• On The Insider: Britney's Bikini-Clad Top 10
June 11, 2009 10:07 AM PDT

Red Hat: Go big or play it safe?

by Matt Asay

Red Hat appears to be held to a different standard than its peers, one that keeps it safe on a pedestal where it can do comparatively little damage to its competitors.

The reason seems to be that it's an open-source company, and open-source companies are apparently supposed to live lives of virginal purity and restraint. So, in response to my suggestion that Dell consider buying Red Hat, a friend countered, "But this would destroy Red Hat's hardware independence."

It's a good point, and one that is similarly raised whenever it is suggested that Oracle, IBM, or anyone else could be in the market for Red Hat. For example, I've heard it said that Red Hat executives are loathe to upset any database vendor by acquiring MySQL (before Sun did) or EnterpriseDB (PostgreSQL).

Unfortunately for Red Hat, companies like IBM and Oracle have no such qualms about stepping all over its businesses. It's unclear why Red Hat should have to resign itself to tiptoeing around conflicts with companies that would as soon crush it to powder if it grows too strong.

Except, of course, that Red Hat almost certainly doesn't want to risk getting squashed for letting its ambition outpace its ability to sustain it.

Yes, SAP, Oracle, IBM, HP, and others benefit from having Red Hat serve as a strong standard-bearer for Linux. But only if Red Hat never gets too powerful. That's why IBM has invested in Novell to shore it up against Red Hat, and it's why few are probably crying that Novell's partnership with Microsoft appears to be paying handsome dividends.

Red Hat is a useful partner for IBM, et al so long as it keeps to its place, and that place is as the eunuch in the palace, not as a challenger to the throne.

Red Hat is a for-profit company, not a nonprofit charity. While there are very real risks--to Red Hat and to Linux--if Red Hat were to lose its independent status, the reality is that someone at some point will buy Red Hat and, regardless, Red Hat has already thrown down the gauntlet to IBM and Oracle with its JBoss acquisition. Why not accelerate its ambition, so long as its resources can sustain it?

Could Red Hat be crushed by Oracle for entering the database market, for example? Of course. That's a risk. But is it any riskier than letting its competitors paint it into a profitable but relatively tiny niche in the industry?


Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay.
Recent posts from The Open Road
Google shifts software value to operations, away from IP
Mobile: Still waiting to see what sticks
Google privacy controls: Most people won't care
Amazon's move mocks EU's fear of Oracle
Skype to open-source far too little
The difference a few years makes to open source
Novell cuts 3 percent of its workforce, plus benefits
Data's one-two punch in open-source business models
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (14 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by dragonbite June 11, 2009 10:44 AM PDT
"Could Red Hat be crushed by Oracle for entering the database market, for example?"

Can also be true by Red Hat *NOT* getting a database market entrant since Oracle may start pulling away when they get Solaris + Oracle under one roof! Will that leave Red Hat in the dust?
Reply to this comment
by cesarr77 June 11, 2009 11:19 AM PDT
RedHat is making a HUGE mistake and will pay the consequences.

MySQL should be a RedHat customer migrating users from expensive Solaris boxes and databases to commodity hardware with RedHat Linux and MySQL.

We have the technology that RedHat needs to accelerate database migrations. I can only hope they work with a company like Monty Program Ab and us to really help customers migrate to a cheaper "stack".

For more information about our migration technology visit: www.ants.com/acs.

Cesar.
Reply to this comment
by MarkyGoldstein June 11, 2009 1:06 PM PDT
They all own some share of Red Hat already.
Reply to this comment
by Matt Asay June 11, 2009 2:35 PM PDT
Very true that they own part of Red Hat, but this doesn't mean Red Hat should avoid stepping on their toes.
by royrusso June 11, 2009 3:04 PM PDT
"Play it Safe". Doing otherwise would require: Upper-management with an appetite to take risk and destroying middle-management fiefdoms. Neither of those will happen at RHT in your lifetime.
Reply to this comment
by Mr. Dee June 11, 2009 3:22 PM PDT
Matt, its easy for you to write these things because you don't work or run the Company. Sorry, but Redhat is in the business of becoming a major player, they want to become what Microsoft, Oracle is to the Enterprise which will undoubtedly upset partners but make others happy. Still I just see Redhat remaining a consistent Company, but an ineffective one where growth carries them to the top. Microsoft, IBM, Oracle and others will ensure they stay where they are. I would be surprised if Redhat gets so frustrated and ends up merging with Novell.
Reply to this comment
by Matt Asay June 11, 2009 3:48 PM PDT
I'm trying to understand what you just said, Mr. Dee. I think you tried to disagree with me, but I can't see anywhere that you actually disagree with me. Which would mean that you agree with me, but you seem to be trying to avoid that....So, what exactly did you mean?
by Mr. Dee June 13, 2009 5:45 PM PDT
They want to be a big player, but they can't because that opportunity will be thwarted by the major players. They will attempt desperate measures to become big, but it will not work to get them where they ultimately want to be. If it works out in their favor they will say, great for us, if it doesn't they will say no problem, we will just work with what we have. At the same time, I am confused by their long term strategy, which probably is why my previous post confused you.
by realwariola June 11, 2009 6:28 PM PDT
Red Hat will become major player sooner or later. But it doesnt have to be in the DB to do that. It can support all DB on its platform for now so that it can grow its JBoss business supporting all DB equally. And MySQL is toast anyway nowadays and MariaDB is the way forward. Red Hat aggressively growing its JBoss middleware by acquiring Amentra to do its consulting and re-architecture JBoss to support multiple runtime and frameworks with JBoss 5 which will be release soon.

On the other end, RHEL business will be generating growth by the acquisition of Qumranet and the KVM support will be debuting this September. This will pit Red Hat against VMware and Microsoft more effectively than ever. They are focusing building end-to-end complete Virtualization stack with VDI, Management tools, Thin provisioning, integrated policy auditing (RH IPA) etc under the brand RHEV.

So all ways are pointing into the right path for Red Hat and they will become major player sooner or later.
Reply to this comment
by Matt Asay June 12, 2009 7:45 AM PDT
Unless, of course, Oracle's Linux initiatives pay off. Or IBM decides to buy Novell/SUSE. Or Canonical undermines its model. No one else is standing still, but you seem to think Red Hat doing so is a good strategy. I disagree.
by MisterGee June 11, 2009 6:57 PM PDT
It is time for Matt's weekly who will buy Red Hat column. Does it drive more traffic than your other speculation? If you look at how Red Hat OS revenue breaks down, a huge portion comes from HW OEM relationships. Red Hat being bought by a HW vendor makes little sense (although HP does need a Java stack to call their own since they killed Bluestone). You then have to look at either a non-server hardware vendor (storage, network, etc), or a software company. Cisco? It has been reported that Cisco was part owner of Qumranet before Red Hat bought it.

At this point why does anyone have to buy Red Hat? There is no imperative. Red Hat is mutually assured destruction. Any server vendor that buys them also drives away a chunk of sales. It seems like speculation just because other companies are being bought.
Reply to this comment
by Matt Asay June 12, 2009 7:44 AM PDT
Actually, if I wanted traffic I'd post about Apple. I write about Red Hat and acquisition speculation/product mix changes because this is the way Red Hat will have to grow.

Yes, Red Hat does a lot of its business through hardware OEMs. So does Microsoft, but it has never shied away from stepping on those partners when it has had to (nor have Red Hat's hardware OEMs shied away from stepping on its toes, either, for that matter). Red Hat is actively trying to expand beyond its hardware dependence: witness its work with Synnex. It's a major initiative there.

It would seem that you, too, would like Red Hat to keep to its comfortable place while ORacle et al constrain its ability to grow. I think that's unwise. I'm surprised that you don't, too.
by kragil June 12, 2009 12:46 AM PDT
Matt, buying a FOSS company is tricky for proprietary software/hardware companies. At the moment RH is all FOSS and that would change and some employees/execs might just jump ship and start White West Linux and instantly have a lot of interest.

RH is GPL all the way and that actually is their best growth protection.
Reply to this comment
by Matt Asay June 12, 2009 7:41 AM PDT
It's also Red Hat's best growth prevention. GPL will not work (on a big scale) in applications, or really anything beyond its core (by its CTO's own admission). I'm a HUGE fan of Red Hat, but I think it will struggle to scale far beyond $1B without moving well beyond the OS and its current licensing model. I'd love to be wrong but I've yet to see any examples that would suggest Red Hat's model will work beyond the OS and app server.
(14 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

After 5 years, Firefox faces new challenges

Mozilla helped reshape the Web since releasing Firefox 1.0 five years ago. Now it's got a reawakened Microsoft and Google Chrome to reckon with.

There's a map for that: GPS or smartphone?

Almost every handset comes with mapping software these days, but standalone GPS devices are becoming more affordable than ever.

advertisement

About The Open Road

Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

The Open Road topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right