[Previo por Fecha] [Siguiente por Fecha] [Previo por Hilo] [Siguiente por Hilo]
[Hilos de Discusión] [Fecha] [Tema] [Autor]Les "forwardeo" este mail, de otra lista, que me parecio interesante y aporta a esta discusion. Una de las cosas que que es interesante es la distincion que hace entre los usuarios "comerciales" y los "universitarios", a eso nostros tendriamos que agregar la distincion entre los usuarios del "norte" y los usuarios del "sur". Espero que les sea util. saludos ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:51:33 -0400 From: Bob Drzyzgula <bob en drzyzgula org> To: Robert G. Brown <rgb en phy duke edu> Cc: Bob Drzyzgula <bob en drzyzgula org>, beowulf en beowulf org Subject: Re: Redhat Fedora On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 08:54:46PM -0400, Robert G. Brown wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Bob Drzyzgula wrote: > > > > > Also, I'm thinking I must not know enough about Mandrake's > > cluster distribution. Looking at their website, it > > seems to cost $2320 for 1-8 processors, $4176K for 9-16 > > processors. Why would a cluster shop that had previously > > used Red Hat Linux choose to use Mandrake rather than > > Red Hat's Enterprise WS distribution, which costs $299 > > per single- or dual-processor system, except perhaps on > > technical grounds? > > The interesting question is why anybody in their right mind would pay > for any sort of GPL-based distribution that scales per number of > processors. Especially pay numbers like these. Hell, one might as well > be running Windows. There are two reasons, actually, that I can think of, although they only apply in specific environments that probably don't include e.g. universities that are strapped for cash but have a near-inexhaustible supply of cheap labor near at hand. These reasons are: (a) The promise of support. This is generally more for managers than for the techies, since in a large proportion of cases, the techies most likely know what they are doing. But managers often don't know enough about the technology to know whether to trust that the techies know what they are doing (and perhaps have occasional real-life experiences with failure in this regard), so they at a minimum want to know that there is someone at the vendor who's *job* it is to pick up the phone and answer *their* questions. This may seem irrational, but it isn't really. (b) The promise of a patch stream. This is the thing that is of more actual use to the techies. Especially with the way that RPM works, maintaining patches for an older distribution gets to be a real burden, and it is quite clear to me why Red Hat is trying to get out from under this, especially for the "consumer" releases. To some extent, it's their own damned fault what with the way that find-requires works to build in dependencies on dot-releases of system libraries, but in any event the availability of tested, binary patches for a three-year-old system is of real value and IMHO is worth paying for. Maybe not thousands of dollars per system, but then if I had millions of dollars of income riding on a system, thousands might not seem like all that big a deal. Again, this all likely seems more attractive in a business setting than in a University setting. > I personally think that the global Internet has long since moved on to > a place where this just won't fly, especially for GPL software. I think (and certainly Red Hat is betting) that it will fly with enough customers to make them profitable in the long run. > It's almost funny, in a very sad sort of way. People all over the world > (many of them on this list) have written and contributed the actual > software and continue to maintain it. Red Hat is now preparing to turn > around and sell our own software back to us at an absurd markup and with > little (really) added value other than the distributional packaging and > testing. I'm not certain that this is what they are thinking. I'm guessing that they know full well that "we" [and I use "we" for the purposes of this discussion but acknowledge that I personally probably don't belong in this class, not having contributed much of anything] will never pay them any money for this, just like we haven't been paying them any money for it in the past. In this regard, yes, they have written us off. But I think that they have to be given credit for at least attempting to set up a structure within which we can help to maintain a usable RedHat-style distribution in the long run, without it being such a money pit for them. There is certainly lots of precedent for companies just dumping unprofitable products without such a gentle transition. > I personally think that what is going to happen is that the community > will interpret this as control and just route around it. People on the > Internet proper will just ignore the prices; corporate managers who feel > a need to "buy" something may pay them. Companies seem to be trying to > treat open source software as a proprietary product and moving away from > the support model. Well certainly I can think of one Utah-based company in particular that is taking this to absurd levels, but in Red Hat's case I think that they're just trying to find a way to make a sustainable profit on this. I don't see that it makes sense to begrudge them this -- they're not a volunteer organization or even a non-profit. I'm not sure what you mean by "moving away from the support model", because it seems to me that what Red Hat (and others) are doing is, on the contrary, to make support the *product*. All the nonsense about proprietary logos and per-system licenses is nothing more than a lever to coerce customers into buying this support. Unlike closed-source companies like Microsoft, though, Red Hat is *not* preventing you from using the software without buying this support, but they are making it very difficult for you to take advantage of all the stuff they do to make it *easy* to use their software without paying -- making it easy is what they're trying to charge for. > The real tragedy associated with this is that linux is finally maturing > to the point where it could really challenge on the desktop, not just > the server/cluster/specialized market, and these absurd prices could > retard that process for years. Red Hat in particular has missed the > boat by charging crazy prices for box sets for some years. What, they > think Joe Consumer is going to buy a box set of linux for $150 when it > comes "free" and preinstalled on their PC? They should be selling box > sets for $15 and trying to sell a LOT of them, not a few at crazy > prices. But they have been doing that, and what they have been doing has sound economic basis. They've been segmenting the market, charging each customer according to his or her propensity to pay, much for the same reason that car prices have typically been negotiated. In the past, customers have been able to buy Red Hat Linux for next to nothing -- the cost of downloading the ISOs and burning them on to CD-Rs, or even just borrowing their buddy's copy. They've been able to buy it for $10 or so by ordering white-label CDs from Cheap Bytes. They've been able to buy it for $40 or so by picking up a book on Red Hat Linux at the bookstore. They've been able to buy a basic version with a real Red Hat label for maybe $50, and a nice box with an official manual, some amount of support, and CDs containing all sorts of crap for $150. And recently they've been making it available for prices extending into the thousands of dollars, with all sorts of hand-holding thrown in. They've thus been making Red Hat Linux available at a near-continuum of prices, and letting the customers decide how much they'd like to pay. This is a pretty classic formula for maximizing your income on a product, because at the low end, you wind up getting at least a little money from people who otherwise wouldn't have given you anything. The freeloaders are of course a loss but you can at least hope that you've picked up some good will and maybe they'll think of you when they are in a mood to spend actual money. And you can wind up getting some bigger chunks of cash from the people who don't mind parting with it if it gets them something that's all dressed up nice and pretty. However, I think what we're seeing now is that their product is well-enough established in the market that they believe they can do a bit better if they knock out some of the lower prices, and make a somewhat larger distinction between the free "toy" product and the expensive version intended for the "serious" customer. It is of course possible that they've misjudged the market some and they'll have to fine tune this again, possibly by continuing to take snapshots of Fedora Linux and calling it "Red Hat", in the same way that Sun repackages some builds of Open Office as Star Office and Netscape had been using the occasional build of Mozilla for a new release of Netscape. But for now this is what they're going to try, and judging from their latest quarterly report, it seems to be working. > > > nor are "we" willing to pay enough for > > > vendors (like Scyld) to build cluster distros. > > > > This sounds right. > > Absolutely. It is a matter of what people need. MPI, PVM, and more are > often or even generally available in rpm format and are a whole lot of > what people need. The cluster users who need to go a long way beyond > this exist, but there are fewer and fewer of them at each additional > price notch. COTS HPC clusters were invented because they were a CHEAP > road to supercomputing that supported the needs of a hell of a lot of > HPC cycle consumers with only a few, relatively simple tools. The same > issues exist with Myrinet and SCI -- I'll be there are dozens of > clusters installed on plain old ethernet for each one of the clusters > installed on high end networks (which, frankly, are worth a lot more > than high end/expensive "distributions" since Red Hat cannot alter the > fundamentally limiting computation/communications ratio at a given task > scale, but a faster network interface can!). Well, I think that this is an important point, and what I'd say is that it reflects how the cluster market is different from the general-purpose business market. > So pay no attention to the high road. Distribution vendors that take > the high road are going to starve on a rich diet of a few high margin > sales, just as a lot of the traditional Unix vendors have been doing at > ever increasing rates ever since linux was invented. But the problem with traditional Unix vendors, I believe, has less to do with the price of their operating system than (a) the price of their hardware, and (b) the lack of openness in the operating system. Linux is pulling people away because it allows them to take advantage of such a wide variety of hardware, and because they have nearly unlimited choices in sources of support for their systems. Linux shops can be exactly as price- or quality-sensitive as they want or need to be and still use Linux. A little, cash-starved non-profit can run a usable file/print/web server on a box they picked up from the Salvation Army store for $50, while a Fortune 500 shop can consolidate a hundred different services onto an IBM mainframe running Linux under VM. The non-profit with the $50 server can pay the secretary's teenage son $10/hour to dig around and figure out why Samba is broken, while the Fortune 500 can pay IBM six or even seven figures a year to keep the system running like the proverbial well-oiled machine. As it stands, because of the GPL, the distribution vendors are *never* going to get any money out of that non-profit, but as long as the high-end systems work and excellent support is available, those high-margin sales are going to become more and more common; I really don't see the starvation you're expecting. > Look instead to the low road. Look to distributions (like Debian or > freebsd) that charge nothing, or charge a very modest low margin fee. > In the market of the future one will be able to grow fat on huge numbers > of LOW margin sales, just as Microsoft (for the most part) has for > years. If Sun Microsystems had released their perfectly good Unix for > PC's for a retail price of $15/system in a box set a decade plus ago (or > even $50), Linux would never have gotten off the ground, Windows NT > would have been killed in its cradle, and Sun would own the universe. Ah, but what would it have done to SPARC sales? Sun's situation is quite different from that of a Linux vendor such as Red Hat, in that Sun's business model depends on selling high-margin hardware. Solaris x86, IMHO, was always intended as a loss leader designed to get people hooked on Solaris, and draw them into buying the real thing to get broader range of applications support and greater hardware scalability. They never intended Solaris x86 to become a first-class solution platform in and of itself. Sure, a few VARs and ISPs made it work as one, but Sun was never comfortable with that and as you recall they tried a couple of years ago to kill it off altogether. Scott has always been adamant that he was never going to allow Sun to be held hostage to an externally-defined hardware architecture. One of his favorite sayings was that Sun has never lost a dime selling a PC. To a large extent this worked, but IMHO the mistake they made was when they got too greedy in the late 1990s and allowed the low end of their product line to languish; Sun hated the thought that a customer might be able to build their network around $10,000 machines when $50,000 machines could do the job just as well (yes, I meant that). As a result, in the past few years they haven't had anything affordable to offer to companies who were seeing their IT budgets drying up, and they were forced to sell x86 hardware and even -- gasp -- Linux to compensate for this mistake. > I think it must be the scent of blood in the water -- Microsoft is > finally showing signs of distinct vulnerability, the linux desktop is > finally good enough to sell to corporate customers, and the long awaited > phase transition is at hand. Now all the linux distro people can think > about is how fast they can get their options and their shareholder's > highly depressed shares above water. Another way of interpreting the behavior might be that, in slowed economic conditions they are finding it necessary to either turn a profit in short order or go under. While it may not make a lot of difference in the long term for the scientific research community -- we were getting along with Linux just fine long before it became "profitable" -- I really think that the failure of Red Hat in particular would be very bad for Linux in general. > Slow and steady (and low margin sales and true added value support) will > win this race. Red Hat is already facing a sort of defection of a > rather huge part of their installed base; how long will they stay on top > once the Universities and other institutions that provide their real > base of programmers turn their energies to something that they don't > have to turn around and "buy back"? > > With the GPL, not long at all, not long at all. Again, I think that, while they may be losing a large part of their installed base, they are not likely to be losing a large part of their *income*. This is an important distinction that goes a long way to explaining why they are doing it. And again, they are giving us an outlet for our energies that we don't have to "buy back" -- Fedora Linux. We don't have to accept it, but I think it's a better gesture than we'd get from a lot of companies. Back when Sun decided to cancel Solaris x86, I didn't see them offering to turn the product over to the community. --Bob _______________________________________________ Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf en beowulf org To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf _______________________________________________ Ayuda mailing list Ayuda en linux org mx Para salir de la lista: http://mail.linux.org.mx/mailman/listinfo/ayuda/