Red Hat

[bscott at ntisys.com]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, at 6:34pm, sconce at in-spec-inc.com wrote:
>> I'm referring to how third-party companies (in our case, especially
>> system vendors like Dell, Compaq, et. al.) support the software.
> 
> What most of them "support" is Microsoft.

  Actually, most of the major vendors provide at least some level of support
for Linux, but only for specific distributions -- Red Hat and SuSE, mainly,
with Red Hat being the leader.

  Not that they should be expected to do otherwise.  You cannot qualify,
test, or develop for an abstract concept like what the word "Linux" has come
to mean in most contexts.  Nor is the plain Linux kernel useful by itself.  
You need a specific software configuration, a set of programs that form a
working system.  Linux distributions provide that.

  The thing that kicked off this thread was that Red Hat Software (RHS) is
changing things around.  RHS has worked with third-party vendors to make Red
Hat Linux (RHL) a feasible platform to support.  RHS is shifting their
focus, so that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) will be the thing vendors
support.  RHL is to become an "unsupported non-product", in the words of one
hardware engineer.

> What I'd like to believe is that there's a business model coming wherein
> support for Free Software is supplied by local talent which clients can
> come to trust, and that Dell, Compaq, et. al are hardware merchants.

  They *are* hardware merchants.  I kind of want my software to run on my
hardware.  That's what I'm talking about.  The "support ... supplied by
local talent" statement is irrelevant.  Local talent doesn't manufacture
computer hardware.  (They might assemble it, but they don't manufacture it.  
That requires more resources then local talent can provide.)

>> As in providing pre-compiled drivers, kernel support, specs, software
>> utilities and diagnostics, engineering level tech support, etc.  Most
>> large companies cannot handle the idea of a software platform that
>> doesn't have a company like Red Hat promoting it.
> 
> Such attitudes are unlikely to be either quick or easy to convert.

  And, unfortunately, such attitudes also have a solid basis in reality.
Companies which perceive Linux as a threat will often manufacture false
technical objections which are easy to refute.  This is a different sort of
problem.  Configuration management is an area of IT that is consistently
done badly.  Individual developers can and do ignore such practices on a
regular basis, and Free Software developers are no exception.  A company
(like Red Hat) has the control over individuals that other companies (like
Dell) look for.  I think this problem in corporate relations can be solved,
but it is something that has never had to be done before.  It is also likely
be more expensive for the hardware vendors (in the short run, at least) and
that (expense) is never attractive to management types.

>> They also take issue with some of Debian's policies.
> 
> But wasn't it you who asked the list about Debian...

  Yes.  As I said, I'm looking at Debian, but Debian lacks support from big
vendors, and one of the contributing factors in that state of affairs are the
conflicts between big vendors and Debian policies.

-- 
Ben Scott <bscott at ntisys.com>
| The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do  |
| not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. |
| All information is provided without warranty of any kind.              |