These Things Matter to Me
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Sun buying Virtualbox-maker Innotek
(Screenshot of a Windows guest in a Mac OS X host, using VirtualBox)
Most Ubuntu users have long known about Virtualbox, the confusingly-versioned (they have an "open source" version, and a "full" (their word, not fine) version ) VMware Workstation-like tool. It's been in Ubuntu repositories for a while, and I like it quite a bit, though it's never displaced VMware Workstation in my life.
I've been especially excited about the fact that they have a beta version of VirtualBox for the Mac, making it so users on all major platforms can have a similar experience and trade virtual machines around.(Yeah, I know that VMware Fusion virtual machines are pretty much interchangeable with VMware Workstation/ VMware Player machines, but there is no free VMware product for Mac users, so I hate having to check ahead/download trials for users, etc).
In any case, Sun is buying Innotek, and I think it's great. Let's hope they don't pour Java into it! (just kidding. kind of.) One thing that I think has hurt Sun is that it doens't make consumer products. Something Microsoft benefits from, and now VMware, is that consumer behaviors drive corporate decisions. People achieve consumer comfort with a product, and extend the relationship at work. Sun's Scott McNealy would just rail against Microsoft quality. It's not always about quality! It's about not wanting to venture into the unknown. Sun having an easy to use desktop product like VirtualBox is actually pretty unique for them, and a really great change. (Apologies if they make all sorts of other consumer apps I don't know about.)
(Screenshot of a Windows guest in a Mac OS X host, using VirtualBox)Most Ubuntu users have long known about Virtualbox, the confusingly-versioned (they have an "open source" version, and a "full" (their word, not fine) version ) VMware Workstation-like tool. It's been in Ubuntu repositories for a while, and I like it quite a bit, though it's never displaced VMware Workstation in my life.
I've been especially excited about the fact that they have a beta version of VirtualBox for the Mac, making it so users on all major platforms can have a similar experience and trade virtual machines around.(Yeah, I know that VMware Fusion virtual machines are pretty much interchangeable with VMware Workstation/ VMware Player machines, but there is no free VMware product for Mac users, so I hate having to check ahead/download trials for users, etc).
In any case, Sun is buying Innotek, and I think it's great. Let's hope they don't pour Java into it! (just kidding. kind of.) One thing that I think has hurt Sun is that it doens't make consumer products. Something Microsoft benefits from, and now VMware, is that consumer behaviors drive corporate decisions. People achieve consumer comfort with a product, and extend the relationship at work. Sun's Scott McNealy would just rail against Microsoft quality. It's not always about quality! It's about not wanting to venture into the unknown. Sun having an easy to use desktop product like VirtualBox is actually pretty unique for them, and a really great change. (Apologies if they make all sorts of other consumer apps I don't know about.)
Labels: business, consumer, fusion, innotek, player, sun, ubuntu, virtualbox, virtualization, workstation
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Enterprise Linux's exaggerated value #2: the support you're forced to buy
Yesterday I began what will probably end up becoming a series of posts about how y'all need to rethink the meaning of the word "enterprise," and related, the value of support. In specific, I called out how "Enterprise Linux," (usually meaning Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell's Suse/SLES/SLED) is overvalued because the packages you pay for often need to be replaced with packages you don't pay for.
Another problem with Enterprise Linux is the way it's sold. You buy the bits and support together. People might think it's hard for an open source software vendor to just sell the bits, when technically, so much of it is "free," and its easier to just imagine all those software dollars are actually paying for "support" (representing commercial man-hours, not free) but the simple fact is many organizations would love to pay for the bits they could technically get for free, and just do without the facade of expensive support, when the support they get from other resources is more responsive.
Photohosting site smugmug was in that boat, and blogged about their issues with Novell and Redhat.
WHAT WE CAN DO
Many of us who use Linux in commercial situations are more than happy to pay for it. Let's feel comfortable paying for it in different ways. We need to get over the traditional model of a single, central body of developers and supporters being embodied by a single company. There are different currencies and parties involved. Give back to your providers creatively with money, bug fixes, documentation, and sharing your best practicies. Take the time to identify the upstream developers and projects and consider funding them directly. Publicly share your challenges and success stories on the internet, the attention will help future users and the developers by making their project less of an unknown quantity for future users.
But most importantly, be willing to break free of this totally broken tradition of thinking paying a bunch of money to a central body in some way solves your technical problems and protects you. It may make certain people in your organization feel safe, but take the time to run some numbers. What value have you really gotten out of support in the past? Put the burden of determining value on those who sell it.
Another problem with Enterprise Linux is the way it's sold. You buy the bits and support together. People might think it's hard for an open source software vendor to just sell the bits, when technically, so much of it is "free," and its easier to just imagine all those software dollars are actually paying for "support" (representing commercial man-hours, not free) but the simple fact is many organizations would love to pay for the bits they could technically get for free, and just do without the facade of expensive support, when the support they get from other resources is more responsive.
Photohosting site smugmug was in that boat, and blogged about their issues with Novell and Redhat.
...we loved Red Hat Linux, we loved how good they were at building & testing their software, we loved their mechanism for delivering software updates. We just didn’t need support.The company ended up going with CentOS, a clone of Red Hat Enterprise Linux I'll write about another time. Again, you'll notice the author isn't trying to avoid paying for the software, he just doesn't want to pay for a service ("support") he doesn't need.
We got on our knees, begging and pleading with Red Hat to let us pay for a “software updates only” license. They wouldn’t have it. “Support comes bundled with updates”, I was told, “no ifs, ands, or buts”. I *want* to pay Red Hat for the valuable service they do for us and the community. I just don’t want to pay for the part we don’t need - human support.
I would really like to pay Red Hat for all their hard work building and testing the software. .. It’d be the right thing to do. But Red Hat won’t let me.
WHAT WE CAN DO
Many of us who use Linux in commercial situations are more than happy to pay for it. Let's feel comfortable paying for it in different ways. We need to get over the traditional model of a single, central body of developers and supporters being embodied by a single company. There are different currencies and parties involved. Give back to your providers creatively with money, bug fixes, documentation, and sharing your best practicies. Take the time to identify the upstream developers and projects and consider funding them directly. Publicly share your challenges and success stories on the internet, the attention will help future users and the developers by making their project less of an unknown quantity for future users.
But most importantly, be willing to break free of this totally broken tradition of thinking paying a bunch of money to a central body in some way solves your technical problems and protects you. It may make certain people in your organization feel safe, but take the time to run some numbers. What value have you really gotten out of support in the past? Put the burden of determining value on those who sell it.
Labels: business, cent os, centos, enterprise, linux, novell, open source, red hatredhat, sled, sles, supports, suse
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Enterprise Linux's exaggerated value #1: its "tested" packages are too old to use
One of the supposed benefits of enterprise (what that word really means reserved for another post, but a good place to start is here) Linux is that the included packages are "tested" and "hardened" (what does that even mean??!?) for the enterprise. The problem is, in the time it takes to test, these packages have grown quite old, increasing the chances that a sysadmin will need to replace them with software from elsewhere. For security reasons, and technical compatibility reasons, you're often forced to upgrade packages.
And you can't just grab updates from the vendor, because even the updates are really old, only marginally newer than the package that you're trying to replace. So you uninstall the vendor package, and either grab a package from elsewhere, or compile the source. And try to remind yourself what exactly you're paying for again...
An example? The just-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 comes with an RPM for Firefox 1.5.x. What?
A common dismissal of Ubuntu (not typically described as "enterprise linux") is that "it's fine for the casual user, but not for the enterprise."
Frankly, its packages are more appropriate for the enterprise than any enterprise linux i've seen. For this reason alone I'm very excited about its increasing acceptance in the business community. Even if it starts at the periphery...
And you can't just grab updates from the vendor, because even the updates are really old, only marginally newer than the package that you're trying to replace. So you uninstall the vendor package, and either grab a package from elsewhere, or compile the source. And try to remind yourself what exactly you're paying for again...
An example? The just-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 comes with an RPM for Firefox 1.5.x. What?
A common dismissal of Ubuntu (not typically described as "enterprise linux") is that "it's fine for the casual user, but not for the enterprise."
Frankly, its packages are more appropriate for the enterprise than any enterprise linux i've seen. For this reason alone I'm very excited about its increasing acceptance in the business community. Even if it starts at the periphery...
Labels: business, enterprise, linux, novell, red hat, redhat, ubuntu
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Dell's new Ubuntu deal, and vendor support. Do we still need vendor support?
Some interesting thoughts over on Slashdot's coverage of the Dell/ Ubuntu announcement.
For one user, the announcement is actually a deciding factor in a purchasing decision:
I'm very excited that Dell and Ubuntu have a relationship with each other now, and there's no way it can hurt the quality of Linux on Dell hardware. But let's not wait for announcements like this before we feel comfortable pursuing technologies that otherwise trump their commercially supported peers.
related:
Dell interview with Mark Shuttleworth about the announcement, how Linux gets adopted differently in different parts of the world.
more analysis:
For one user, the announcement is actually a deciding factor in a purchasing decision:
Personally, I have resisted the siren call of Dell for a long time. This changes my mind. I need a new machine and this could be just the ticket -- it was either that or refurb an old HP with a new HD and a copy of Feisty Fawn. I like the idea of it pre-loaded.And yeah, that's the kind of response Dell and Ubuntu want to hear. But I think it's time we really question the value and definition of support in the way it's been thought of in the past. Support is extremely overvalued, and lack of support is too often used as a reason to squash a great tool or piece of software. Let's examine our commercial support relationships and think of what we really get out of them. Are our bugs fixed faster? Features added more quickly? Do we find out about upcoming products from our vendros before the blogosphere does? When we have a configuration question, whose documentation is more helpful? Community sites and mailing lists, or the official documentation?
I'm very excited that Dell and Ubuntu have a relationship with each other now, and there's no way it can hurt the quality of Linux on Dell hardware. But let's not wait for announcements like this before we feel comfortable pursuing technologies that otherwise trump their commercially supported peers.
related:
Dell interview with Mark Shuttleworth about the announcement, how Linux gets adopted differently in different parts of the world.
more analysis:
- transcript of the video interview with Mark Shuttleworth above (zdnet)
- BBC news coverage of Dell + Ubuntu announcement
- open source advocate Dawn Foster's FastWonder post
Labels: business, business model, canonical, community, dell, disruptive, information technology, linux, support, ubuntu
Monday, April 30, 2007
Dell to preload Ubuntu Linux on some hardware
[update 11.22PM. Confirmed via Dell KB article!]
[update #2, confirmed on Dell Direct2Dell blogpost]
Dell will preload Ubuntu Linux on some desktops and laptops.
So far, two sources for this story:
1. A Canonical employee (the company most centrally involved in Ubuntu's development and support) who has a great multilingual blog about Linux stuff, wrote:
2. Desktoplinux.com, who says they've heard the news from multiple Dell sources.
I just have to take this moment in.
[update 11.22PM. Confirmed via Dell KB article!][update #2, confirmed on Dell Direct2Dell blogpost]
Dell will preload Ubuntu Linux on some desktops and laptops.
So far, two sources for this story:
1. A Canonical employee (the company most centrally involved in Ubuntu's development and support) who has a great multilingual blog about Linux stuff, wrote:
Ubuntu will be officially supported on Dell computers. Any other details will come on www.ubuntu.com, check it for the official press releaseand
2. Desktoplinux.com, who says they've heard the news from multiple Dell sources.
...the Austin, Texas, computer giant will be preinstalling the newly released Ubuntu 7.04. These systems will be released in late May 2007.Technorati Tags: ubuntu, linux, dell, hardware, support, community, open source
According to our sources, Ubuntu will be released on a Dell e-series "Essential" Dimension desktop, an XPS desktop, and an e-series Inspiron laptop.
Labels: business, business model, canonical, community, dell, disruptive, information technology, linux, support, ubuntu
