[kwlug-disc] How Canonical makes money ...
ldpaniak at fourpisolutions.com
Sat May 15 21:53:24 EDT 2010
The part I don't get is the talk of supporting "two, three distros".
Yes, there are differences between the distributions, but deep down,
gcc is gcc, X is X and Linux is Linux.
I don't know anything about SUSE, but it seems that differences between
RHEL/CentOS and deb systems, when it comes to end-user applications, are
typically rather superficial: file locations, command name/syntax
variance, packaging philosophy. Supporting both is essentially a matter
of working out these differences at the packaging level. The same
application code is used to create the deb or rpm.
Looking at the specs of Ubuntu 10.4 LTS and RHEL 6, you might be
hard-pressed to tell them apart.
On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 18:32 -0400, John Van Ostrand wrote:
> It might be hard to unseat RHEL and Suse. I've talked to software vendors
> and they claim supporting even two distros is expensive. The large ones
> claim they do so to keep competition open and have some leverage over each
> If only Windows software vendors were so wise.
> I pushed things like LSB but it's not a decent option. It was a while ago
> so I wonder if things have changed with Ubuntu's strong presence.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org <kwlug-disc-bounces at kwlug.org>
> To: KWLUG discussion <kwlug-disc at kwlug.org>
> Sent: Sat May 15 17:36:01 2010
> Subject: Re: [kwlug-disc] How Canonical makes money ...
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 17:19 -0400, unsolicited wrote:
> > John Van Ostrand wrote, On 05/15/2010 2:58 PM:
> > > ----- "unsolicited" <unsolicited at swiz.ca> wrote:
> > >> That's what Red Hat did, though, did they not? And they've been
> > >> pretty successful? Profitable, even? Eventually?
> > >
> > > Red Hat's financials say they have revenue of $541M for
> > > subscriptions, that means support, and $111M for training and
> > > services. Profit was $78M in 2009. And it looks like they've been
> > > profitable since 2005 (the last figures given in the report I'm
> > > reading.) It's pretty good that it sees 12% net profit.
> > >
> > > I'm inferring from the text in the report that $45M was training
> > > and $66M for consulting and engineering services. They make money
> > > from OEMs (presumably IBM, HP, Dell, etc.) for engineering services
> > > and from large customers. Both want functional changes to the
> > > software.
> > So, the key, for Red Hat, if not the space, would seem to be hw vendor
> > buy in for a reasonably consistent revenue stream. And I guess they
> > would be somewhat entrenched - i.e. it would probably take some doing
> > for Canonical to get themselves in as well, if not instead, of Red Hat.
> > I wonder what it would take for Canonical to accomplish that, or, what
> > other vendors are out there they could get sufficient traction with.
> > Contrast this with, I suppose, Novell / Suse. Also, IIRC, profitable.
> > But, I guess, somewhat more diversified.
> The real problem with commercial ubuntu uptake is getting software
> vendors to certify their applications to run on (at least) LTS releases.
> A surprising number of applications run on Linux, but usually only RHEL
> is officially sanctioned. Nevermind that it also runs on ubuntu - when
> it comes time to build a production system, you have to use RHEL/CentOS.
> Once people are "allowed" to use ubuntu, the demand for approved
> hardware and support will increase.
> Red Hat probably had the same bump to overcome in the late 90's, now it
> is Canonical's turn.
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the kwlug-disc