Assuming RedHat is the same as my company, Sales and Marketing includes Sales Engineer and Client Implementation. And based on their Jobs page, that is the case. https://www.redhat.com/en/jobs/departments.
Assuming RedHat is the same as my company, Sales and Marketing includes Sales Engineer and Client Implementation. And based on their Jobs page, that is the case. https://www.redhat.com/en/jobs/departments.
That's already 23% of their revenue, which is decently high for their size.
(Grabbing larger companies cause it's easy data)
Cloudflare: 18%
Google: 15%
Amazon: 11%
Microsoft: 13%
Apple: 7%
Meta: 21%
Sure they could definitely do better, but by no means are they spending "little".
High growth tech companies typically spend 26% of revenue on R&D, but these are primarily small-mid scale companies that are actively expanding.
The fact remains that RedHat is still one of the top linux kernel contributors in the past years.
Just a reminder of a couple of things here. And to say that I'd forgotten myself.
Red Hat was acquired by IBM.
IBM has had increasingly questionable business practices over the years (ref: The Decline And Fall Of IBM.
The old saying "Nobody got fired for buying IBM" is an old saying that meant something at some point; whether it still does is another matter. Read the link above to get the full picture. (As someone that used to do support work for HP, a lot of the sales-centric, don't-spend-money-on-the-tech-folks mindset resonated with me.)
People (myself included) aren't happy with Red Hat's proclamation. As an individual, I can't do much other than to watch how this plays out and give my team and management the heads-up, and monitor.
Jeff Geerling weighed in on this yesterday and had a quick additional thought just a few mins ago.
I'd still rather see RedHat as one of the biggest kernel/linux contributors make that extra money than fucking Oracle, Amazon etc.
I'd rather step out of this dilemma and finance directly the people who write the code. If you look at the numbers and including the administrative staff, development is now roughly only 25% of the expense.
They sell ads? Source?
Their expense is 66% about pushing the product and 33% about making it. (not counting administrative stuff). I say let's throw our money at people who spend their time writing the code instead.
RedHat is probably the biggest Linux contributor across the whole ecosystem (for the kernel alone, only companies like Intel, Google or Huawei are sometimes bigger) and the average Linux Desktop user/hobbyist isn't even their target demographic, so what money to possibly not throw at them are you even talking about? Are you currently paying money for a RedHat subscription?
Also spending money on marketing/ads isn't the same as selling ads.
Also, I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to take away from the whole 66/33 thing. Are SUSE or Canonical handling it notably differently? If they've concluded spending lots on PR will get them lots of costumers, making a shitton of money with 1/3 going to devs still might lead to more contributions than making a little ton of money with most going to devs.
making a shitton of money with 1/3 going to devs still might lead to more contributions than making a little ton of money with most going to devs.
Well these contributions are now behind a paywall. The salary of the sales people devs are now safe.
Also, I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to take away from the whole 66/33 thing.
I told you, if you are fine that for each $4 only one goes to the devs then we have a fundamental disagreement. You are absolutely free to agree or disagree. All I do is to show the numbers and suggest that we spend our money elsewhere.
Maybe the real "freeloaders" of this story are not the ones that were presented to us? Can we see it through this point of view?
RedHat is probably the biggest Linux contributor across the whole ecosystem
They contribute more to the advertisement and sales industry than to the kernel. The point is the efficiency of the money spent on them for the open source ecosystem. If you think that on $4 given to redhat only $1 should go to the devs then we have a fundamental disagreement.
I did pay money for their subscription, I already had to deal with them. I won't do it anymore, I prefer to give my money to the people doing the hard work. But you've already said before that the "reactions are overblown" and they decision makes sense. So your opinion was already made anyway.
The point is the efficiency of the money spent on them for the open source ecosystem
Hence my question about SUSE and Canonical. I have exactly zero context for being able to determine that these expenses are excessive. They very well might, but "this number is bigger than the other one" without any industry context whatsoever just doesn't strike me as a meaningful argument.
That being said, if one's primary goal is to support open source development, the best way to spend one's money is obviously to donate to software projects directly. If one needs server support AND wants to spend money in a way that does most for development, the question still stands whether any direct competitors do any better.
Edit: seems like the post from Celestial kinda settles the matter anyways
https://kbin.social/...
You may prefer to give directly, but donations don't typically pay the bills of an open source developer.
The problem is, although you may donate lots, historically, open source devs simply can't live off of donations. Big corporate money from Red Hat allows engineers to actually work on open source stuff for a living.
For all that people might hate them for what they do, they provide steady income for a lot of projects.
So, it's super weird to see the FOSS Crowd simping for a company that's taken what was once FLOSS (Free, as in Liberty), made it FOSS (already a problem), and is now hiding it behind pay-for-play in the repos.
Why is nobody talking about Oracle in all this? Oracle and Red Hat create competing products: RHEL and OEL. OEL is bug-for-bug compatible with RHEL. It's not hard to see why RH isn't a fan of paying their devs good money to develop a competing product, for free. Sure it sucks that Rocky and Alma get caught up in this as well but I feel like this is 100% a shot against Oracle.
Yep, taken in this context, it sounds a lot different.
My question is.. has the reason RHEL and centos been as popular as it has been simply because of a 10 yr enterprise support term this entire time or something else?
I get Ubuntu Server only lasts for 5yr - unless you go spend for the extended support.. but was 5yr LTS from ubuntu server really that make it or break it for people setting up solutions for companies? I feel like the upgrade path is also pretty painless on a 4-5yr cycle as well most of the time. I get it would be even nicer to set something and forget it for a decade - but reality is the 10yr term could be anywhere along the line, not like a new release was happening every year or 2 I doubt. I mean LTS does have that sorta overlap every couple of years so I guess maybe so did centos and RHEL, but still.
Tools are often built of specific and older versions still as well and with containerization being what it is now.. I feel like Redhats big advantage of 10yr support periods is kind of diminished from what it was in the 90's or early 2000's.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
You'll hear it in every company: Sales produces revenue. Everything else is a cost center. If a business could have only Sales and nothing else, they would.
save