Linux - ServerThis forum is for the discussion of Linux Software used in a server related context.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
Is the conventional Linux support business model of obtaining ongoing support direct from a particular Linux distribution vendor too constraining? Strategic consulting firm Oliver Wyman has an interesting report up on the More Interoperability web site (http://moreinterop.com/Resources.aspx).
The June 2010 report consolidates viewpoints from interviews with enterprise IT execs and concludes many of them feel “they do not have recourse when they do not get the quality of support they require, since the conventional option has been to rely on the distribution vendor for support. IT Executives also expressed concerns in their ability to integrate their Linux environment with other parts of their server architecture, either with their Windows servers or across multiple Linux distributions where there was a mixed Linux environment.”
It looks into the decision-making of those who have opted for Novell ESS to support SUSE and/or Red Hat Enterprise Server and those who have opted not to divorced the support relationship from their original distribution platform vendor.
Anybody here prefer third-party support rather than direct from the Linux vendor you came to the dance with?
Firstly, that's very simplistic - most large organisations have their own, internal, *nix support engineers. They would only go to Red Hat for problems that cannot be fixed locally. In much the same way that large companies have a route into Microsoft. So really, all RH is doing is using a similar model that has been seen to work for MS.
That link, by the way, is terrible. Firstly, we have to look through a list of articles to find the one you are discussing. Secondly, who puts articles online as PDFs in 2010? Have moreinterop never heard of people who read articles online? And thirdly, you didn't declare your interest - it seems that (according to your PDF bio) you blog for moreinterop. Not that that final point invalidates your post, but it's good to be upfront on these things.
Thanks for responding. Would you mind expanding on that thought? Is there something in particular that prompted that response, or just a general unease with the Novell/Microsoft relationship?
[About me: tinyurl.com/petebart]
Essentially Novell signed an agreement with Microsoft holding each other harmless for possible intellectual property issues relating to Linux. I didn't like it because it presumes that MS would have any basis for saying their intellectual property is violated by Linux. The agreement's existence lends credibility to the idea when IMHO there is none. In fact it is more likely MS has pirated Linux code in my view but of course I have no way to prove that since MS is closed source. I have heard anecdotes suggesting that the early MS TCP/IP stuff was actually outputting messages showing it came from the GNU stuff.
Last edited by MensaWater; 07-13-2010 at 01:06 PM.
IIRC, I first saw that on Windows for Workgroups 3.11 or Win 95. There has never been an issue with MS using BSD stuff - the BSD licence explicitly allows anyone to take their code and do whatever you want with it without giving back. It is very very liberal.
It is. It doesn't necessarily debunk the "BSD code in Windows" idea, but it does make it clear that (as I said) it was used openly and legally. Microsoft do so many bad things that this is not something to waste any ire over
Actually, I think that's one of the good things about them - they do provide credit where they should. Mainly, I guess, because it's easier to just put the few extra characters in place than to get the legal team revved up to do some work
And the "ire" bit was a general one - I don't have the impression that you are particularly wound up about this.