguish which version of linux he's referring to, not to whom it belongs.

Re:Umm you may want to reread that (2, Insightful)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017293)

You guys are all missing it, or Schwartz is the biggest fool this side of John Romero. He said "Microsoft Windows", the name of the product, "Sun's Solaris", which is in fact belonging to Sun, and "Red Hat's Linux", which is neither belonging to Red Hat nor the name of their product. They neither own Linux nor the rights to the name and thus saying "Red Hat's Linux" in that context is not only misleading but inaccurate. Given Schwartz's history there can be no doubt that it was intentional.

So... (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017206)

Why is this news? Such "tech digeratis" do this all the time. Why is he an exception? Is it because he works for Sun? That doesn't make him a technical person.

Perhaps he meant something else (5, Insightful)

oexeo (816786) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017209)

He said:

"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."

Did it occur to anyone, that perhaps he just believes the Red Hat distro to be the only distro of any real threat to Windows, and Solaris (of course, doesn't mean he's correct). Why is that statement taken as him attributing the Linux kernel to Red Hat?

Re:Perhaps he meant something else (4, Funny)

WillerZ (814133) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017290)

I just find it amusing that he thinks Solaris is a threat to anything.

The only damage solaris is going to do to any other OS is if you snap the CD in half and use the sharp edge to go on a killing spree among the target developers.

Phil

Re:Perhaps he meant something else (5, Insightful)

Lxy (80823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017301)

Thank You.

It amazes me to no end what passes as "news" these days on Slashdot. One person misinterpreting something automatically becomes news, and not just any old news, "OMFG the sky is falling" news.

Of all the distros out there, Redhat easily holds the market share on the corporate end. It makes sense to bundle Red Hat in a corporate statement than Slackware or Debian. Sure, they're fine distros, but when it comes to market share in the corporate world, it's hard to deny that Redhat has the biggest piece of the pie.

At any rate, the sky is not falling, and Sun's COO is NOT implying that Redhat owns linux.

Semantic niggling (5, Insightful)

sczimme (603413) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017221)


Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux

It appears people may be reading too much into this. To my eyes it looks like a listing of commercial OSs along with their vendors: Windows from Microsoft, Solaris from Sun, and Linux from Red Hat. Yes, there are other commercial Linux distros. Yes, there are a lot of other Linux distros, period. The question is this: how many of these are viable contenders in the market[s] shared by Solaris and Windows? And of those, how many are as easily recognized as Red Hat?

The statement above just clarifies that Red Hat's Linux is the particular distro under consideration. I don't believe it is a plot to assign ownership of all things Linux to Red Hat.

In terms of OS Wars.. (0, Flamebait)

darius779 (734496) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017223)

Solaris isnt even on the radar. Including Sun's OS in that statement just makes me laugh.

Novell? (2, Interesting)

Kingpin (40003) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017225)


What about Novell? They bought Suse which was a strong distro, and Ximian which holds the track-record for providing cool UI's for Linux.

What are their ambitions? They have a couple of very nice cards to play - why don't they?

On another, but related, note, what made FreeBSD (as OS X) the success it became once Apple added UI? The Apple brand and hardware? What does it take for Novell to get the same level of recognition?

A worried shareholder.. ;-)

Re:Novell? (2, Interesting)

Lxy (80823) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017332)

The Novell/Suse acquisition is still new. Novell just released their first version of Novell linux a few weeks ago, it's going to take some time to get momentum in the market. Suse didn't have a stronghold in the marketplace, so it's up to Novell to make that happen.

Novell is able to use their kickass server software and their existing customer base to launch their linux campaign. They are bundling their top notch support on top of their linux products (desktop for now, server to be released in the near future). Novell has one hell of a plan, and only Novell could pull it off.

I wouldn't worry about a thing, Novell is a strong company and quite ambitious when it comes to linux.

Red Hat has the highest marketshare out of Linux.. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017231)

Well it is true that Red Hat has the highest market share out of all Linux servers.

According to Netcraft, most Linux servers are running Red Hat:
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/07/12/sligh t_linux_market_share_loss_for_red_hat.html [netcraft.com]

The other distributions each by its own numbers do not make a difference at all!

Red Hat is single handedly the most easy to use and biggest known Linux brand name. Most of the IT people I know use Red Hat interchangably with Linux. It's like Kleenex [kleenex.com] or Aspirin [tinyurl.com] Aspirin. It has become an every day household name.

Ridiculous (3, Insightful)

iantri (687643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017233)

Hello?

Has everyone forgotten that Sun produces their own Linux distribution, Java Desktop System?

It seems rather clear to me that he is referring to the Linux distribution created by Red Hat.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017351)

Has everyone forgotten that Sun produces their own Linux distribution, Java Desktop System?

Actually, yes. It is after all the most easily forgettable Linux distribution ever shat into existence.

He finally Admits... (1)

dingletec (590572) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017246)

That RedHat=Linux.

Sun is evil... (1, Funny)

thrill12 (711899) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017249)

..burn that Sun, burn it !

Oh wait, ... it already does.

No it doesn't (2, Insightful)

demon_2k (586844) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017256)

"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."

It could be taken that way...But did anyone for a second stopped and thought that that just means that redhut is considered as the only major player that is worth considering, the biggest most commercial distribution?

That statement doesn't immediately mean that redhut owns linux. They just own hajority of the of the linux market share.

Maybe he WAS refering to Red Hat's Linux? (1)

sarlen (836953) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017257)

Red Hat's Linux is a perfectly acceptable way to indicate a version of software Red Hat has taken under their wing and modified for their use. Infact, I would submit that it's Linux's versatility that makes the "Red Hat" part of the comment necessary. No one would say "Microsoft's Windows" because it's redundant, but "Red Hat's Linux" is different than any other Linux and therefore the clarification is needed.

Atleast it seems obvious to me.

Re:Maybe he WAS refering to Red Hat's Linux? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017314)

No, but he DID say "Microsoft Windows" because that is the name of the product. Just as "Red Hat Linux" is the name of Red Hat's product.

Re:Maybe he WAS refering to Red Hat's Linux? (1)

sarlen (836953) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017391)

Well, "no one" would use "Microsoft Windows" obviously is an overstatement. But the idea remains, especially when describing main stream OSes- just "Linux" won't do.

Re:Maybe he WAS refering to Red Hat's Linux? (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017433)

Which is why "Red Hat Linux" or even a variation on "Red Hat's distribution of Linux" would be accurate. One is the name of the product and one states what belongs to Red Hat. But in that context it is very clear that he was making an intentional attempt to associate Linux as the sole property of Red Hat. This is not an argument about whether or not "Red Hat's Linux" is ever an accurate thing to say, which it could be, but whether or not Schwartz was intentionally trying to link Linux exclusively to Red Hat's distribution. Which he clearly was.

Down to three? (1)

jlar (584848) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017276)

"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."

Well, I would say down to two. It is left as an exercise to reader to figure out which one should be left out. In addition one of the remaining OS's should have the vendor prefix removed.

Re:Down to three? (2, Insightful)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017369)

Well, I would say down to two. It is left as an exercise to reader to figure out which one should be left out. In addition one of the remaining OS's should have the vendor prefix removed.

That's funny, I was thinking the list should at least contain 4, if not 5.

AIX and HP-UX are here to stay. If you look at RISC Unix sales, you'll realise that the market is still contains 3 significant market segments.

Sun is trying to position its OS in the commodity space, aka equivalent to Linux and Windows. Take a look at their renewed interest of Solaris on x86. However, in my experience, companies make choices regarding a) discount commodity computing, or b) enterprise/robust computing. You buy Solaris servers for different reasons than why you buy a Linux or Wintel server.

People are reacting to this market-speak in the wrong way...they're preceiving it as an attack on Linux, but only in regards to ownership of linux (waaahh!!! its not just Redhat!!!). His commentary is more finely tuned... he's trying to bring Solaris down-market to make $ on volume. The pitch will be "Why buy Linux with that convoluted vendor stategy and ownership problems? Get the stability of unix at discount pricing on Operton!!!".

Get off the blog train. (2, Insightful)

fieldcomm (685891) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017288)

How is the slashdot crowd so desperate for anti-SCO news that it would sink low enough to post such non-news such as this?

Everyone says that blogs are the news of the future, the new wave in journalism. However, one idiot who wasn't trained in English usage--unlike trained journalists--makes some mistake like this, and it is taken up by the "blogsphere" and repeated.

Sure, blogs are the news source of the future, but only because the general level of intellegence of North American is falling at an alarming rate. Case in point, this slashdot sumbission.

Re:Get off the blog train. (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017335)

actually when I first glanced at the headline 'Sun's COO...' I though it was a SCO story.. it all blurs into one after a while you know.

Article Quicky (1, Funny)

tom1974 (413939) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017299)

Download the next chapter in the VERITAS J2EE Expert Series eBook to learn performance optimization strategies and techniques that will help improve servlet performance and allow you to quantify performance during development, testing, and after deployment. Download the eBook or view the archived webcast.

"After years of protesting Sun's cla....

Learn how to achieve faster ROI from your enterprise reporting initiatives. Read this Gartner article to discover how to better assess your BI needs, leverage best practices, and anticipate hidden costs. Click here for Gartner's article on "Effective BI Approaches for Today's Business World".

..ims," writes Jonathan Schwartz in his latest blog, HP "will only continue to deco...

My eyeballs just fell off the table.. *groan*

Uhh... (1)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017300)

Is it possible that he's merely referring to Red Hat's distribution of Linux? Maybe that's the only distribution he considers a real threat, eh? Maybe you should just relax and focus on the subtle nuances of the English language instead of running off into the sunset with your torches and pitchforks?

Or we can form a rabble, if you want. I'm always up for a good riot.

Re:Uhh... (1)

DarkKnightRadick (268025) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017349)

The problem with that theory is he never even alludes to the word "version" when referring to "Red Hat's Linux". He is implying, and probably fully aware of what he is doing, that Red Hat is either a) the only Linux distro out there and or b) that Red Hat somehow owns the linux kernel.

hrmph (1)

ronsta (815765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017304)

Maybe in pointing out Red Hat's version of Linux, he's implying that this version is most popular and hence, the only other competitor Sun and Microsoft have to worry about.

my theory: Schwartz works for Slashdot and is a genius in creating material on days when Amazon.com failures, apple/IBM partnerships, and Google Groups conspiracies are relatively rare. may the Schwartz be with you!

respek. http://www.ubersite.com/m/19993/ [ubersite.com]

Flavour (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017308)

Now that we all agree he was talking about Red Hat's flavour of Linux, and not Linux as a whole, can we stop this silly thread?

At least he's stopped claiming it's "Sun's Linux" (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017312)

... as he did in an earlier blog entry [sun.com] .

Or maybe we're both misreading things?

Novell/SuSE (1)

aurelian (551052) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017317)

Leaving aside the fact that he probably (may have) meant 'Redhat's version of Linux', he's still wrong to ignore other distributions, such as Novell/SuSE.

Hah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017337)

Red Hat's linux? These people talk like they have no idea what linux really is. They make it sound like windows, "ZOMG THERE IS ONLY ONE LINUX" - It's rather silly. The fact that they picked redhat for linux to belong to only makes it funnier.

This is BS (1)

jonathanduty (541508) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017352)

Sure Redhat, Windows and Sun are big player. But what about Apple or SUSE Linux? I think there are still a few more fighters in the ring.

You are overanalizing it. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017355)

"it's increasingly evident the OS wars are down to three - Microsoft Windows, Sun's Solaris, and Red Hat's Linux."

The main mistake is calling it an OS war while it is more of an OE (Operating Environment) War. Microsoft Windows is actually 2 different core OS DOS and NT, Solaris is an OE of Sun OS which is Unix, and Red Hat is an OE of Linux. But putting the OS vs OE aside because OE is not as popular as OS in usage. So Red Hat's Linux the guy was talking about Red Hat's Distribution or OE of Linux not saying that Red Hat owns Linux. If I made my own distribution of Linux it would be Jellomizer's Linux. With a community designed OS Linux both belongs to no one and everyone at the same time. He is not saying that other versions of Linux don't exist just the opposite. But Red Hat in the enterprise is the Major Big League player.

based on numbers of desktops running them... (2, Interesting)

constantnormal (512494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017357)

... I'd have to say that the "Big 3" are Microsoft Windows, Linux, and OS X. I don't think that the number of Solaris installations is even close to being a player ... and one more thing -- I believe the above statement holds true even if you count servers.

This is clearly just a Sun bigot wishing they were more successful in the marketplace.

I think that a more interesting comparison is between *nix-derived systems and Windows. That would lump Solaris, Linux (all flavors), BSD (all flavors, including OS X), and AIX into one pool, which is sizeable enough to make a definite presence on Microsoft's radar.

Corporations are just bullies (1)

plinius (714075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017368)

If Linux were a girlfriend, corporations would walk up to you, push you aside and tell you she's his girl, not yours.

The corporate culture encourages bullying.

Let's see now, corporations are authoritarian, expansionist, competitive; whereas fascism was authoritarian, expansionist, and militarily competitive.

Hmm.... could corporations be the new fascism? Oh but wait, fascism doesn't entertain the kids with men dressed up like clowns like McDonalds does. I forgot.

Hmmm, Must Be News to IBM (1)

ausoleil (322752) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017384)

IIRC, IBM recently partnered with Novell/SuSe, and that alone would make a pretty convincing case to look at that particular distro, in either a SOHO or Enterprise environement. Coupled with IBM's services group, server hardware products the SuSe's enterprise class distro is a robust a complete product. And, IBM, after all has one of the largest services group in the industry.

Me, I switched away from Red Hat when they did away with their RHL9 support some time ago. I have never looked back and see no reason whatsoever to look at the OS's that Sun touts as "the choices" in their blog-vertisements.

RHL is Dead (0, Flamebait)

mslinux (570958) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017387)

Red Hat killed it when they decided to focus on the "Enterprise". I suppose this is why Sun is upset. IMO, they should be glad that RH is so short-sighted. Doing away with RHL will be recorded by history as the most foolish move that Red Hat made during its brief lifetime.

Xandros & Linspire would not exist were it not for the demise of RHL. So, you may say, what do home users have to do with the "Enterprise"? Everything. People like to use what they know. They know Windows from home, so it's natural to use it at work... the same could have been true for RHL.

Well...symantics (1)

catdevnull (531283) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017390)

"Red Hat's Linux" sounds like it's referring to their distro of it to me. Linux is a generic term--I think the author intended to pair them rathern than make them mutually inclusive. And he's right--in the enterprise, Red Hat's version of Linux is pretty damn strong. Cheer. It's a good thing.

Spin, marketing, or whatever you call it. Welcome to the world of business. If you haven't noticed, the best product doesn't win--the marketing does. VHS vs Beta. Fight the battles you can win--the ideological battles being waged out there are not always the smartest ones to fight. I think this is one of them. Be happy Linux is on that list--split hairs later. Let the big companies who *like* linux spin it however they want.

This is Sun's view. (0)

Jaywalk (94910) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017406)

According to this article [eweek.com] in eWeek, Sun thinks Linux has forked and Red Hat made their own version. It's all part of their open source posturing [eweek.com] . They don't really want to make Solaris open source because it would just get picked over to improve Linux. They want to get open source advantages while still not giving up control. That's why they came up with their not-so-open source license [zdnet.co.uk] . But if they're not going to go all the way with open source, it would help if their opponents are not-so-open either. Hence, the bad-mouthing of Red Hat.

Duh (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017418)

Everyone knows it goes down like this: MS > Solaris > MacOS > linux In other words: M1cr050f7 15 teh r0xx0r, l1nux 15 teh suxx0r. Screw flanders

Wasnt there an (1)

northcat (827059) | more than 9 years ago | (#11017421)

Wasn't there an article on /. that said this is what sun's strategy is going to be to fight linux? It would have been nice if a link to that previous story was posted in the summary. I cant seem to find it through the search. Can some please post the link here? Or did I see it somewhere else?

This is a real problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11017437)

It is fun to take shots at Sun for all the outrageous things they say, but this is a real problem I think we in the Linux community are turning a blind eye to.

As far as the business world is concerned (which is where most of the Linux penetration is, we're just not hitting the home desktop yet) RedHat IS Linux. When they buy apps (the business people have to buy big honking databases and app servers and such) they don't buy them with a plan to tweak them to make them work on their favorite OS like we would. They buy them with a certification that it works on a particular OS. And almost entirely, that server is RedHat ES (note that it is NOT Fedora).

We in the Linux community, in our eagerness to see Linux usurp the evil giant in Redmond are pretty much ignoring the sly thief in Raleigh. RedHat is running away with Linux and we're cheering them on.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?