MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-08-19 |
| FROM | From: "Inker, Evan"
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] CRN Interview: SuSE Linux CEO / Face to Face Richard Seibt SuSE's CEO
|
OK, Since SCO was part of the UnitedLinux Joint Development (with Suse,
Connectiva, and TurboLinux) they are considered save? And only their
Enterprise Product line is in compliance ???
So all other Linux companies are in violation of software copyright & IP
rights and the GPL which SCO agreed to in the beginning is totally
worthless?
Now I am totally confused...
CRN Interview: SuSE Linux CEO Richard Seibt and General Manager Holger
Dyroff
(URL:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=43781)
By Elizabeth Montalbano
CRN
8:16 PM EST Thurs., Aug. 07, 2003
SuSE Linux CEO Richard Seibt and General Manager, Americas Holger Dyroff sat
down with CRN Senior Editor Elizabeth Montalbano at the LinuxWorld
Conference and Expo in San Francisco this week to share their thoughts on
the SCO controversy, Novell's purchase of Ximian and other hot topics.
CRN: Do you find that customers are holding off on adopting Linux because of
the SCO lawsuit?
Seibt: Not that I can see. So far, our customers are still buying. They
understand that they are safe buying SuSE Linux Enterprise Software because
we have a cross-licensing agreement in place with SCO because of the
UnitedLinux joint development effort. On the other hand [SCO hasn't]
disclosed ... what part of the code they believe is infected. [Because SCO]
hasn't done that, they feel safe. [Customers] know that the court in Germany
[based on actions SuSE took] have decided that SCO is not allowed to talk
about code being infected until they put the evidence on the table.
CRN: Do you think SCO should do that?
Seibt: It would be perfect if they would do that so we would know what they
are talking about. We don't know yet.
CRN: Is there any reason you know of that they haven't disclosed the code?
Seibt: We can start to speculate, but I don't want to do that. At the end of
the day, I read the media just as you do, and there's a lot of speculation
out there anyway that [SCO has] changed their business model and now they
sue companies [and] people. It's something we dislike, but so far it's not
hurting the business.
CRN: What do you think of Red Hat's suit asking courts to force SCO to prove
its claims and to set up a fund to help customers defray possible legal
costs?
Seibt: [It's] perfect. I think it's a very good action and they have copied
what we have done in Europe. We went to court together with the Linux
Association in Germany and asked the court to decide that SCO is not allowed
anymore to tell customers or anybody that there is infected code in Linux.
If they still do that, they have to pay a fine for any case. So this is just
the same as what Red Hat is doing on their home turf in the United States,
and Europe is our home turf. Each of us are taking responsibility.
CRN: Do you think a company like IBM needs to come out and indemnify users
against possible legal action?
Seibt: Why should they? I don't believe there is an issue. I don't think
there's a need at this time to have this discussion of indemnification.
CRN: Which operating system do you think Linux is replacing more--Unix or
Windows?
Seibt: On one hand it's replacing Unix, but if you look at what is happening
Europe-- with the city of Munich, for example--in many cases Linux is
replacing Windows, or at least slowing its growth significantly.
Dyroff: It's also not just about replacing but it's about putting new
[technology] directly on Linux from the beginning. That's what we often see
in [new systems using technologies such as] Web services [and] Java
application servers. If people put these in their companies, they directly
put them on Linux. It's not just about migrating anymore. It's about
generating new workloads directly onto the Linux Enterprise Server.
CRN: But is it Unix or Windows that's being used less because of Linux? And
will there be a shift in the future toward Linux replacing one or the other?
For instance, as Linux on the desktop becomes more prevalent, will it be
Windows that's more at risk?
Seibt: I think it's important to understand why this is happening. Look at
the Unix operating system vendors. There's Hewlett-Packard, for instance,
Sun Solaris and IBM with AIX and SCO. They all face competition from
Microsoft Windows. ... If you think each of the named companies has to
increase profitability each quarter, then it is logical that they think
about what the next steps are. It's my view that the industry has decided
there is one main operating system competitor to Microsoft, and that is
Linux. Linux means two companies: Red Hat and SuSE, and nobody else. There
will be no third distribution that will be supported by the large IT
vendors. And from that perspective, even Novell decided not to compete
anymore on operating systems. They now migrate all of their applications to
Linux. This is a two-horse race between Linux and Windows.
CRN: What do you think of Novell buying Ximian? Does this bode well for
Linux adoption on the desktop?
Seibt: I would take this as a fact that Novell is taking Linux very, very
seriously, and it's another fact that they are not concerned about any
lawsuit. They simply believe that Linux is something that is a huge value
for the customer. Think about what CA [Computer Associates] just did. They
did a survey with their customers about why customers are deploying Linux.
[Customers] named five reasons: performance, reliability, scalability,
security and total cost of ownership, which came in fifth. What does this
mean? Everybody is talking about total cost of ownership, and no doubt this
is very important, because all of us have to reduce IT budgets. But
customers named four other reasons. These reasons are strategic reasons why
to deploy Linux. ... This is a competitive advantage to Windows because this
is not something you can get with [Windows].
CRN: Is Novell's purchase of Ximian going to have a competitive effect on
SuSE because of your existing relationship with Ximian?
Seibt: We have a great relationship with Ximian and we work closely
together. We will further work closely together with Novell. They have named
us first when they did their press announcement about which [Linux]
distribution they will support. From that perspective, I think they
understand that we are operating system experts and they are NetWare and
security and groupware experts on top of the operating system. So we add our
abilities [to that relationship].
Dyroff: Ximian has utilities that it brings to Novell, now Novell can bring
more resources into that. [Novell] can bring their knowledge of software
management, which they have built up for years, into these products, and
that will even strengthen our joint offering together with SuSE, Novell and
now Novell Ximian Linux services. That's important for us. And one of the
next steps is certainly to grow that partnership and bring it to the
channel--to all the value-added resellers who have sold Novell for a long
time. They are looking for new ways to grow their business again, and this
is a compelling offer for the channel. We have a partner program in place,
all the pieces are there and together with Novell we are able to bring these
pieces together and make a huge push for Linux in the channel now.
CRN: Where historically has your channel seen the most opportunity for
Linux, and how do you think that will change in the near future?
Seibt: The channel is very important for us. If we want to become a
worldwide global operating system vendor--and this is what our target
is--then we need to work with channel partners. Some of them, like IBM
Global Services and large systems integrators, if I call that a channel, are
calling on the Fortune 1000 companies. If I look at the SMB market, then we
work with smaller systems integrators--local ones--and both [large] partners
[and small] are very important to us. There are a lot of good reasons for
the small-to-medium-size business to deploy Linux and work with a local
partner for deployment and for support.
Dyroff: We have several Premier partners already in the United States,
especially in the IBM partner space, like Mainline Information Systems or
Techno Solutions Group. We have a very strong IBM channel currently around
mainframe but also around xSeries, especially around x440 [servers],
database solutions, SAP infrastructure solutions, Oracle solutions and such
things. ...We also are in the process of growing the channel through the
value-added distributors, working with the IBM and HP sides of Avnet and
Arrow... in order to scale the channel for us. There are only a certain
number of business partners we can take care of ourselves. So value-added
distribution is important for us, as a partner for logistics, as a partner
for finance and credit kinds of things. [They also are important] in the
future as a partner for putting together solutions which then a VAR can
either sell to his customers or preinstall our operating system on the
hardware, which can easily happen on the value-added distributor level. The
IBM channel is relatively strong, and we are starting to grow our HP
channel.
CRN: Do you think hardware vendors like HP, IBM and even Sun are investing
in Linux because they really believe in it or because they're losing Unix
business and need a way to replace it?
Seibt: The people we talk to, they are believing in Linux, they are
supporting Linux and they know that, [for example], Sun's customers want to
deploy Linux. So that's the reason why they [are partnering] with SuSE and
have something which is accepted in the market and not their own solution,
which is not certified.
It's more difficult for Sun because they don't have any other business. They
have great software but it's not yet available, or they don't charge for it.
So from that perspective I think Sun is a very good partner of ours as well.
CRN: Do you think that in order to stay prosperous, you need to have more
success with Linux on the desktop?
Seibt: [SuSE] was built upon the server product line, and our success is
based upon this technology. Now because the customers experience the value
of Linux on the server, we get a lot of demand on the client as well. What
we did was, [we thought] why don't we take the same code base and make a
client out of this [which is the SuSE Linux Desktop]. ... It is very
important because there is a huge customer demand, and we are not talking
about five or 10 per customers, we are talking about 10,000 or 100,000, and
we are talking about opportunities with 250,000 clients, just to one
customer. From that perspective, there is a huge opportunity. If [customers]
compare that with what they get from Microsoft, if you know what most
customers need--they need Office, they need [Web] browsing and they need the
ability to run hosted applications because most of the applications are on
the server.
Dyroff: I think it's important for the VARs and systems integrators to
inform themselves about the [opportunities for Linux on the] desktop now.
... There might not be revenue in the next one to three months, but we are
in the evaluation [period]. The customers will start asking, and you don't
want to miss out on that opportunity.
Seibt: If you look at that from a business-partner perspective, they make
money more and more on services. But the customers don't have more money,
they have less money. So how do [partners] grow their business if the budget
of the customer is fixed? Think about the opportunity if the customer
doesn't have to pay a license on the desktop. This budget piece can go
directly to services, so it is probably the most valuable opportunity for
the business partner to invest in open source.
SuSE putting dents in Microsoft's armor
By Stephen Shankland
CNET News.com
August 14, 2003, 5:03 AM PT
URL: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5063628.html
Richard Seibt once had the unenviable task of managing IBM's OS/2 business
in an ultimately losing battle against Microsoft for the hearts and minds of
computer users.
Face to Face
Richard Seibt SuSE's CEO talks with
ZDNet's Dan Farber
Through one of history's quirks, Seibt again finds himself in a mano-a-mano
struggle against Windows--but this time he heads SuSE, a company whose
operating system is causing major headaches for the folks up in Redmond.
In late spring, SuSE was selected by the city of Munich in a much-publicized
and rare defeat for Microsoft, which actually came in with a lower bid.
Whether Munich was a harbinger or a one-off example of the vagaries of IT
decision making, it was seized upon by open-source proponents as a big
victory for their side.
Seibt, who still remembers the bruises from his first tangle with Microsoft,
is hardly ready to declare victory. Still, he does see clear momentum
building around Linux--despite the turmoil in the open-source community
triggered by the SCO-IBM lawsuit.
After a long career at Big Blue, where among other things he was managing
director of IBM Germany, Seibt joined SuSE in January. He recently sat down
for a roundtable discussion with CNET News.com's Editorial Board to talk
about the future of open-source software and his plans for expanding the
company's profile in the United States.
Q: You recently beat out Microsoft for a big deal with the city of
Munich--even though Steve Ballmer went out of his way to make a personal
appearance and reportedly was willing to underprice the Linux bid.
A: That's absolutely right. When a consultant's recommendations came up with
an evaluation that the city should go for Linux, that was when Steve Ballmer
decided to fly from Switzerland to Munich. He went to the mayor and said
they would do whatever it takes.
Do you think national politics at all played a part in the decision to go
with a German open-source software company?
I met the politicians from both parties and I was surprised at how well
informed they have been about open source and Linux...At the end of the day,
they had the same opinion: Let's go for open source. So I don't think there
was a lot of politics.
But the fact you are a German company didn't hurt your chances.
Actually, I'd say it was the other way around. It was the fact that they
have been treated by Microsoft not as they had expected over the years. It
was more about that than that we were a German company.
It is very important that the city of Munich decided to change from
Microsoft to Linux. Even more important was that Ballmer decided to fight
that fight--that was probably the biggest mistake he could ever make. I like
history and what famous people said. It was Gandhi who said, "First they
ignore you, then they laugh at you and then they fight you--and you win."
This is a perfect description for a disruptive technology where the market
leader has a challenger and they can't cope with it.
As it competes against Linux overseas, do you think Microsoft's identity as
a U.S. corporation will become a factor? That is, Microsoft is a very
visible extension of American high-tech prowess and that may not play well
in some countries because of current events.
No. Cities, companies--they decide based upon technology, cost and the
service they get. I don't believe the "Let's buy American or Let's buy
German" attitude plays any role. Microsoft may be looking for reasons, but
look at how well IBM is doing in Germany. There's no sign that any IT
companies from Germany are going to beat IBM or anyone else because they are
German. I'm sure that's not the case.
Do you think Linux's acceptance in Europe will be helped by the European
Union's current investigation into Microsoft?
I don't believe that companies make decisions because of the EU or other
activities like that. They make decisions based on technology, cost of
ownership--things like that.
You have to believe Microsoft is going to do whatever it can to prevent
another Munich. If they decide to pull out all the stops, how will you be
able to stand up to that kind of competition?
Microsoft has very deep pockets and their monopoly margin is very high. So
whatever they do, if they make that decision, they can do it--but they'll
destroy their current business model and the share price.
>From a customer perspective, the Munich deal has implications...that
(Microsoft) will start to negotiate on a price point that's 90 percent below
their list price. It's unbelievable. Cutting prices when you have offered
high prices before means that all other customers will want the same thing
too. Their other reaction will be: "What have I paid before?" And that
causes disappointments, loss of trust and loss of relationship.
We haven't talked about the SCO suit and where SuSE stands. Will you put
money into the fund started by Red Hat to fight the lawsuit or does your
cross-licensing deal with SCO still provide you with protection?
We have a joint-development agreement with SCO...and part of that contract
is a cross-licensing agreement. And our lawyers tell us that we are
protected.
But don't you think that if you're really part of the open-source community
that you need to take a stand about this suit as opposed to saying, "Well,
we have a cross-license so we're okay."
No. We applaud what Red Hat did and we did the same in Germany some weeks
ago. We went to court together with the Linux association in Germany. (SCO)
is not any more allowed to tell the public or customers that there's code as
part of Linux which is intellectual property from SCO. If they still do
that, they must pay a fine of 10,000 euros per case.
What do you think of IBM's countersuit? And do you think the GPL license is
strong enough to bear the weight of a trial?
I fully believe it's strong enough to succeed...the case will show that it's
strong enough.
Are you at all worried about software patents? Do you think they pose a
problem for the open-source community?
My opinion is we need a GPL. We don't need software patents.
My opinion is we need a GPL. We don't need software patents.
If you're going to displace Microsoft on the desktop, one of the important
pieces is an office suite. Do you think OpenOffice needs to be better? Are
you putting any developer attention on that project?
I believe the functionality of OpenOffice or Sun StarOffice doesn't need a
lot of changes. I've been using StarOffice for 10 years and haven't had an
issue. There might be a need for additional work but I think the open-source
community will fix that.
So you don't think SuSE needs to devote any resources to that? It's good
enough?
At this point in time, I don't believe so. On the other hand, Sun--with Mad
Hatter--will make sure that all the functions that are needed will become
available. Think about the 44,000 employees who use Sun's StarOffice--and it
works.
SuSE technology is at the core of Mad Hatter (A Sun project to outfit
businesses with low-cost PCs running on Linux software that can be easily
configured by IT administrators.) Do you get payment every time Sun ships
one of those desktops?
We have agreed not to disclose terms of the contract.
You were managing director for IBM in Germany and one of your jobs was to
promote OS/2. Given that experience--which from an IBM perspective didn't
fare very well against Microsoft--are there parallels to what you're now
trying to do with Linux?
There are some similarities. My people are 100 percent committed to Linux
and open source--and it was just the same with OS/2. Thinking about the
product from a technology perspective, there is a huge difference. OS/2 had
a different kernel on the client and server and that caused a lot of
problems for the customer. I believe OS/2 was a new operating system and
Linux is a Unix-based operating system, even though it's open source. Lots
of applications are easily available and there's a skill set available that
can be used. We also don't have the positioning issue where OS/2 was
positioned as the better Windows. Linux is a high-end operating system, so
there is the biggest difference between the two.
>From the desktop perspective, there are similarities. We call on customers
who may say, "We are using Microsoft Office." And this was just the same. We
can say there is StarOffice and it's much the same. But times have changed
as well. We are talking about browser-based architectures. We are talking
about thin clients. And the competition from Microsoft is the same.
Do you think that Sun, IBM and HP are stringing you along and that at a
certain point they will decide to put out their own Linux distribution? They
do their own service and support, so why wouldn't they want to eliminate the
middleman--or buy them?
I don't think that will happen. All of them know the history (of the Unix
market) and what happened. If HP makes up its own distribution, then IBM
will do the same. And this ends up with endless distributions and
differentiation--and that's what the industry doesn't want.
But choice means more than the two alternatives presented by SuSE and Red
Hat.
But what does choice mean? For instance, on the hardware, they wanted to
compete from PCs to servers; they don't see the OS as a differentiator. If
they all made their own distribution, then they'd have to certify their
software, and it adds cost to the bottom line.
But if they're getting rid of Unix, that would suggest there's room for more
Linux distributions. It's all open source. It's all transparent.
If you ask them, they will tell you they want to support two distributions.
Red Hat says the immediate target is the universe of Unix systems,
particularly those running on RISC processors, while the longer-term target
is Windows. Do you agree or are things different on the other side of the
Atlantic?
We agree. But there are a lot of customers already making the migration from
Windows Server to the client. Large corporations are thinking that it's time
to change. When I joined SuSE six months ago, I was 100 percent sure we
didn't need to focus on the desktop. But I've changed my mind simply because
of customer demand.
Red Hat and SuSE are both fighting an open-source fight. We both believe we
have one enemy--and that's Redmond and nowhere else.
Talking about the competition with Red Hat, you've said it is a two horse
race. If so, how many noses ahead are they?
Our heritage is Europe, while their heritage is the United States. Red Hat
went public and got a lot of media coverage. Because Europe is, from a
financial market perspective, 12 months to 18 months behind the United
States, we missed the IPO. Otherwise, it would be an easier race.
Will it look the same two years from now?
I don't believe this will continue.
What's the big difference between you and Red Hat?
I think the big difference is coming out of the technology. There's a common
code base, which means a customer only needs one skill set to deploy SuSE's
enterprise server on all the platforms he might want to run--from the
desktop to the zSeries, or the largest server. The maintenance is driven by
tools like YAST (Yet Another Setup Tool) installation software. That's a
differentiator.
On top of those two things, it comes down to reliability, performance and
stability. This is something that might vary. Sometimes we're ahead and
sometimes they're ahead. Meta Group gives us a 12 month to 18 month
technology advantage. But Red Hat and SuSE are both fighting an open-source
fight. We both believe we have one enemy--and that's Redmond and nowhere
else. From that perspective, we are working closer together.
You're strong in Europe, and Red Hat is strong in the United States. Does
that suggest closer collaboration? Maybe a merger within five years or so?
I don't know what will happen in five years. Today there's no need because
the market is big enough for the two most important players.
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
