Red Hat: Go big or play it safe?
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. 




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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
- 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)RH is GPL all the way and that actually is their best growth protection.