[colug-432] Red Hat in May

[Scott McCarty]

All,
   Yeah, to elaborate on what I think Neal was getting at. Before I came to Red Hat, I really didn't *know* much about the internal culture. It is quite interesting how vocal employees are on the internal list. Employees regularly make their opinions known and I believe that has been intrinsic to keeping Red Hat's culture in tact.

I have to say, everyone I have met internally at Red Hat is motivated, hard working, and rewarded for contributing; whether it is code, community outreach, giving, sales, etc. Red Hat really does have a pretty free spirit about it. It is a bit of a surprise when one first comes to Red Hat. I personally, was not fully aware of the culture before I came here and I believe that is pretty common for new hires.

To Neal's point, from outside of Red Hat, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how Red Hat's business is built around Open Source. For example, a while back I was speaking with someone from Google, and they actually asked me how Red Hat makes money. Even people at Google don't totally understand why a customer would pay to use Open Source software. In fact, I used Red Hat Linux before I came to Red Hat, and I didn't *totally* get it.

There is a wild range of use cases for Open Source: academic, hobby, personal, gaming, small business, large business, engineering, corporate IT, manufacturing, financial services, stock markets, engine controls, etc, etc. Each of these use cases have different requirements. Red Hat really only targets some of those use cases. A prime example would be, where long term usage and partnership is a true benefit such as in financial services, manufacturing or aviation. Red Hat makes money partnering with these companies, which in turn employs programmers, which in turn contributes to a ton of Open Source projects, which in turn contributes to all of the above use cases.

There are use cases, even in the internal operations of Red Hat, where a paid distribution of Open Source software just doesn't make sense. These cases are quickly voiced by employees internally at Red Hat, which does truly help Red Hat keep it's bearings and focus on the business cases that do make sense. There is a constant process of learning and evolution through public debate, which is recorded publicly on internal mailing lists.

While, I have not met anyone internally at Red Hat that completely fails to understand Open Source software, I have met individuals at different stages of learning about where Red Hat fits in. I think this is healthy and normal. Even as an individual, I think it is a constant journey and we are all learning where we fit in and where we want to fit in.

I hope that helps :-)

Best Regards
Scott M



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Neal Dias" <roman at ensecure.org>
> To: "Central OH Linux User Group - 432xx" <colug-432 at colug.net>
> Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:42:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [colug-432] Red Hat in May
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No nerves struck at all, I'm no longer at Red Hat and have no skin in
> the game either way, I just thought it might be of interest to hear
> a little bit of the "internal" perspective. =]
> 
> 
> -nd
> 
>
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Rick Troth < rmt at casita.net > wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Neal Dias < roman at ensecure.org >
> wrote:
> > I can't really speak to the product since it's debut after I left
> > Red Hat,
> > but I will say that from my personal observation, Red Hat really
> > tries to
> > use open standards and protocols whenever possible. ...
> 
> Neal, thanks for chiming in.
> If I struck a nerve, I did not mean to.
> 
> My life is in "z space". APIs and protocols which work fine for Xen
> and KVM or for VMware and RHEV may fall flat when talking to z/VM,
> even z/KVM. It's hard to be architecturally agnostic, even though
> many of us try diligently. So I'm really really really looking for
> APIs and protocols which are common to any virtualization on any
> hardware. I'll be (pleasantly) surprised if MIQ is completely
> "there".
> 
> But please understand, I'm *excited* about it and planning to shove
> aside important prior commitments to be at the MIQ presentation.
> 
> Simple stuff like the ability to script cloning or (virtual) hardware
> changes ... we're talking from the command line ... doesn't usually
> show up. Sure, VMware will make a virtual CD appear when it wants to
> install its own driver. But what if the customer wants to do that?
> (especially apart from the GUI)
> 
> Nominally related, there is the up-coming "VM and Linux Workshop".
> This year it will be at IUPUI. I believe RH is represented. I do not
> believe MIQ is on the agenda. (RedHatters, drop me a note off-list if
> there is interest.)
> 
> I count five thriving architectures for Linux these days: x86, ARM,
> S/390 (aka "z", where I live), PPC, and SPARC. (This last one may not
> count as "thriving" but Oracle keeps talking about it. And I probably
> missed another.) Of these, about 80% support some form of
> virtualization. How they do virtualization varies. How they
> interface with hardware varies. (Emulators don't qualify. That's
> different.)
> 
> > ... I've
> > been an advocate of "roll your own" management solutions such as
> > cfengine+SCM+kickstart etc.
> 
> Mee too.
> Serious long term presence of any product or application requires
> that
> it integrate with the customer's operation. So there's *always* some
> amount of "roll your own". (And there's always back-pressure to
> minimize customization to ease upgrade pain.)
> 
> Neal's discussion about RHN sounds like what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> --
> -- R; <><
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> colug-432 mailing list
> colug-432 at colug.net
> http://lists.colug.net/mailman/listinfo/colug-432
>