On Fri, 22 May 2020 01:42:46 -0700
Rick Moen via Dng <dng@???> wrote:


> C'mon, Didier. Explain please how adoption of systemd in RHEL and
> CentOS either gave RHAT a superior competitive market position
> relative to other market-relevant Linux distro companies

It didn't have to. Redhat didn't give a dang whether their
complexification of Linux also helped other Linux companies. The main
thing is it helped them sell more training, consultation, and certs.

> or improved
> RHAT's financial strength.

It helped them sell more training, consultation, and certs. To the
extent that Linux was easy and lots of people knew their way around it,
no reason for RH customers to buy training, consultation, and certs.
How many automotive repair education companies are there? How many
bicycle repair education companies.

> Trace out, please, the mechanism for how
> specifically that worked, according to you.

1. Redhat complexifies Linux.

2. People have trouble adminning the new Linux and finding folks
capable of adminning the new Linux.

3. People turn to Redhat for training, consultancy, and certs.

> (Please don't forget that
> the codebase in question is open source, ergo you're going to have a
> very difficult time asserting proprietary advantage, if that's what
> you're thinking.)

Ahh, this is where the rubber meets the road. How does one monopolize
Open Source, which anybody can copy and change?

The answer is by insane cash infusion into:

1) Propaganda, sales, marketing

2) Paying a staff of at least 6 to keep Linux changing faster than
unpaid volunteers could back out the poison.

>
> I stand ready to check and verify your financial analysis.

I sold my RH stock about 10 years ago and hence am not privy to their
financial statements. Nor am I a good enough accountant to analyze
their financial statements. But the following are irrefutable:

1) RH made Linux more complex

2) RH went on a big marketing campaign to facilitate acceptance of
systemd.

3) RH paid programmers year after year to expand and debug systemd
faster than unpaid programmers, who needed to spend most of their
time at their job, could undo the damage.

4) RH sells consultation to "help" with the new, complexified Linux, to
train employees how to deal with the new, complexified Linux, and
certs to assert competency in the new, complexified Linux.

5) RH doesn't give away the training, consultation and certs for free.

6) Therefore RH profits from their complexification of Linux.

>
> Ideological handwaves are not an answer to the question posed.

Agreed. I prefer follow the money tiptoes.

SteveT