Hewlett-Packard has committed $1bn to OpenStack, a Linux for the cloud, over the next two years. The cash is going on R&D, products, engineering and services, HP said. The company will iron out the kinks in the OpenStack code and make it work and try to sniff out OpenStack clouds on HP hardware out of the box. To grease up the …
> Linux unhooked the enterprise data centre from its reliance on Windows and saw companies run both OSes.
Given the thrust of the article, it's ironic that before IBM really put its weight behind linux, Windows wasn't much of a big deal in the data centre. Solaris, on the other hand...
"Linux unhooked the enterprise data centre from its reliance on Windows"
No - no it didn't - a small percentage of legacy midrange and UNIX systems were the overwhelming majority of systems that were migrated to Linux. The lions share going to Wintel. Hardly anyone has migrated in volume from Windows to Linux in the datacentre.
"and saw companies run both OSes"
Quite - but not at the expense of Windows as you might conclude from your sentence.
Dude. I was quoting the article.
Another H-P fiasco?
"Cloud computing is FAIL and here’s why
Stick that online service up your SaaS
By Alistair Dabbs, 16 May 2014"
Re: agricola Re: Another H-P fiasco?
"Another H-P fiasco?..." Try reading before FUDing. The article states it was a database error and nothing to do with hp hardware. Back to troll school for you!
".....Little is known about the Oracle technology....." They are waiting to copy Red Hat's work and slap an Oracle badge on it, that's how Oracle 'does Linux'.
".....Sun thought it could use open-source code to sell its servers while also becoming an open-source software company. It got bought by Oracle....." Reality check - Sun had, like Oracle has, a very schizo relationship with Linux. In my experience, Sun salesgrunts hated Linux and tried to promote SPARC-Slowaris as superior, even whilst the SPARC business tanked. Their feeble attempts with OpenSlowaris were a bitter rearguard action attempting to deny the inroads Linux was making into their business. The difference is hp has always been much more open to Linux, even long before IBM's post-Y2K $1bn photo ops. IBM's approach was always to try and sell you a mainframe, then a P-series running AIX, and only as a final option would they grudgingly talk Linux. Meanwhile, I was running RHEL on hp Netservers back in the late Nineties with hp support and a lot of their assistance, mainly because we were using them to replace SPARC-Slowaris boxes. By the time IBM were making noises about Linux in mid-2001, we were introducing RHEL clusters for Oracle DB on new hp Netserver LH6000s as a standard build.
All this is true (if unformatted) but HP today is sadly not the HP of the mid-90s.
And even then they tended to try to push HP-sUX before linux.
macro points on market participants in OpenStack and red hat
Some things I think people should consider.
In my view, when looking at a new segment (e.g. IaaS, PaaS, Hadoop/BigData, No/NewSQL Data), both existing large companies and smaller for-profit companies need to carefully study and look for the best places and best chance to participate, add value and make money. Also looking to see if there are existing companies that might have a very good shot at winning parts of that new market, and look to avoid or complement those.
In the case of OpenStack, which is an open-source centric market area, and where the key technologies relies alot on Linux, and to some extent KVM, I would think that people would give Red Hat a pretty good chance at winning the major role in this market. Looking at Red Hat and seeing that they have become the #1 contributor to the project, and given Red Hat's track record in linux and jboss, and in being able to balance community with commercial open source to profitable success, I would stay away from the key market area that Red Hat is targeting.
If I add in the fact that openstack, when combined with Linux and kvm is kind of like "Super-sized-Linux" in many ways, and it will require a strong third party ecosystem of hardware and software participants and developers. I would then look and see if players in this market have experience in this area, have existing relationships with ISV's and IHV's, and are trusted by the third parties to build a sustainable platform, price it fair and provide updates and support. On that front Red Hat would be in the best position, and maybe IBM has some chops there, and VMWare some, but they are not fully in with OpenStack from what I see. Given that you have a company in Red Hat, that most all ISV and IHV companies would trust to be a solid, stable company, and have support and technical skills to back up their solution, and open source skills to balance community and commercial interests, I am not sure why people are trying to take the core Openstack part of the business. That is a very tough battle.
I think it is better to get some concentration of force around one company that can be trusted to drive it forward, and build applications and hardware and software solutions around it. Having 5-10+ OpenStack versions confuses third party ISVs, IHVs and end customers.
I can see why someone like HP fancies going after this area. They currently have no strategic infrastructure software (i.e. virtualization, operating system, database, middleware), and with IaaS emerging as a strategic new infrastructure technology, I can see why they would want to try it. The challenge is that their ability to attract an ecosystem that includes their head-head system vendors like Cisco, Dell, IBM and others, is very unlikely to happen. I just don't see it happening.
- 'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
- Infosec geniuses hack a Canon PRINTER and install DOOM
- Game Theory Half a BILLION in the making: Bungie's Destiny reviewed
- Review A SCORCHIO fatboy SSD: Samsung SSD850 PRO 3D V-NAND
- Was Earth once covered in HELLFIRE? No – more like a wet Sunday night in Iceland