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?

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.

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.

haha.. RH the Mircrosoft of Linux... yeah right.... *rants*

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.

I love Redhat and I believe it is very different from M$. That's my .2 cents.

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.

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.

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.

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.

IMO RedHat has a better product than Microsoft, on the server-side that is. Actually the modified RedHat kernel is even more stable than the current latest stable standard kernel. People have been negative to using Linux for heavy system-critical workloads (such as the database), becuase of th lack of stability. Database vendor Oracle has teamed up with Red Hat to create the Unbreakable (yeah, I know that's bullshit) Oracle 9i, probably the best database out there. And it runs on Red Hat, so......

On the other hand they're the biggest Linux vendor so people put them down because of that. It's every coroporations goal to become the monopolists. When it gets down to business, it's all about how much money you can make. Sad but true.

It is true that RedHat does have some current commercial advantages over the other distros.
It also easier to install than windows IMO and with reiser and ext3 it is very simple to recover a failed install.ReiserFS and ext3 are much better than ntfss However as has already been pointed out the GPL will provide a check and balance that not possible with M$

Quote:

---

Your are way off base. Linux even as a desktop (ie.. Mandrake, RedHat etc..) is still way far more stable than Windows of any flavor.

---

at what point did i a) even address stability, and b) say that microsoft was in any way a superior product?

the point i was making is that someone who utilizes the features of a desktop environment solely without understanding or taking the time to learn the underworkings is no better off than in any other desktop environment. considering the initial intention(s) of linux and redhat in particular this point is actually very valid. those who use linux out of price convenience or the ability to egotistically rely on the "m$ sux, i use linux" but have no comprehension above the lateral and longitudinal movements of the mouse and a well timed click or two defame any chance "linux" has of ever receiving the recognition it probably deserves in the unix world.

redhat in an attempt to provide a stable os with corporate level support packages still does not have even close to the corporate market of even the declining sunos, aix, and hpux systems. why? because they are still though of as an alternative os to windows. not a viable, stable, and reliable server os. and whether you agree with that or not is really based on individual experience and preference. the numbers you read don't mean jack. (ie. ever looked at the host specs on an oracle comparison ad?). do your own benchmarking; it's worth the time and effort in the long run.

but please don't misinterpret or super-impose your own feelings of insecurity on what you value in an os, product, technology on any of my statements or opinions. read it for what it's worth, if you still find it offensive/off basis - then so be it. i like to tip the boat and get real responses rather than than the typically 5 post clones that plague this board. if it's worth the drop in ap's who cares so long as people use their own brains instead of whatever the latest chronicle indicates.

As long as you can download an iso from RedHat and they still keep you up to date with fixes and they aren't getting a dime from you -- they are not Microsoft.

When they ask you to bend over and spread your cheeks; then they become Microsoft.

well as lng as redhat doesn´t charge more than they do, they have no resemblance what so ever to Microsoft!

No....redhat is not microsoft and never will be......linux is free, not a double crossing, backstabbing product like windows.

I like Jeremy Hogans response to the "Microsoft of Linux" on NewsForge http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/08...8.shtml?tid=23