>"You are projecting a lot into my argument, I find it distracting. I neither hate Microsoft nor idealize open source. Nor do I, and I suppose it's tautological to say so, suffer a "blindspot" created by rage or group think."

Fair. I will imagine that your premise that Microsoft and Dell are circling the drain can be well supported or - should my imagination be too limited - that there is some positive or neutral connotation for "circling the drain" of which I am unaware and that such a connotation is so widespread that any sophisticated reader would immediately pick up upon that connotation when reading your lead, and that it is I who have the blindspot. And if "summary" has been used as shorthand for creating a strawman, then likewise I have a blindspot regarding linguistic convention.

On the other hand, if I am not blind to some HN meme, "1) Dell's server revenue is purely a function of their vertical integration (single source)," is a mis-characterization of my reasoning as formal syllogism.

Single source helps Dell sell servers. It helps them sell desktops, laptops, switches, services, repair parts, et cetera. In 2012, 57% of Dell's revenue came from enterprise and government. Single source benefits Dell's customers by simplifying contract management. It simplifies logistics for their customers as well. None of this should be revelatory when it comes to bureaucracies. However the belief that this is a Pure Functions of Vertical Integration doesn't map well onto the messiness of empirical reality.

That's why I don't hold it. Dell sells server hardware for all sorts of other reasons. Sever farms exist. Ad hoc purchases happen. Heck, slap in a different video card and the box is a workstation - sixty pounds under my desk says this is so.

"2) Red Hat isn't relevant because their revenues are small relative to Dell."

Redhat is relevant. Dell will install it on server hardware at time of purchase. It's one of two Linux offerings. Yet, this doesn't qualify RedHat as a suitable long-term strategic partner. It doesn't disqualify them either. What would seem likely to disqualify RedHat as a long term strategic partner is:

A) limited market share
B) limited product line
C) limited resources they can bring to bear as a result of those limitations.

For better or worse, "Limited" describes RedHat's relevance as a strategic partner, as well. Dell is roughly an order of magnitude larger than RedHat both in revenue and profits. It is hard to see how a peer to peer partnership of the type you promote would work as a practical matter or create rocket fuel to drive Dell's growth. As a vendor, junior partner, or perhaps even acquisition target the relationship makes sense. But only more debt on top of that to go private is likely allow RedHat to grow to the size of Dell.

If Dell was really interested in pursuing a GNU/Linux first strategy, developing their own enterprise Linux might be a more sensible option. They would control vendor lock-in rather than giving Redhat control of the pudding. And Dell already has a support infrastructure in place and an intimate knowledge of hardware.

On the other hand, Microsoft has approximately the same total revenue as Dell. There's a long term business relationship which has persisted through three decades worth of market changes. Furthermore, Microsoft is able to provide services across the spectrum of computing hardware Dell is likely to produce in the short and medium term, and over the long term the track record indicates Microsoft is likely to provide similar support as the market evolves.

On the other hand, Oracle might be the ideal strategic partner for Dell if they were to go on a Microsoft free diet as they control the licensing of many important FOSS technologies. Certainly, they are about the same size as Dell and more plausible as a market maker.

I suppose one could argue that RedHat's potential impact as a market maker is comparable to Microsoft or Oracle's, though it seems not an argument consistent with peripheral vision or the use of rearview mirrors. It would be hard to argue that any relevance they have is not under greater threat from competition than Microsoft. It doesn't take as much to step in RedHat's pudding as is required to compete with Microsoft - i.e. Canonical, Oracle, Suse, and potentially Dell themselves can provide identical products. Linux is commoditized.