Newsmaker: 'Customers are not afraid of Microsoft'

newsmaker Red Hat has had something of a bumpy ride in the last two months.

First, Oracle launched a competitive threat to the open-source supplier, then Microsoft inked a deal with Linux distributor Novell.

As right-hand man to Red Hat Chief Executive Matthew Szulik, Alex Pinchev has access to a lot of the strategic insights afforded to his boss, but is unencumbered by the diplomatic restraints placed on the chief executive. Pinchev, executive vice president of worldwide sales, speaks his mind.

On a recent visit to the U.K., Pinchev told ZDNet UK how Red Hat plans to respond to recent challenges to its position.

Q: It's been a tough couple of months for Red Hat. First, Oracle said it would sell support to Red Hat's Linux customers and offer its own free clone of the open-source operating system. Then Novell signed that huge deal with Microsoft. Let's start with Novell-Microsoft. What do you think of that partnership?
Pinchev: I'm very disappointed that Novell did it. They (Microsoft) went to the weaker player. We would never sell off our open-source community. You probably saw that the open-source community is really mad.

Microsoft has tried to kill open source for many years, but can't do it. I mean, how do you kill a community?

Was Red Hat approached by Microsoft for a similar deal?
If you listen to Steve (Ballmer), Red Hat has said many times no.

So were you approached?
We put a very clear message in the market that we would never do it. Microsoft has tried to kill open source for many years, but can't do it. I mean, how do you kill a community?

Novell and Microsoft have made multimillion dollar settlements over patent issues. Do you believe Linux breaks any patents?
No. We don't think open source violates any patents.

But you still offer financial protection for customers if they are faced with a patent claim.
We guarantee that if an infringement shows up, we'll replace the code. We also offer indemnification.

Has a case ever cropped up?
No. We don't say "open source needs patent protection." But it is here in case someone gets messy with the open-source community.

Do you feel Novell has an advantage over you now that it has signed the deal with Microsoft?
Customers are not afraid of Microsoft. Customers don't want to be dependent on Microsoft.

One of the key benefits Novell gets is working with Microsoft on integration. How do you respond to that?
We are part of the Xen project. (But) interoperability happens at the middleware level, not at the operating system level.

Talking about middleware, you acquired JBoss this year. Your chief financial officer, Charlie Peters, said last month that you were contemplating splitting the product into two versions--one unsupported, and one supported and subscription-based. Will you do that?

There are two things: Fedora and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We want to have a similar model for JBoss. We want people to try the best and finest, but we also want a stable version.

How has community feedback been on your plans to split JBoss?
So far it's been pretty positive. People like the Fedora model.

What about the second major threat to Red Hat: Oracle's announcement?
They are forking their Linux operating system. Oracle open source is not a Red Hat operating system. It is an Oracle operating system based on Red Hat. We have an ecosystem around our operating system and it's a very expensive value proposition. The minute Oracle takes open source into their own environment, they are breaking their own certification. Customers want to know what happens in the future. They will have to wait for us to support it (Oracle's version). It's not an easy thing.

Oracle said it would offer support at less than half the price of Red Hat. How can you compete with that?
One thing Larry (Ellison, Oracle chief executive) says on stage, another in reality. It's half our list price without volume discounts and it's just vanilla support. With Oracle, there's one 24-7 support, the same subscription for all your environment. You are buying support you don't need. We discuss with customers different service levels for dedicated parts of their infrastructure.

The argument is ongoing about whether the Microsoft platform is more secure than Linux. Is it still a sensible debate?
It's not. There were 18 security breaches in 2005 to Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Ninety percent were fixed within one hour. You will not see that at Microsoft.

You are planning to launch Red Hat Enterprise Linux soon. But you've delayed it, with the release moved back from this quarter into the first three months of 2007. Why is it delayed?
We need to make sure that it's really fully tested, and very, very stable. You don't have to pay more for it, it's not like Vista.

What's your take on Vista, which launched two weeks ago?
People are concerned about Vista: usability and the resources it requires. People will look at the alternatives when they have to replace hardware. That is absolutely an opportunity for us.  

Richard Thurston of ZDNet UK reported from London.

More Newsmakers

[cchenoweth]

LOL.. Microsoft trying to kill off open-source

That is the biggest crock of crap I've heard yet. In fact, where do you think some of the best source code comes from? Open-Source. As a programmer myself, I am constantly looking at open-source projects and seeing how they implement things.

Microsoft knows the value of open-source. They are just tricking you into thinking they don't care for it.

[DryHeatDave]

It's horses for courses

I design enterprise software in the financial services sector.

I couldn't imagine anyone even considering Open Source software for a critical system - companies spend tens of millions of dollars, for risk reduction - without a concrete ROI - there is no way they will try to save a measly quarter million or half a million on Open Source.

But then, they probably won't consider M$ either - thanks to the quality of their enterprise products :-)

[iZune]

Yet another Linux Liar

More lies from weak little tech companies. Open source is stooopid - if it's so great, why does it need support? If it's free, why do you have to pay for support?

Linux is just another way to make money, that's all. There is no "higher purpose" of this OS - if it's truely free, give everything for free. Otherwise, stop complaining about Microsoft and go try to win market share on quality instead of whining and complaining.

[dmichaelburns]

Yet Another MS Robot

IZune,

From your comment, it is quite obvious that you are one of the mindless Microsoft robots that exist in this world. Trudging along in the land of Blue Screens of Death, constant reboots and security risks.

You call them "weak little tech companies"? Obviously, you are lost in the era of Win 95, because Red Hat is a $200 Million+ company.

You say that "Open source is stoopid [sic] - if it's so great, why does it need support?" I must answer that with my own question - If Microsoft, Mac, etc so great, why do they need support? The answer is because there are some people out there that are still breaking things that need help fixing them. If Red Hat and other distros were "stoopid" as you so aptly put it, then they would not have tech support. Same for the "weak little tech companies" comment.

There is nothing that says that you have to pay for support. You can always look to the discussion boards or user groups and find the answer as to how to fix what you broke, which is the free option, or you can subscribe for a fee and have the answer given to you. Either way works because Open Source is developed by the users as a whole. With closed source like MS, for small problems, you go to discussion boards, but for major problems you are stuck paying MS for tech support.

I will agree with you that some Linux distros are for profit companies, but Linux is free. You do not have to pay a penny to acquire a legal copy of the OS and use it for anything you like. You can install and reinstall as many times as you like and not get tied into paying more money to MS (hah, try that with Vista which is only going to allow a one time shot at install.)

Linux is winning market share on quality and more importantly security and stability.

[dmichaelburns]

Yet Another MS Robot

IZune,

From your comment, it is quite obvious that you are one of the mindless Microsoft robots that exist in this world. Trudging along in the land of Blue Screens of Death, constant reboots and security risks.

You call them "weak little tech companies"? Obviously, you are lost in the era of Win 95, because Red Hat is a $200 Million+ company.

You say that "Open source is stoopid [sic] - if it's so great, why does it need support?" I must answer that with my own question - If Microsoft, Mac, etc so great, why do they need support? The answer is because there are some people out there that are still breaking things that need help fixing them. If Red Hat and other distros were "stoopid" as you so aptly put it, then they would not have tech support. Same for the "weak little tech companies" comment.

There is nothing that says that you have to pay for support. You can always look to the discussion boards or user groups and find the answer as to how to fix what you broke, which is the free option, or you can subscribe for a fee and have the answer given to you. Either way works because Open Source is developed by the users as a whole. With closed source like MS, for small problems, you go to discussion boards, but for major problems you are stuck paying MS for tech support.

I will agree with you that some Linux distros are for profit companies, but Linux is free. You do not have to pay a penny to acquire a legal copy of the OS and use it for anything you like. You can install and reinstall as many times as you like and not get tied into paying more money to MS (hah, try that with Vista which is only going to allow a one time shot at install.)

Linux is winning market share on quality and more importantly security and stability.

[thedreaming]

Linux is good

Linux is good for alot of things, but it isn't for everyone. Alot of people have left windows for linux and they are very happy. Some have even left pcs altogether for the ease and superior user experience of macosx.

You are wrong about linux companies complaining. They aren't, Microsoft is. Microsoft is trying to kill open source software and can't, so they spread FUD around in the hope of scaring companies from migrating to linux.

Everyday I read about another city or country switching over to linux.

Rather than trying to kill off open source, Microsoft should concentrate on creating a more secure, stable, and superior user experience for their operating system and their users.

[System Tyrant]

A real problem...

is that everybody is always turning things into a religious or political style debate. The merits of any software always seem to be whittled down to a 'my God is better than your God' argument which turns out to be just about as fruitful.

I think the truth is that the world has plenty of room for different views, opinions, and ways of doing things. That's a wonderful thing. It's not always easy for people, including myself, to accept things that go against our own ideas. It's that inability to accept other ideologies that hurt both companies like Microsoft and communities like those based around Linux.

I think that Linux isn't going to be right for all people and all applications nor do I think that Windows will be either. If people had the ability to see through the BS they might find all kinds of stuff that suited them, but that would be asking for miracles the likes of which haven't been seen since Moses parted the Red Sea.

[t8]

Yet another MS employee

Of course it is free if you want.
But who would provide support for anything for free.

What a joke.

Wake up!

[slim-1]

Sounds like another Windows Tech with a financial conflict of interest

Just because you have not had the forsight to train yourself in other OS don't think that means you need to trash them.

This is a consumer issue. If better products come along that are much better than what is being widely used then people need to be aware of them.

Of course you might need to pressure some. Others will see a discussion like this and think "hum, maybe I ought to see what this Linux is all about".

Of course the fact that Microsoft faces competition will scare the pants of Microsoft and Microsoft Techs.

If they would only check out the competition they would realize that it is a good thing and can be learned from.

Basic Business 101

[lsk040365]

Pinchev Does Lie

The comment about Novell being the weaker company is pathetic. That company has been around the block from the top to the very bottom of the pit. I have never seen a company take such a beating and re-invent itself like they did over the past 15 years or so. Novell Rocks! And SuSE is definitely a better distro than Red Hat!

[WJeansonne]

Linux is for Cheapskates -- Pure and Simple

It's slum sofware for nerds who can't stand Microsoft's success, and moreover, too damned cheap to pay for proprietary software's value. They always want something for free and so they get--a Dodge Dart, AM Pacer or Ford Pinto. LOL!

[WJeansonne]

Linux is for Cheapskates -- Pure and Simple

It's slum sofware for nerds who can't stand Microsoft's success, and moreover, too damned cheap to pay for proprietary software's value. They always want something for free and so they get--a Dodge Dart, AM Pacer or Ford Pinto. LOL!

[Dalkorian]

LOL!

WJeansonne decided to show his/her brilliance to the world with
the following comment:

"(Linux is) slum sofware for nerds who can't stand Microsoft's
success, and moreover, too damned cheap to pay for proprietary
software's value. They always want something for free and so
they get--a Dodge Dart, AM Pacer or Ford Pinto. LOL!"

Watch this ...

Winblows is slum software for morons who can't stand thinking
for themselves, and moreover, are too damn stupid to see
they're slaves to the evil empire. They always want someone else
to be responsible for what their computers are doing and so
they get the Ford Pinto of operating systems. LOL!

See how smart I look?

No, Linux isn't for everyone, neither is Mac OSX or Winblows (I'd
argue that Winblows is the scourge of the earth, but that's just
my not-so-humble opinion). You might argue that (any non-M$
OS) is a toy, but all I trust Winblows for is running games so I'd
successfully counter that argument by saying Winblows is just a
toy OS and a rather insecure one at that.

But what have we accomplished here? You throw out a cheap
shot, I counter with my cheap shot. We both go home at night
and do things on the computer, I get what I need to get done
finished and you update and secure your machine against
yesterday's attacks. Nothing changes.

Go buy Vista WJeansonne. While you're jumping through the
hoops that Bill holds out for you I'll be getting things done on
my machine. When your machine starts attacking everyone else
(because it's a zombie and you just don't know it yet), I'll simply
block your address and get on with my life. No sweat off my
back, you're the one who gets to figure out why your computer
is being blocked by everyone on the planet.

[slim-1]

Hey you have the right to pay for crap.

Just keep your virus distributor off the Internet. We need it to be clean and have to much work to have your unit slowing it all down.

To pay for this honor and call Linux users cheap is real real dumb.

[Lanman1]

Where to begin? the war is over!

The war between open source and Microsoft is over. Novell and Microsoft have called a truce, Sun and Microsoft have called a truce. Microsoft acknoledges that it's enterprise customers run mixed environment, whether it's 10% or 90% linux, and they need to play nice.

Red Hat needs to get past there snide remarks and work on training the "community" as they call it to play at a professional level, comments like "it's not like Vista" are just stupid and it will quickly become not politically correct to have those types of attitudes, when your customers are installing Vista! I'll bet 80% of Red Hat customers will adopt Vista for a part of their business in the next two years. Who wants to work with a company that hates what you use for business. Novell would say use their Open Desktop, but if you are going to use Vista, this is how are tools integrate and support Vista.

Novell is not the weaker company, I believe Suse has a larger install base, has been around longer, and Novell has more enterprise experience and more employees.

Microsoft couldn't approach Red Hat as they have no Intellectual Property to trade! Novell owned and retailed Copyrights to UNIX for gods sakes, remember the SCO fiasco? SCO was once a spin-off of a Novell department.

I've standardized on Red Hat ES in my environment, and wonder why I should continue to pay the extortion - I mean annual maintenance, or should I started switching to Suse - at least then when I talk to Microsoft and Novell they won't talk like the choices I've made in my environment are idiotic.

So long Red Hat, hope Novell takes %25 of your market share next year!

[Ryo Hazuki]

'Customers don't care about Linux'

Right, Microsoft can't kill open source, the more they can do is have more than 90% of the market against less than 1% for Linux (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2).
Poor Microsoft.

And yeah, I'm very concerned about Vista's usability and the resources it requires: how am I going to work with virtual folders, improved search and AeroGlass and how am I going to run an OS that needs an astonishing 512 MB RAM, an 800 Mhz CPU and a 64 MB video card, nowadays? That will surely make me consider moving to an OS where I can't run half of my software and half of the things are not compatible with my friends'.
What an oportunity for them.

[slim-1]

The idea is you move your friends to Linux to

Then you will all be compatible. Then no problem.

By the way you can run new Linux distros on half the requirements you mentioned (even as a joke).

Also how do you know the % you sighted are correct when one copy is installed a hundred times all legal yet by Microsoft's standards this is one install.

You know that it is much higher or Microsoft would not be behaving as they are towards OpenSource software.

[larryc92039]

Let me ask you something straight up

Do you work for Microsoft? If not, why are you a constant apologist and spin-doctor for them?

And if so, why are you insulting your customers instead of listening to them? Nobody wants to move to another platform; it's a painful and expensive proposition. It means abandoning major investments in software and training. But if Microsoft continues on its current path, it's going to force many organizations -- including government and fortune 500's -- to move their enterprises wholesale to other platforms.

[lgmbackman]

Some things to remember

This MS / Linux thing was started by MS.
Linux and Open Source was an unexpected competitor to MS.
Thus Gates and Co. tried with all the FUD in the book like "pak man", "student stuff" "Un-american", "communist" and rubbish like that.
Before "Linux and Open Source" life was easier for MS.
The swith from Unix to MS-NT went smooth.
I took part in that too, the company I was working for started to swith SCO customers to MS in order to decrease the number of supported Unix systems (and not only SCO).
The belief that MS would win, anyway, was very strong.
Well, it did not go the MS way.
To day 75% of the top500 super computers run Linux, not "Unix" or MS.
On the embedded side Linux and MS are even with about 30% each.
(linuxdevices.com)
MS will newer ever reach a 90% market share on anything.

Poor Gates.

That time has gone.
And for us, the consumers" it is a very good situation.
One more thing, I am a programmer since 1968.
I have never worked with Open Source, but I love it, because I understand why it is here, and here to stay.

Also even if there is a strong feeling uniting all programmers and especially open source programmers there will always be competition between companies, be they involved with propretary or open sorce or both.
As long as MS, Novell, Redhat etc. are alive they will have to compete.
And there is nothing wrong about that.