phantomfive writes "Red Hat has made it onto the S&P 500, an important measure of the stock market. It is replacing CIT, which is expected to go bankrupt after the government refused to bail them out. Red Hat is the first Linux company to make it on to the S&P 500. While this means little directly for the company, it is an indication of the importance Linux is taking on in the world."
Yes. It just KILLS some people that Linux might be doing well or Redhat might be doing well. They will go so far as to even try to stir up some sort of artificial stock panic.
Regardless of how some lemming might want to spin it, Redhat was slightly less important last week when compared to this week and this week they are a part of the S&P 500.
Perhaps Redhat will be a little less subseptable to FUD now.
The thing is though, there are only 2 other major OS makers who are publicly traded, that are in competition to RH Apple and MS. Even if Chrome, Ubuntu or SuSE ends up taking away a lot of RH marketshare, all RH has to do is take the ideas and code from them and add it to their product. On the other hand, MS can't exactly take code from OS X and neither can Apple take code from Windows.
there are only 2 other major OS makers who are publicly traded, that are in competition to RH
HPQ [google.com] HP-UX [hp.com] ORCL [google.com] Solaris [sun.com] IBM [google.com] AIX [ibm.com] NOVL [google.com] SUSE [novell.com]
Looks like Red Hat has plenty of competition. Red Hat's business performance selling support services for their distribution of linux has been outstanding and their inclusion in the S&P 500 is well deserved.
There is a benefit to stockholders since being in the S&P 500 creates instant demand - it means that all the S&P 500 index funds need to buy your stock!
How many of the companies you own stock in trade with/do business in red china (or Viet Nam for that matter)? Or put it another way, how many *don't*?
I believe by "commies" he was referring to actual communists. If there are any actual communists left in China these days, they're probably repressed by the Chinese government for advocating radical philosophies fundamentally opposed to that of the party.:p
Well, my theory is a bit rusty, but wouldn't this add some liquidity for the Redhat stock?
Might as well decrease as well if passively managed funds want to keep on to the shares, but going by gut feeling, I would think it's a good thing regardless. If anything, the share should be more correctly priced in the long run;
Depending on your definition of correct pricing of course.
Inclusion in the S&P 500 could mean some index funds will have to acquire some shares. Inclusion in an index is usually seen as positive, and falling out of an index is seen as negative, when index funds have to sell.
As an interesting consequence, those of us who are invested in a typical S&P Index fund* now own a tiny part of RedHat. (We've long owned part of Microsoft, Sun and Apple) So now I can sleep well, knowing that I'm making Linux happen.
Hey, it beats being invested in most of the other companies that make up the S&P 500.
(*Or maybe not. Index funds are supposed to track the performance of indices, not necessarily the exact makeup of those indicies.)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Also, being included in the S&P500 means that the increase in demand created by the associated index fund inclusion will (or should in theory) increase the per share value which has the resultant effect of increasing the over all value of the company as represented as the market capitalization. Larger market caps allow for much more leverage when negotiating financing on large business deals; not only by giving a greater perceived value but also by providing for more favorable rates on direct equity exchange deals.
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Having a high stock price does not mean you have a viable business. Please remember the dotbomb bubble. Many businesses had completely ridiculous business plans yet their stock went through the roof. Then they ran out of money and the stock certificates were about as valuable as scratchy toilet paper.
I'm not saying this is true of RedHat, but PLEASE don't equate a high stock price with a viable business. If anything, a high stock price equates with the mere perception that the business is viable.
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
That is true, but there are tangible benefits to RHAT. One of the ways they can raise capital is to issue additional shares. An increase in the stock price means that they can raise more money when they do this. This also makes the stock options that are offered to employees more valuable without costing the company a cent. It also protects the company from a hostile takeover since any buyout becomes more expensive.
Red Hat issues stock. People buy that stock and the money goes to Red Hat. Since Red Hat hasn't issued any stock lately, if you pick some up you're buying it second had, but so what? You're still responsible for an investment in the company. That is, you gave Red Hat money (probably through many intermediaries) to develop their Linux distribution.
Indirectly, Red Hat probably has a stock reserve that it maintains. Improving the price of their stock means that they can actually buy things with that stock, usually this is in the form of acquisitions. Many buyouts are done in the form of stock swaps.
Additionally, it makes their stock more attractive to give to employees/executives because its not some fly-by-night operation any more. Not that it was before, but some people like their certifications and industry recognitions.
In the end, it could potentially have a net positive effect on Linux, particularly if they use any advantage in a way that will help Linux, either directly or incidentally via side-effects of their corporate strategy.
A lot of what-ifs, but in the end, its nice to put a capstone on Linux success in the business world.
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
As other posters have already noted, buying and holding stock enhances the value of the company, which can be useful if the company ever needs to issue new stock, either through a public offering or as incentives to employees.
Even if the company never issues another share, management benefits from having people buy and hold its stock. Investing requires confidence in a company's management and strategy, so buying stock is akin to voting for the business model. What's more, institutional holders (like index
Red Hat has made it onto the S&P 500, an important measure of the stock market.
First, the S&P members are selected by committee, not by merit alone. Companies are (usually) included because they have a high liquidity and are "representative" of their industry. Not that Red Hat being selected isn't good news, just understand they're not selecting it because of the "runaway success of Linux", but because Red Hat is representative of the overall health of this segment of the industry.
Dunno, sounds like "an important measure of the stock market" to me. Seeing a linux company up there as a healthy company is pretty significant it would seem, if you weren't sure if they wouldn't be around to support their platform now you'd prob ably be pretty reassured
For Red Hat to be representative of their industry, they need to be a healthy and profitable company. While I agree that this doesn't necessarily point to Linux as a being a "runaway success", it is significant to note that Red Hat's flagship product is a distribution of Linux and the various open source tools from GNU, X.org, Gnome, X.org, etc, and that their other products that help to boost their profitable, like JBoss are also open source tools. So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company. That puts things in proper perspective.
So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company.
The index, industry, and business world in general, doesn't give two sh--s whether something is open source or not. It may be an ideological victory of sorts, but calling it a "big win"? No. It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school... It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights. All that said, I really wish I'd had the money to invest in Redhat when it sent me its IPO e-mail several years ago for being an open source cont
It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school. It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights.
Right. Because the vast majority of companies eventually wind up on the S&P 500 list, just like the vast majority of people move from 5th grade to middle school.
Your attempt to downplay this is ridiculous. This may not be a big deal to "the rest of the world" (exactly how many things are a big deal when put in that context?), but
Companies are (usually) included because they have a high liquidity and are "representative" of their industry.... Red Hat is representative of the overall health of this segment of the industry.
Assuming this 2002 statement concerning the S&P Index Policy [standardandpoors.com] is still accurate, Red Hat was selected because they are a leader.
When it comes to publicly traded linux distributors you have NOVL, ORCL, RHT, and at one time Caldera which is now SCOXQ.PK. The make up of the industry has some extreme variation from
As linux is EVERYWHERE anymore. Just about every small business and up runs it in some capacity. It runs major businesses too. Everything from big iron to the embedded market runs linux in some regard. Hell, Cisco's ASAs run a linux kernel.
Were this a true representation, linux companies would account for 60%+ of the tech companies listed in the index. Which is a bullshit measurement anyway, so I'm not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.
Congrats on Red Hat reaching the big league. I've got a couple of mates who work for Red Hat, and they say business is booming in the downturn, because they're picking up a lot of business from people looking to save money through Red Hat's Open Source-plus-support way of doing things. I wish Red Hat luck.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to have been the case with CIT, whose criminally incompetent management decided that letting the Government bail them out, was a better business plan than running their business as a going concern.
Too bad Anglo-American culture is far too tolerant of failure, particularly in the business world. The fat cats need to be taken down a few pegs -- and serious repercussions for failure are needed.
The big problem with the government bailouts on both sides of the pond, is that the captains of industry are scum, by and large; and will find a way to be "too big to fail", and profit by bludging off people who pay their taxes and do the right thing. Thankfully, the chaps in charge in the US have let CIT fail. After all, private business are full of people who preach the benefits of free markets in the good times. The Obama administration are wise enough to allow them to be destroyed by the remorseless logic of the free market when they are too weak to survive.
The Obama administration is the one propping up all manner of failed business models with "bailouts".
It isn't about Anglo-American culture so much as the culture of the banking cartels, whose dynastic families have a somewhat different ethnic background.....
> The Obama administration are wise enough to allow them to be destroyed by the > remorseless logic of the free market when they are too weak to survive.
Being of the Libertarian bent I have to like the idea of failure being reintroduced to the market. But I'm also a bit queasy when the current anti-market administration bails out it's friends (look at his economic team) on Wall Street and then allows CIT to fail. The question I instantly asked myself was Why? And why was it's failure so under report
Folks, don't expect the recession to be ending any time soon. And I'd be shocked if unemployment doesn't hit 15% nationwide. 20% if we pass cap and trade and nationalize the medical industry.
Hey, if there's THAT much blubber to cut from the US private healthcare industry, then clearly, that's a massive misallocation of resources that needs to be put to better use, like investing in education.
Some tough, hard-headed, pragmatic decisions have to be made. And it appears only Mr Obama has balls big enough to m
> Hey, if there's THAT much blubber to cut from the US private healthcare industry, then clearly, > that's a massive misallocation of resources that needs to be put to better use, like investing in education.
You misunderstand. What I'm talking about is the headwind small business is heading into. Break it down. You run a small business, here is your future. Your major source of financing just went out, payroll taxes are about to go up a minimum of 8% (play or pay provision in the health 'reform' bi
"The company is a source of funding for thousands of small and midsize businesses. It's also a big player providing cash advances to clothing manufacturers and suppliers, and credit to retailers to pay off invoices. The impact could be especially acute in California because of the state's large apparel-import business."
Having family in the rag trade, I can just imagine what struggles small businesses dependent on credit from companies like CIT are going through.
The incentive of profit and personal gain, as evidenced by the commercial success of Red Hat, is helping Linux to gain traction against Microsoft Windows. How ironic. This open source blend of passion, underdog romanticism, genuine need, and profit motive is an awesome story and it must have Bill Gates shaking his head in disbelief.
A lot of mutual funds/index funds/etc. will now be buying and holding Red Hat stock, as well as other large institutional investors (i.e. large state pension funds/etc.). Same mentality as "no one ever got fired for buying IBM computers", it's not like fund managers are much good at this (witness the melt down in almost every mutual fund/hedge fund), most of them just follow the herd.
"The" S&P 500 is a list of stocks published by Standard & Poor's, a division of McGraw-Hill.
I seem to recall that NYSE does. Then again, I'm old.
NYSE, AMEX, or NASDAQ might, but "The S&P 500" can't (except in the sense of "do the companies in the S&P 500 use Linux," in which case the answer is obviously "yes, some do").
...But it is about as far away from FREE Software as it gets.
In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?
From the Red Hat [redhat.com] site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."
Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?
Yes it is. You can download the sources for free. You can also download a white box clone called CentOS. There is *nothing* that says you can't charge for Open Source.
Sure its free. Download CentOS or the Sources. There is *nothing* that says you can not charge for open source.
Not quite completely free: RedHat's "RHN" service, for example, takes a paid subscription and is incompatible with non-RedHat clients. Also, their work on "GFS" is not entirely open source, at least at my last review of it, primarily because its original authors had not open sourced it for various reasons.
But RedHat is very good indeed at returning their tools to the free software and open source worlds: they're a model of how to do so and actually add value.
Look, see, It's sorta like this. Say I was to buy you a beer. And that beer would be free. To you. And then you could drink it. And get drunk, I suppose. And then, if I was drinking my beer that I had to pay for then I'd be drunk as well eventually, and then, well...
I just forgot what I was going on about, but I really could use a beer right now.
Conceivably someone bigger whose market Redhat represents a threat to, could seek to buy them in order to just kill their product line, and make sure Linux never has a year of the desktop. That's one of my worst fears in all this.
Don't sweat it too much. Red Hat's product line is the Red Hat Network, not linux. Microsoft could buy up Red Hat and destroy their support business but they would simply be replaced by another support vendor, either an up start or an existing vendor, i.e. Oracle, Mandriva, Ubuntu,
Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Funny)
Could this be the Year of the Linux Stock Market?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Insightful)
How else do you expect it to happen? Really?
Yes. It just KILLS some people that Linux might be doing well or
Redhat might be doing well. They will go so far as to even try to
stir up some sort of artificial stock panic.
Regardless of how some lemming might want to spin it, Redhat was
slightly less important last week when compared to this week and
this week they are a part of the S&P 500.
Perhaps Redhat will be a little less subseptable to FUD now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Informative)
HPQ [google.com] HP-UX [hp.com]
ORCL [google.com] Solaris [sun.com]
IBM [google.com] AIX [ibm.com]
NOVL [google.com] SUSE [novell.com]
Looks like Red Hat has plenty of competition. Red Hat's business performance selling support services for their distribution of linux has been outstanding and their inclusion in the S&P 500 is well deserved.
Parent
Re:Let Me Be the First To Say... (Score:5, Informative)
Well, after 2008, the year of the Windows.NET stock exchange [computerworld.com], I think 2009 is already the year of the Linux stock exchange [techgeist.net]. At least it's clear now that people do get fired for buying Microsoft [seattlepi.com].
Parent
Benefit of being in S&P 500 (Score:5, Informative)
There is a benefit to stockholders since being in the S&P 500 creates instant demand - it means that all the S&P 500 index funds need to buy your stock!
Re:Benefit of being in S&P 500 (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How many of the companies you own stock in trade with/do business in red china (or Viet Nam for that matter)? Or put it another way, how many *don't*?
I believe by "commies" he was referring to actual communists. If there are any actual communists left in China these days, they're probably repressed by the Chinese government for advocating radical philosophies fundamentally opposed to that of the party. :p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, my theory is a bit rusty, but wouldn't this add some liquidity for the Redhat stock?
Might as well decrease as well if passively managed funds want to keep on to the shares, but going by gut feeling, I would think it's a good thing regardless. If anything, the share should be more correctly priced in the long run;
Depending on your definition of correct pricing of course.
Index funds (Score:5, Informative)
Inclusion in the S&P 500 could mean some index funds will have to acquire some shares. Inclusion in an index is usually seen as positive, and falling out of an index is seen as negative, when index funds have to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
As an interesting consequence, those of us who are invested in a typical S&P Index fund* now own a tiny part of RedHat. (We've long owned part of Microsoft, Sun and Apple) So now I can sleep well, knowing that I'm making Linux happen.
Hey, it beats being invested in most of the other companies that make up the S&P 500.
(*Or maybe not. Index funds are supposed to track the performance of indices, not necessarily the exact makeup of those indicies.)
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Insightful)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Parent
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Insightful)
P.S. I am not an economist and what I've posted above may be completely wrong... I'm working from very old memories of a 100 level econ course I took a long long long time ago.
Parent
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Not directly. But as more people buy stock in RHAT it means that Red Hat will be a more viable business and more people will put money into it. So indirectly Red Hat does get money.
Having a high stock price does not mean you have a viable business. Please remember the dotbomb bubble. Many businesses had completely ridiculous business plans yet their stock went through the roof. Then they ran out of money and the stock certificates were about as valuable as scratchy toilet paper.
I'm not saying this is true of RedHat, but PLEASE don't equate a high stock price with a viable business. If anything, a high stock price equates with the mere perception that the business is viable.
Parent
Re:Index funds (Score:4, Interesting)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
That is true, but there are tangible benefits to RHAT. One of the ways they can raise capital is to issue additional shares. An increase in the stock price means that they can raise more money when they do this. This also makes the stock options that are offered to employees more valuable without costing the company a cent.
It also protects the company from a hostile takeover since any buyout becomes more expensive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat issues stock. People buy that stock and the money goes to Red Hat. Since Red Hat hasn't issued any stock lately, if you pick some up you're buying it second had, but so what? You're still responsible for an investment in the company. That is, you gave Red Hat money (probably through many intermediaries) to develop their Linux distribution.
Re:Index funds (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. Directly, no effect on Red Hat.
Indirectly, Red Hat probably has a stock reserve that it maintains. Improving the price of their stock means that they can actually buy things with that stock, usually this is in the form of acquisitions. Many buyouts are done in the form of stock swaps.
Additionally, it makes their stock more attractive to give to employees/executives because its not some fly-by-night operation any more. Not that it was before, but some people like their certifications and industry recognitions.
In the end, it could potentially have a net positive effect on Linux, particularly if they use any advantage in a way that will help Linux, either directly or incidentally via side-effects of their corporate strategy.
A lot of what-ifs, but in the end, its nice to put a capstone on Linux success in the business world.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Owning Red Hat stock doesn't make linux happen. When you (or the index fund) buys RHAT stock, that money goes to the previous shareholder, NOT Red Hat.
As other posters have already noted, buying and holding stock enhances the value of the company, which can be useful if the company ever needs to issue new stock, either through a public offering or as incentives to employees.
Even if the company never issues another share, management benefits from having people buy and hold its stock. Investing requires confidence in a company's management and strategy, so buying stock is akin to voting for the business model. What's more, institutional holders (like index
de-spin (Score:5, Informative)
Red Hat has made it onto the S&P 500, an important measure of the stock market.
First, the S&P members are selected by committee, not by merit alone. Companies are (usually) included because they have a high liquidity and are "representative" of their industry. Not that Red Hat being selected isn't good news, just understand they're not selecting it because of the "runaway success of Linux", but because Red Hat is representative of the overall health of this segment of the industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:de-spin (Score:5, Informative)
For Red Hat to be representative of their industry, they need to be a healthy and profitable company. While I agree that this doesn't necessarily point to Linux as a being a "runaway success", it is significant to note that Red Hat's flagship product is a distribution of Linux and the various open source tools from GNU, X.org, Gnome, X.org, etc, and that their other products that help to boost their profitable, like JBoss are also open source tools. So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company. That puts things in proper perspective.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
So yeah, it's a big win for open source because it shows that you can make it to the S&P 500 by being an open source company.
The index, industry, and business world in general, doesn't give two sh--s whether something is open source or not. It may be an ideological victory of sorts, but calling it a "big win"? No. It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school... It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights. All that said, I really wish I'd had the money to invest in Redhat when it sent me its IPO e-mail several years ago for being an open source cont
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's like graduating from fifth grade and moving on to middle school. It might be a big deal to the kids involved, but to the rest of the world? Not exactly bragging rights.
Right. Because the vast majority of companies eventually wind up on the S&P 500 list, just like the vast majority of people move from 5th grade to middle school.
Your attempt to downplay this is ridiculous. This may not be a big deal to "the rest of the world" (exactly how many things are a big deal when put in that context?), but
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming this 2002 statement concerning the S&P Index Policy [standardandpoors.com] is still accurate, Red Hat was selected because they are a leader.
When it comes to publicly traded linux distributors you have NOVL, ORCL, RHT, and at one time Caldera which is now SCOXQ.PK. The make up of the industry has some extreme variation from
Not a true representation then (Score:2)
As linux is EVERYWHERE anymore. Just about every small business and up runs it in some capacity. It runs major businesses too. Everything from big iron to the embedded market runs linux in some regard. Hell, Cisco's ASAs run a linux kernel.
Were this a true representation, linux companies would account for 60%+ of the tech companies listed in the index. Which is a bullshit measurement anyway, so I'm not sure what that statement was supposed to mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a linux company. IBM is a linux company. I think they are both S&P 500. What's your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
"linux company" could mean there is a box running linux somewhere in the dozens of locations
less and less companies use Solaris, I make my living helping them to ditch it in favor of something else
Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
2009 - the year of Linux on the stock market
Next milestone - the desktop!
CIT and moral hazard (Score:4, Interesting)
Congrats on Red Hat reaching the big league. I've got a couple of mates who work for Red Hat, and they say business is booming in the downturn, because they're picking up a lot of business from people looking to save money through Red Hat's Open Source-plus-support way of doing things. I wish Red Hat luck.
Sadly, this doesn't seem to have been the case with CIT, whose criminally incompetent management decided that letting the Government bail them out, was a better business plan than running their business as a going concern.
Too bad Anglo-American culture is far too tolerant of failure, particularly in the business world. The fat cats need to be taken down a few pegs -- and serious repercussions for failure are needed.
The big problem with the government bailouts on both sides of the pond, is that the captains of industry are scum, by and large; and will find a way to be "too big to fail", and profit by bludging off people who pay their taxes and do the right thing. Thankfully, the chaps in charge in the US have let CIT fail. After all, private business are full of people who preach the benefits of free markets in the good times. The Obama administration are wise enough to allow them to be destroyed by the remorseless logic of the free market when they are too weak to survive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Obama administration is the one propping up all manner of failed business models with "bailouts".
It isn't about Anglo-American culture so much as the culture of the banking cartels, whose dynastic families have a somewhat different ethnic background.....
Re: (Score:2)
> The Obama administration are wise enough to allow them to be destroyed by the
> remorseless logic of the free market when they are too weak to survive.
Being of the Libertarian bent I have to like the idea of failure being reintroduced to the market. But I'm also a bit queasy when the current anti-market administration bails out it's friends (look at his economic team) on Wall Street and then allows CIT to fail. The question I instantly asked myself was Why? And why was it's failure so under report
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if there's THAT much blubber to cut from the US private healthcare industry, then clearly, that's a massive misallocation of resources that needs to be put to better use, like investing in education.
Some tough, hard-headed, pragmatic decisions have to be made. And it appears only Mr Obama has balls big enough to m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Hey, if there's THAT much blubber to cut from the US private healthcare industry, then clearly,
> that's a massive misallocation of resources that needs to be put to better use, like investing in education.
You misunderstand. What I'm talking about is the headwind small business is heading into. Break it down. You run a small business, here is your future. Your major source of financing just went out, payroll taxes are about to go up a minimum of 8% (play or pay provision in the health 'reform' bi
Re: (Score:2)
Having family in the rag trade, I can just imagine what struggles small businesses dependent on credit from companies like CIT are going through.
Irresponsible companies like CIT who trade dod
Profit motive is good for Linux (Score:2)
Too big to fail now! (Score:2)
So how long until Congress debates whether they have to give Red Hat lots of free money on the grounds that they're "systemically important" now? :-P
Actually it is significant (Score:3, Insightful)
Oracle is First Linux Company on S&P500 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle does not have a Linux distribution. Centos is more of a Linux distribution than Oracle.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The" S&P 500 is a list of stocks published by Standard & Poor's, a division of McGraw-Hill.
I seem to recall that NYSE does. Then again, I'm old.
NYSE, AMEX, or NASDAQ might, but "The S&P 500" can't (except in the sense of "do the companies in the S&P 500 use Linux," in which case the answer is obviously "yes, some do").
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch there.
When I wrote that I didn't stop to think about the difference between the S&P 500 and NYSE.
I was actually curious about McGraw-Hill, not the S&P 500 as an entity. It's moot now since we'll likely be moderated down anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat bully customers ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where, how, please provided verifiable citations.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
funny, my clients love Red Hat, most of them transitioned from Sun and it wasn't Red Hat who was the bully
Re: (Score:2)
...But it is about as far away from FREE Software as it gets.
In fact, is it even technically Open Source either?
From the Red Hat [redhat.com] site: "Available for immediate download starting at $80."
Um, 80 != 0, right? So, why would the F/OSS community trumpet this as a "win"?
Yes it is. You can download the sources for free. You can also download a white box clone called CentOS. There is *nothing* that says you can't charge for Open Source.
Sure its free. Download CentOS or the Sources. There is *nothing* that says you can not charge for open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite completely free: RedHat's "RHN" service, for example, takes a paid subscription and is incompatible with non-RedHat clients. Also, their work on "GFS" is not entirely open source, at least at my last review of it, primarily because its original authors had not open sourced it for various reasons.
But RedHat is very good indeed at returning their tools to the free software and open source worlds: they're a model of how to do so and actually add value.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just forgot what I was going on about, but I really could use a beer right now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't sweat it too much. Red Hat's product line is the Red Hat Network, not linux. Microsoft could buy up Red Hat and destroy their support business but they would simply be replaced by another support vendor, either an up start or an existing vendor, i.e. Oracle, Mandriva, Ubuntu,