August 27th, 2002, 04:15 AM
Is Red Hat the Microsoft of Linux?
I just read an article at slashdot.org called Is RedHat the Microsoft of Linux? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0...thread&tid=110
Wot do you reckon?
August 27th, 2002, 04:30 AM
Well, Red Hat is sortof Microsoft-ish, except for a few minor points:
Microsoft started by stealing from Apple, IBM and Xerox
Red Hat started out by stealing Linus Torvald's OS, but Linus was smart enough to put it under the GNU, which meant Red Hat wasn't about to start hosing the Linux crowd.
Whereas MS buys up good technology and turns it sour, RH buys up good technology and makes it marketable.
RedHat is doing a lot of good, and aren't monopolizing Linux in any way (I mean, there are a million and one versions, how can they be winning?), whereas MS has taken the entire PC market and put it in it's pocket.
RedHat is simply making money and providing a very useful service, and helping the Linux uprising by providing some normalization among drivers and apps and the like. MS is making us all use what they made because it's what they made, despite it's inferiority.
Hic ego barbarus, sum quillo non intelligor illis.
Because they do not understand me, I am a barbarian.
August 27th, 2002, 04:37 AM
Don't think so: unless it's changed recently, RedHat can be had for the download time, tweaked however it trips yer trigger, loaded on every box you got, and you get the source code also. Buy a $40. "HowTo" book and get the latest version on CDRom and not have to download. Last time i checked, MS wouldn't allow anything close.
August 27th, 2002, 04:43 AM
haha.. RH the Mircrosoft of Linux... yeah right.... *rants*
August 27th, 2002, 06:03 AM
I don't see it. At one time I would have agreed up to a point, because I thought Red hat was putting out a crappy, buggy product and riding on their reputation to market it. But in the last couple of years, I don't think that's true anymore.
Red Hat makes a solid product, and they seem to have the only profitable business model in the Linux community. As long as Linux is GPL, I don't see much way Red Hat can hijack the Linux software market the way Microsoft has with Windows. The terms of the GPL just won't allow it.
I think the terms of the GPL is the big difference and the reason why Red Hat will never be able to do what Microsoft has done. The code will always be open, no matter what Red Hat does, which means the entry barriers will be low for another company to step up and take compete if they get out of line.
Do what you want with the girl, but leave me alone!
August 27th, 2002, 06:15 AM
I love Redhat and I believe it is very different from M$. That's my .2 cents.
August 27th, 2002, 06:17 AM
hum.... i dont understand how microsoft and any unix based OS or open source software can be considered even on the same lines as M$. Another thing, microsoft makes all kinds of different operating systems that they make profit off of etc, and redhat just has redhat another thing, if microsoft and redhat were considered the same, you have to think about how redhat doesnt dominate and steal code from other companies or coders to get there stuff going. M$ began by ol billy taking someone elses ideas. Now redhat on the other hand, used linus torvalds ideas but his were open source and were basically asked to be improved upon. Redhat took those free ideas, and made there own version. I believeit was on halloween about 10 years ago ish but im not sure. Anyway my point is, is that m$ and redhat are completely different types of companies and cannot be compared. Now if you are saying is rh7.3 the xp of linux, that would sound better but still wrong since you cannot compare them. Since you are speaking of versions, rather than companies as a whole, but like i said, still no comparison.
August 27th, 2002, 07:32 AM
grain of salt for equilibrium
i thought linux was synonimous with windows...at least that's what it says in the unix manuals.
sorry, had a run-in with a "point `n click" linux 'guru', tonight...seems _his_ population of linux users are somehow distinguished from the "point `n click" windows users. so i guess my view (as always - but more vocal this evening) is if you want desktop - go windows. if you want cheap desktop - go linux; redhat tends to offer more in that category.
just another aspect of the comparison that wasn't covered. the mutilation of innocent minds doesn't seem to tip on either side of the totter.
August 27th, 2002, 07:40 AM
I don't think so, I think what really makes Microsoft repugnant to me is when they appear heavy-handed (Lawsuits, crush-the-little-guy), sneaky (EULA-shinnanegans, spyware allegations), or profit-gluttons (inconvenient activation schemes, making you pay continuously for something even if you don't want it...)
Redhat can't really express itself in any way but the first, given the open-source nature of the situation.
[HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
August 27th, 2002, 07:49 AM
Redhat is just a well know linux it is not the best and they do not have control of the market. The one good thing about it is that it's user friendly well much more friendly then the other linux's. I stoped using it a long time ago and switched to Slackware.
Ill THink of one when i get time.