|
|
| Red Hat Makes Money With the GPL. How Could That Happen? |
 |
|
Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 05:46 PM EST
|
The world according to SCO says that you can't make any money from Linux. That pesky GPL stands in the way of profits, they allege. I'd say their "unconstitutional" argument just took a hit, because Red Hat is making money. The Street's Ronna Abramson reports that Red Hat just announced its third-quarter earnings and it seems their subscription model is doing just fine, thanks. They beat analysts' expectations: "Red Hat reported third-quarter earnings in line with Wall Street estimates Thursday, but the Linux software vendor's revenue swelled 36% from a year ago, beating analyst expectations. . . .
"Red Hat also announced that it has agreed to acquire privately held storage infrastructure software company Sistina Software for $31 million in stock. The acquisition is expected to be completed in early January." We'll find out Monday at 11 AM how SCO is doing.
Meanwhile, Red Hat filed this press release with the SEC in the latest 8K on the Sistina acquisition: "'The acquisition of the Sistina technology and world class
development team, in close collaboration with the open source
community, will greatly accelerate the availability and advancement of
open source storage solutions for the enterprise,' said Paul Cormier,
Executive vice president of Engineering at Red Hat.
"Sistina's engineering team, consisting of industry experts in
clustering and virtualization, will augment Red Hat's development
efforts. The integrated team will work to make all of Sistina's
technologies open source and available as a part of a subscription in
the first half of 2004." Red Hat is now oriented to enterprise users, so this acquisition is part of that emphasis. Let's let Red Hat describe their good news about their finances themselves, from another press release just filed with the SEC: "Red Hat Delivers Record Revenue, Cash Flows from Operations, and Operating
Income in Third Quarter
"RALEIGH, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 18, 2003--
"Growth in Enterprise Subscription Volumes Accelerates to 33,000
New Subscriptions, Drives 40% Sequential Growth in Deferred Revenue
"Red Hat, Inc. (NASDAQ: RHAT), the world's premier open source and
Linux provider, today reported financial results for its third quarter
of fiscal year 2004.
"In the third quarter of fiscal 2004, Red Hat reported revenue of
$33.1 million, a sequential increase of 15% compared to $28.8 million
in the second quarter of fiscal 2004, and a year-over-year increase of
36%. . . .
"Highlights for the third quarter include:
"Third quarter sales of annual subscriptions for the Red Hat
Enterprise Linux family of technologies increased sequentially by
7,000 subscriptions, or 27%, to approximately 33,000 subscriptions.
Renewal rates for Red Hat Enterprise Linux approximated 90% for the
second consecutive quarter. Deferred revenue increased 40%
sequentially, to $42.3 million. Gross margins remained strong, with
blended gross margins at 72%, and gross margins of Enterprise
subscriptions remaining constant at 88%.'Our revenue growth
accelerated in the third quarter, which translated to increased
operating income and cash flows from operations,' said Kevin
Thompson, Red Hat Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer. 'The subscription revenue model has developed sufficient
maturity to enable us to drive consistent sequential increases in
quarterly revenue.'" This all reminded me of Groklaw's Open Letter to SCO last September, and something we quoted from economist and analyst Amy Wohl, from her article, The Open Source Community Has a Business Model:
"As an economist, let me assure you that Open Source has a business model. It simply isn't one that a traditional company like SCO, which expects to be paid for source code, can figure out. There are still lots of companies that can charge for source code, but only when the source code they are offering is valued by customers because it is unique or convenient or offers other recognized value. Other companies (IBM is a good example) charge for their Linux-compatible middleware source code, but honor the Open Source community by supporting it with technical and financial assistance and by strongly supporting the open standards that permit customers to choose to use Open Source code when they prefer it and purchased source code when they find it, for whatever reason, more valuable. Then, as many posters have noted, IBM extends its business model into the future by providing services to help customers plan, design, implement, and customize whatever combinations of hardware, open source, and proprietary code the customer prefers.
"That is the new business model and it seems to be a very successful one." Wohl has an interesting article on her blog today, called "Can Analysts Belong to the Open Source Community?" They can if they want to, as far as I'm concerned. Ms. Wohl writes that she uses Groklaw as a resource. She would like the community to know that not all analysts are sewn from the same cloth. Her article begins, "I just finished reading my way through an article by analyst Rob Enderle on Linux World, arguing for vendor indemnification for Linux, and hundreds of posted comments. . . . . " Do take a look. For one thing, you will discern the value in writing polite comments, which I know Grokkers always try to do. In fact, I hazard to say they are more polite and fair than some journalists, who think nothing of defaming and demeaning the Linux community and then cynically brag about all the page hits their vitriol generates. The question I have for her, and anyone else who might know, is: why is it that when the media writes articles about Linux and its proponents, the analysts that usually show up are rabidly pro-SCO? Is that the plan going in? Or is it because you don't know anyone else to interview? In some cases, it's obviously deliberate, but in most cases, I think it's more likely the latter. When was the last SCO story you saw that quoted Ms. Wohl, for example? Yet, looking at the Red Hat news today, ask yourself: was she right? Journalists: this is a hint. If you would like to cover the story more fairly, would it not make sense to speak to someone who understands open source and doesn't view it like a nasty bug or a passing fancy?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: shaun on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:04 PM EST |
The problem is the bad press is placed out in front while the positive press
seems to be hidden away. Sensationalism sells and SCO creates sensationalism
with the FUD. The OSS on the other prefers to use facts.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:06 PM EST |
If you go to http://www.sco.com/company/jobs/ you can see that SCO is looking
for someone new to do SEC filings. Interestingly enough this job was posted the
day they were to turn in their filings originally. Hmm..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:19 PM EST |
For those who want more money from certain parties (say for example you're
setting up a new consulting / analysis business) what better way to attract
those parties' attention than write widely distributed analyses congruent with
their interests? (all the while proclaiming your independence, natch).
And what better way to build up a following, to get exposure for your new
analysis house than to get millions of page hits from people who may link back
to you, or whose comments on discussion boards link back to you (ie, game the
Google system).
Perhaps for some analysts, like for many performing artists, free internet
distribution is not death, but zero publicity is. (see article on Janis Ian's
page).
It all goes back to Darl's book of clippings, doesn't it?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:27 PM EST |
I think it's pretty clear that the SCO group never had any interest in actually
running a Linux company.
Thanks to Darl's big mouth it's clear that by late fall/winter of 2002 they
had their quick bucks scam put together.
As for journalists, I know there are good investigative reporters out there and
I wish one of them would take an interest in this case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SmyTTor on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:34 PM EST |
My faith in the ethics of journalism has waned during the legal assaults from
SCO and my views on analysts could be phrased as far below sea level. The
majority of articles I have read predominantly (at least in the beginning)
support SCO and misrepresent the open source community, not because of bad
information, but because very little effort seems to have been made to
understand the content available. One must admit that there is an abundance of
information to reference and a great many organizations and key people to
contact. There was a feeling of arrogance from many writers supporting SCO
without credible evidence and without properly portraying or even giving fair
coverage to the opposition.
When certain journalists have made statements that have turned out to be wrong,
instead of owning up to the developments they have become more hostile towards
open source and its supporters, for how dare they criticize a credited
journalist’s writings. Even when the general consensus of journalists, analysts,
and just about everyone else following SCO’s accusations is that they are either
inaccurate or unfounded, a certain few seem to increase their ill-will towards
open source and write what many people describe as insulting.
If the name of Daniel Lyons comes to mind, it might be that he is the prime
example of what bothers me about the state of journalistic ethics today and that
he is the very catalyst in my writing this. The piece he wrote referencing br3n
was probably the most disturbing thing I have ever read coming from Forbes. I
still cannot believe my eyes. It is not just that article, however; search for
Daniel Lyons previous articles and you can judge for yourself how little
objectivity plays in what he is writing. It is very disconcerting a publication
such as Forbes allows contributions that wouldn’t be out of place on a public
bulletin board under the heading of ‘flames’.
Smy[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: snorpus on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:36 PM EST |
| From Ms. Wohl's article:
Then, as many posters have noted,
IBM extends its business model into the future by providing services to help
customers plan, design, implement, and customize whatever combinations of
hardware, open source, and proprietary code the customer
prefers.
IIRC, this has always been a part of IBM's Business
Model, going back to the mainframe hay-days of the 50s and 60s, if not earlier.
If you bought an IBM mainframe, you got X number of on-site IBM Customer
Engineers (CEs) for (I think) a year.
After the year was up, you could "try"
to keep the monster running by yourself, or you could contract with IBM for
another year's worth of onsite support. Where this model started to fall apart
was when minicomputers (and later, PCs) emerged that could do what mainframes
did before, and companies discovered that they actually could do without
those expensive support contracts. For a while there in the 70s and 80s,
computing was actually becoming simpler.
The Internet changed all
that. The complexity isn't so much in the actual computers, but in the systems,
and how they interrelate. As an example, one of WalMart's competitive advantages
is that it operates what is likely the most efficient distribution network of
any company, retail or not, and that relies upon its Information Systems.
IBM
is leveraging its systems and hardware expertise with a stable, scalable,
open-source operating system. In a way it's ironic that it turns out that a
classic "Big Business" is best positioned to use F/OSS to the fullest (and to
the benefit of both).
---
73 de KQ3T [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 07:44 PM EST |
this is where the open source people themselves can make the difference
give amy the page hits.this means when the word analysts come up her page
ranking increases.
any article she writes post feedback to her
it doesnt matter if you agree or not
if you disagree just be polite.but at least give her feedback.i had forgotten
amy and was condemning all analysts.i have apologized to her for thatbecause i
have read her work and agree almost all the time with what she writes.
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:18 PM EST |
If you read Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them,
he
has a chapter on why the media covers what it does. While individual
journalists may have a liberal social bias, most advertising and
publishers
(money) have a conservative capitalist bias.
Most analysts - who are
generally analyzing for the moneyed press -
for
stock investors and people
making buying decisions (since they will pay
money and subscriptions for the
research) will also tend to exhibit this
capitalist bias. (money is good, the
way to grow the economy is to create
new markets, ie convince people to spend
money on things they didn't
before, ie commercialize more of
society.)
Many people who buy into this feel ve
ry threatened by loss of
control
and any mention of "gift
economy" and autonomous emergent
behaviour.
Where this becomes interesting, and
why the SCO suit is so
fascinating is
that if someone wants to give away their
efforts (or rather license their
copyrights such that people can further
distribute such efforts with the
same conditions) it just really conflicts with
people who think that money
is the only measure of gain.
And the law
part is interesting too, from societal point of view - At
what
point can you
teach someone that sharing is bad? (tongue in cheek)
You teach 2 and 3 year olds
to share their toys, but 12 and 13 year olds
not to share music and 32 and 23
year olds not to share their software
efforts? (because otherwise it will
destroy all value in the stock market
where your retirement funds are
invested.) When do you as citizen need
to become versed in interstate commerce
law?
No easy answer. Will be interesting to see how court case goes
down.
Thanks for sharing research, PJ. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:32 PM EST |
RealNetworks Inc. today announced it filed an antitrust
suit against Microsoft Corp., alleging the software giant used it's monopoly
power to force computer makers to exclusively use the Windows Media Player and
restrict PC makers rights to include other media
players.
Alex
---
Hey Darl!! Did Ross Perot draw your
chart?" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:33 PM EST |
RedHat makes money with Open Source, yes. But if you compare their revenues to
that of other players, you have to realize that the ratio of overall installed
value of the software they are responsible for and their actual revenue is
ridiculous.
Basically, RedHat is a harvesting company that can only survive because others
happen to do the majority of sowing and plowing. While RedHat employs some key
developers, taking a look at how much work they streamline into usefulness as
compared how much they do themselves, it becomed clear that they more or less
serve as organizers and animators in a Kibbuz-like work camp where a small ratio
of idealists and a probably larger ratio of playalongs that like the atmosphere
work mostly for free, because they can afford it.
The development model is not sustainable, it depends on volunteers that are
content to burn their time and money for some well-feeling. Of course, like
vacation clubs and similar, this can be organized and pretty much streamlined
into a continuously working revenue stream. But it is much more fragile to
changes in the overall economic situation.
Telling companies like IBM that RedHat makes revenue with software makes about
as much sense as telling Michael Jackson (ok, pick a different superstart, this
one's unpopular right now) that the fiddler on the street corner earns his
income without having to sell CDs.
The kind of outlet you are talking about has a different scale.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:54 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:10 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: mac586 on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:15 PM EST
- You should try stand up comedy - Authored by: trox on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:23 PM EST
- Just for some well-feeling? - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:43 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:13 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:16 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:27 PM EST
- Validity of GPL has nothing to do with who or how much you can profit!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:28 PM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:17 AM EST
- How Much... - Authored by: SmyTTor on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:18 AM EST
- How Much... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:58 AM EST
- How Much... - Authored by: armydude on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:09 AM EST
- How Much... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:36 AM EST
- Wrong Perspective - Authored by: irieiam on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:40 AM EST
- Largely Irrelevant - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:08 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 01:08 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:06 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: mitphd on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 08:45 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Chaosd on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:14 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 09:19 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:41 AM EST
- Oh puleeze... - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:14 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: dmomara on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 08:50 PM EST |
Its old, its rickety, no one knows when it'll fall apart from dry rot, but
there's no ride on the Naz more fun than the SCOlercoaster! Step right up
folks, you know you're tired of that kiddie RMBS ride, get some real action
here! Up, down, sideways, back and forth; nobody knows where the SCOlercoaster
goes next, we only know where it ends up!
Tickets $19.00 (Discounts may soon be available.)
(You must be _this tall_ to ride the SCOlercoaster.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: trox on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:01 PM EST |
Real Networks is sueing M$ for antitrust violations. Doh!! (slap up side head).
Who would have ever guessed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 09:08 PM EST |
I would suggest that many financial analysts have not figured out Open Source
yet as it does not fit conveniently into the traditional investment buckets. As
a sell-side analyst much of my job involves taking technically complex issues
and business models and distilling those down into snippets that may easily be
disgested by a money manager in a few minutes. Keep in mind that many of the
money mangers that buy RHAT or SCOX, may also be buying healthcare firms, steel
companies or a multitide of other unrelated stocks. For this reason Wall Street
tends to group business models and results. E.g. RHAT is a software firm, NOVL
now competes with them, both companies will enjoy lower margins and prices
because that is what happens when software firms compete. As I have detailed
in reports I don't believe this is the case but understanding the unique
aspects of the Open Source model is not something many on Wall Street have taken
the time to do. This is probably why it it easier to find analysts of a certain
view.
As evidence my statements are based on real work, I would point out that we
wrote about RHAT's largest deal ever on 11-17 three weeks before it was
announced and last week wrote about a strong Feb-qtr for RHAT, a prediction
supported by today's guidance. Of course this is only possible by trading
ideas with the IT community and I'd like to thank all those that have spent
time with me.
That said, congrats to RHAT and special thanks to Pamela for the tremendous
amount of work she performs on behalf of the Open Source community.
Required Disclosure: I do not hold a position in any of the securities
mentioned. Decatur Jones does not engage in investment banking and nothing in
the above is meant to solicit a trade in any security.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:02 PM EST |
Good to see that a company with a reasonable model can still do things right.
Thinking of RedHat, any news about the RedHat vs SCO case?
Will the strong Q make their case any harder--ie. trying to prove that their
business has been adversely effected?
Keep up the good work PJ.. :P
--AC..cuz I'm Lay-Zee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: findlay on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:29 PM EST |
| Journalists: this is a hint. If you would like to cover the story more
fairly, would it not make sense to speak to someone who understands open source
and doesn't view it like a nasty bug or a passing fancy?
PJ has power
and she knows it. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveAtFraud on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:44 PM EST |
I've been in the software development business since 1980. When I started out
two resources were scarce and thus expensive: computers and programmers. I
worked for a big company (TRW) that could afford both plus the infrastructure
and management to maintain software development. The scarcity of the resources
ensured that those who could bring the resources to bear could slso command a
steep price for the result.
As the 1980s turned into the 1990s the business environment changed as computers
became steadily less expensive. There was a recognition that the equation had
changed and programmer time was now the driving factor. As PCs became more
common it rapidly became apparent to me that a big company doing big software
was a dinosaur waiting for extinction. What had previously been the province of
raised floors and climate controlled rooms suddenly could now be plugged into
any wall socket which meant a lot more competition with a lot less overhead.
From the software development perspective, the PC revolution was primarily about
moving software development out of big companies to any company that had some
good ideas and the organization to transform the idea into code and the code
into a marketable product. Software became less scarce but programmers were
still expensive so it still wasn't cheap.
The next change was the internet. The internet meant that you didn't even need
a company to organize a software development effort if you could just get enough
people interested. Taken together with cheap computing resources and lots of
people with computers who wanted to make them do more things and you had all the
ingredients for replacing the old paradigm of software is developed by big
companies and is expensive with a new paradigm of software being created by a
loose organization of people contributing their time, energy and skill for a
variety of reasons but direct payment generally isn't one of them. All of the
sudden software isn't scarce anymore unless its price is propped up
artficially.
So I've just blathered a lot of words describing the past 20 odd years of
computing and the question is, so what? The answer is pretty simple: businesses
exist to separate people from their money in exchange for alleviating a
scarcity. The open source movement has done much to alleviate the scarcity of
software that traditional software vendors such as SCO have exploited to make a
profit. The scarcity that companies like SCO based their business on no longer
exists. It has been replaced by a scarcity of knowledge of how to take the
wonderful fruits of free and open source software and use it in a business
environment.
IBM and Red Hat (among others) see this and are changing or creating a business
model to address the new demand. SCO and Microsoft are trying to put the genie
back in the bottle and make software scarce again. They are like the operators
of a toll bridge when the river has changed course; protesting that people
should still pay them for using their bridge when its no longer the only
alternative or even necessary. What is even more remarkable are the
"analysts" who insist on praising the fine workmanship of the bridge
and point out that it must be a fine investment.
IBM and Red Hat may or may not have it right but they are making money at it and
the analysts who don't understand how to make money from free/open source
software miss the following point. Nothing is going to put the river back under
the toll bridge. The trick is to figure out how to make money from all of the
people who previously couldn't or wouldn't pay to cross the bridge and now
find themselves in a strange land. Red Hat is in the business of showing these
people the easiest way to cross the old channel and IBM is offering a guide
service on the other side and there seems to be plenty of business for both of
them.
---
Quietly implementing RFC 1925 wherever I go.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:48 PM EST |
| Off topic, but Groklaw doesn't have a 'user submitted topic' section, so...
in here it goes...
The SCO website has
had a new update. Lots more blue than yellow. However, one of the prominent
features is the advertising of one of their products, SCO Authentication.
Except... it doesn't appear to be one of their products anymore.
The 'train
station sign' style banner now says "VINTELA (TM) Authentication, by SCO". Well,
this is new. Clicking on the link takes you to SCO's SCO Authentication home
page, with no further reference to Vintela ANYWHERE. This page even has the
older SCO Authentication banner.
None of the documentation I've downloaded
for SCO Authentication mentions Vintella anywhere, not even the Whit
e paper. It's only on the main page... perhaps because the main page is more
recent than anything else, and the 'anything else' has yet to be updated. It's
hard to say, as the headers coming back from those URLs shows 'now' dates. It's
probably being dynamically generated. (Yes, you can do that, even if the
extension is .html )
A search for Vintela using Google returns this likely
site: www.vintela.com
It appears that
Vintela has something to do with security. From their main
page:
Vintela provides key infrastructure technologies to
enhance the security and manageability of applications and systems for companies
with mixed Windows®, UNIX®, and Linux® environments.
But,
no mention of SCO anywhere, including in their Company information. It's not a
Canopy company, either, looking at Canopy's Portfolio. However, a little bit of digging
into Vintela's Contact Us page
reveals this tidbit:
Vintela/Inc.
333 S 520 W
Lindon, Utah
84042
Which just happens to be Canopy's address, and next
door to SCO's address too. Perhaps Canopy haven't gotten around to updating
their portfolio, yet. (C'mon, Canopy... one more company in there will make it a
nice 5 by 5 grid!)
Okay, so... this is nothing new for SCO or Canopy,
dealing with a bunch of incestuous companies. I know PJ's not one for
speculating, so... I'll do that :)
By many accounts from folk around here
and the SCOX bulletin board, SCO are likely to have had a REALLY poor quarter,
and seem to be doing a lot of wheeling and dealing to come up with some
reasonable numbers. After all, Mr McBride has some options to cash in, and I'm
sure he's REALLY INTERESTED in having a profitable quarter. (Hey, McBride, why
not just make up some figures and call it 'pro forma', like everyone else? :)
)
So... my theory is that they've got this little 'SCO Authentication' thing
going, and to 'raise money' they're going to sell it to a company called
Vintela, which just happens to be in the same building, for some ludicrous sum.
Woo! Instant profit! Can you convince Vintela to buy some software from me,
too?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh, Vintela Site mentions Canopy - Authored by: Chris Cogdon on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 10:59 PM EST
- The Vintela Connection - Authored by: whoever57 on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:16 PM EST
- Looks like spinoff of Center7 - Authored by: pbarritt on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:23 PM EST
- The Vintela Connection - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:07 AM EST
- Makes sense if - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:10 AM EST
- First Vultus and now Vintela - Authored by: pbarritt on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:22 AM EST
- The Vintela Connection - Inside Information, Facts Only - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:29 AM EST
- When did this change? - Authored by: kberrien on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:52 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: John Goodwin on Thursday, December 18 2003 @ 11:51 PM EST |
not just RedHat. For now. Up 9.7% today. Any theories?
More pumping? Inside information on Monday's announcment?
Or just makin' money the old fashioned way--great legal product?
[that was irony, trolls][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:14 AM EST |
I've been thinking about the mainstream mantra that Linux is not ready for
the desktop (which is code for "Linux is not ready for business").
What that really means is that the person saying it is not ready for
Linux.
It also seems to me that people who say this sound nervous. Or
maybe they sound as the Romans sounded when the Vandals sacked their nice little
town. "Rome is the capital of the world - it will always be so!"
The
Open Source model dictates putting Linux in the hands of non-geeks and getting
their feedback. Ask for their help. People will help, and they're very clever
when you allow them to be, much more clever than snobby programmers believe.
The new business model for the software industry is a much more
reasonable one: the software is free, but you can pay for support. You can also
help the company; that's a paradigm shift that business types don't grok yet.
If Red Hat is making money, expect imitators.
I think Redhat
profitibility is a sign of things to come. Maybe it says how deeply the
Internet, Linux, and Open Source software have penetrated business.
Aha! Now I know why I'm sensing deja vu: Remember how WordPerfect for
DOS users sounded when everyone was switching to Windows 3.1? "Windows isn't
ready for business!" "That may be fine for you, but WP51 does everything I
need. I've even got an HTML printer driver!"
What I think people are
going to have to get used to is that Linux is coming. They can either get on
board or be left behind.
People saying that Linux is not ready
for business had better get their businesses ready for
Linux.
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I am a literate citizen) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 12:21 AM EST |
| The article is about Red Hat making money on Open Source software, and the
sunlight-challenged critter has a point. Red Hat has only recently converted to
a business model that seems to have a chance of assuring their continued
survival. And their resources do seem to be stretched pretty thin. IBM
seems to be doing much better, with their hardware, middleware and services
businesses all benefitting from Linux.
But in my opinion, Red Hat adds more
value than the troll seems to think it does. And I also get the impression that
the idealism at the company is broader than portrayed above, too. All these
considerations make me less prone to critisize Red Hat over the whole RHL
end-of-life brouhaha. They are a small company that needs both revenue and a
manageable focus to survive. Their recent changes tend to bring them both
things. Whether it will work over the long term remains to be seen. I wish them
well.
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if
you just sit there" - Will Rogers [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dodger on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 02:42 AM EST |
Poor SCO. They were a part of United Linux. They had their own linux
distribution. They came from an illustrious past including Caldera. They even
sat on some IP property that could have given creedence to their GPL business.
What did they do?
Scam. Litigation. Dishonor. Sensationalism. Shot themselves in the foot.
Distanced themself from the Linux Community.
How are they doing? They are pure invention in the hands of brokers, market
makers, and who knows what lurks behind this MeSsy business. They are pure
Dorian Gray, getting uglier and uglier by the day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 05:23 AM EST |
| The
Age has an article about Openwares.org
releasing a patch for Internet Explorer. Amazing! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: N. on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:04 AM EST |
| http://www.serverwatc
h.com/news/article.php/3291171 ---
N.
(Recent convert to
Linux) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: old joe on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 07:45 AM EST |
| A new
zdnet story just out summarising sco's press releases. I can't be bothered
registering to comment but if anyone else is enterested in first post there I
suggest you POLITELY draw attention to the fact that it is all FUD and they have
not yet made any specific charges (much less produced any evidence) against IBM
or anyone else.
Joe [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: apessos on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:38 AM EST |
Maybe we need to help them out by putting together a list of who to talk to.
Need to find more about Linux, or what another opinion, try one of these people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 10:57 AM EST |
Daniel Lyons is at it yet again, with another refreshing piece on the evil
zealots of the Linux community. He explores the "rabid subculture"
of groklaw and slasdhot.
Choices pieces include:
<blockquote>From Groklaw the rumor of SCO's fake hacker rocketed to
Slashdot.org., another site popular among techies. Readers on both sites post
responses to stories and share links to other Web sites, which is how rumors and
paranoia keep spreading, unchecked. </blockquote>
and
<blocquote>Who runs this noisy echo chamber? Slashdot.org is owned by VA
Software (nasdaq: LNUX - news - people ), a Linux vendor. Groklaw is hosted,
free, by a non-profit outfit called iBiblio, which runs on $250,000 worth of
Linux-based computers donated by IBM and a $2 million donation from a foundation
set up by Robert Young, founder of Red Hat. Of course none of these sponsors has
anything to do with the content of these sites. Then again, they don't seem too
upset about it, either.
</blockquote>
Also, we get yet another great Laura Didio quote:
<blockquote>
Says DiDio of her tormentors, who swamp her with hateful email and
"report" her to her supervisors at Boston-based Yankee Group:
"Welcome to the wonderful world of Linux. These people are living in an
alternative reality."
</blockquote>
Alternate reality? I thought she was the one who said SCO had such a strong case
that IBM should instantly settle? Oh well...
For the most part, I find this whole fiasco annoying. But anyway, congats for
the attention PJ.. shows you're obviously doing an excellent job if Mr. Lyons
wants to write a nice negative piece on you to put you in the same group as RMS,
ESR, Linus, and all the other "communist zealots" of the linux
community! ;)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tom on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 11:40 AM EST |
| <P>Seems to have disappeared!</P> [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Budgreen on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 03:20 PM EST |
http://www.linuxworld.com/story/38235.htm
I wonder what truth there is to this.
"It's dawned on Computer Associates that IBM pays it royalties for the
SMP technology in AIX, IBM's version of Unix, because of the work done long ago
by Unix icon Locus Computing Corporation.
CA says it owns the Locus IP by virtue of its huge $3.5 billion cash purchase of
Platinum technology Inc in 2000. See, Platinum had bought Locus in a stock swap
in, oh, 1995.
Now, of course, the SCO Group has made a big megillah about the SMP facilities
that found their way into Linux. It claims that IBM ripped the widgetry out of
Sequent's Dynix version of Unix, which SCO alleges it had dibs on, and threw it
over the wall to Linux to make Linux enterprise-fit. "
this *may* make things just a bit more interesting if it pans out.
---
Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hersay and conjecture, those are
*kinds* of evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: nealywilly on Friday, December 19 2003 @ 06:02 PM EST |
Just to let everyone know that I am NOT the author of the post speculated to
have been made by Dion Corbett of Decatur Jones.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
