How do Linux vendors make money?

manveruppd · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:09

I understand that companies like Red Hat don't actually charge for their Linux distros, so I was curious: where do they make their money from? Just selling support to corporate clients?

Tefal · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:10

Support.

Manlove is my forte · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:11

manveruppd said:
I understand that companies like Red Hat don't actually charge for their Linux distros, so I was curious: where do they make their money from? Just selling support to corporate clients?

You do pay for Redhat Linux

Generally Enterprise versions of Linux are purchased with a 1 year support agreement

https://www.redhat.com/apps/store/server/

steve-h · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:17

I've bought a few archlinux mugs

pingwing · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:19

T-shirts! who doesnt want a t-shirt with a penguin on it!!!!

Skeeter · 21 Oct 2009 at 00:21

Tefal said:
Support.

This.

Even with charged for software, of any kind really, the real money is in the support contracts. Organisations spend huge amounts on support for software every year.

ChrisB · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:08

We use it since it offers:
1) Support.
2) Stability & security.
3) Lots of the software we run is only certified with a few distros, RHEL SuSE etc...

Oh and it doesn't cost us that much

J.B · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:12

pingwing said:
T-shirts! who doesnt want a t-shirt with a penguin on it!!!!

Its true, if you wear a Tux t-shirt into a pub they have to give you a free drink. Thats the law.

If they dont give it to you ask for it again but say sudo first

*gets coat*

Abz · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:12

they mug Microsoft programmers as they leave work everyday

knowledge123 · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:12

Tefal said:
Support.

Explains why Linux is so rubbish, then, amirite guise???

No seriously, I do love Linux, just needs better useability.

Dolph · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:15

By charging more for a supported install than Microsoft do for a supported windows installation, despite the fact the software licencing is free?

There is a reason why businesses don't all rush on the open source bandwagon, you don't actually save any money, in many cases it's actually more expensive by the time you factor in training and custom software port costs.

Kodiak · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:18

manveruppd said:
I understand that companies like Red Hat don't actually charge for their Linux distros, so I was curious: where do they make their money from? Just selling support to corporate clients?

The sell drugs to kids.

Thats why linux is bad mmmmmkay

Bes · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:33

J.B said:
Its true, if you wear a Tux t-shirt into a pub they have to give you a free drink. Thats the law.

If they dont give it to you ask for it again but say sudo first

*gets coat*

haha

If only!

Vonhelmet · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:37

Dolph said:
By charging more for a supported install than Microsoft do for a supported windows installation, despite the fact the software licencing is free?

There is a reason why businesses don't all rush on the open source bandwagon, you don't actually save any money, in many cases it's actually more expensive by the time you factor in training and custom software port costs.

It depends really. For certain back office tasks, web and database servers in particular, it can be a drop in replacement. There's no hope for anything with any relation to Windows at this stage though. Active directory and exchange have a stranglehold and no OS replacements, and linux on the desktop is no go while office has such powerful network effects and - as you say - because retraining is a pain in the arse.

NickK · 21 Oct 2009 at 08:49

Dolph said:
By charging more for a supported install than Microsoft do for a supported windows installation, despite the fact the software licencing is free?

There is a reason why businesses don't all rush on the open source bandwagon, you don't actually save any money, in many cases it's actually more expensive by the time you factor in training and custom software port costs.

That's very much a blanket statement.

In my old company we had standardised on RedHat AS on HP Proliant. The net effect is to lower costs as the skills are transferrable, easily available and RedHat is accepted by customers as a "tried and tested platform".

As long as you base your portfolio products on one version of the OS and all move forward together it's not a problem.

Additionally I've heard some companies forgo the maintenance and security upkeep (viewing it as insurance that they don't require) as their machines are within the secure data network that's not attached to the company corporate intranet or can access the internet.

Burnsy2023 · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:05

NickK said:
Additionally I've heard some companies forgo the maintenance and security upkeep (viewing it as insurance that they don't require) as their machines are within the secure data network that's not attached to the company corporate intranet or can access the internet.

That's a bad idea if I ever heard one.

daz · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:36

Dolph said:
There is a reason why businesses don't all rush on the open source bandwagon, you don't actually save any money, in many cases it's actually more expensive by the time you factor in training and custom software port costs.

In many cases it's not necessarily about saving money, it's about being better. Microsoft can't deliver [certain services] at an enterprise level - an example of this is shown by only approximately 20% of web servers running on IIS/Windows.

manveruppd · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:54

Since all versions of Linux are open source, could a large corporation in theory hire its own experienced Linux coders instead of paying for support from the vendor?

philjohn · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:55

vonhelmet said:
Active directory and exchange have a stranglehold and no OS replacements, and linux on the desktop is no go while office has such powerful network effects and - as you say - because retraining is a pain in the arse.

I would disagree slightly on one of those points, Zimbra and Scalix are both mature exchange replacements (Scalix especially so, it's the remnants of HP OpenMail and pushing 25 years old) - you get ActiveSync, Outlook integration and a far superior webmail package.

I think the main reason RedHat et al make money is that when you are running mission critical stuff you need someone on the end of the phone who can get you back up and running quickly and efficiently if things go wrong.

daz · 21 Oct 2009 at 09:57

manveruppd said:
Since all versions of Linux are open source, could a large corporation in theory hire its own experienced Linux coders instead of paying for support from the vendor?

If you have the expertise in-house, there's no problem doing this at all. Solaris, CentOS, FreeBSD are free to use, but if you want support past the manual, online documentation or online mailing lists/support forums, you pay.