Advice for Open Source Startups: Remember LinuxCare 116
LinuxCare
was born in 1999 -- venture-backed by top tier VC firms like Kleiner
Perkins, with total
funding in the ballpark of $70 million.
Those were the frontier days for Linux. There was
a ton of industry interest and activity despite the fact that the jury
was
still out with respect to end user adoption. Nobody really
knew exactly
how Linux was going to be used – would it be for the desktop,
servers,
etc.? The company used the vast venture coffers to promote
the brand and
staff star-power (even Linus Torvalds consulted for them
briefly)– and
LinuxCare quickly became the recognized name for Linux services and
support,
doing work for big systems vendors like Dell and IBM in addition to
developing
device drivers and offering education services.
Red Hat had the Linux OS and
software, VA Linux had the
hardware – and LinuxCare had the services. It was a
theoretically perfect
enterprise Linux ecosystem triumvirate.
But it wasn't meant to be.
The demise of LinuxCare can be attributed to many
factors. The first was that enterprises were slow to adopt
Linux
– in the early ‘00s, IT spending came to a grinding
halt
with the dot-com and stock market crash. But the key factor
to
LinuxCare’s spectacular death spiral was the fact that they
were going up
against Red Hat, the very company they were basing their business on.
Red Hat
not only developed their own distribution of Linux, but also started
offering
support for it. Red Hat offered a one-stop shop for Linux software and
services
regardless of hardware. Enterprise
customers decided it was easier to buy from one vendor. This same
sentiment is
what drives sales of Microsoft software in enterprises today.
LinuxCare suffered a painful public death over months
of executive departures and layoffs, VA Linux abandoned hardware for
software,
and RedHat, with the cash to weather the tech spending downturn,
expanded its
revenue streams and became the de-facto enterprise Linux distribution.
It's easy to dismiss LinuxCare as "ahead of their
time", which is definitely true. But the fundamental and fatal flaw was
that they based their products on someone else's IP, with no IP of
their own.
When the market tanked abruptly, LinuxCare didn't have the money to
weather the
storm and didn't have consistent alternative revenue streams to combat
the lack
of services income.
Some of the executives from LinuxCare went on to start a new company called Levanta, which focuses on Linux systems management. They have since developed IP in software and hardware that can sustain the business beyond the services revenue.Their LinuxCare experience taught them how to build a sustainable technology business model on top of open source software. No longer do they rely on IP that walks out the door every night in their employees' heads.
In the end, it all comes down to
IP. Building a
business on top of something you don't own is extremely risky.
Companies need
to develop their own IP to be innovative and have competitive
differentiation.
And if they don't develop it themselves, they need to acquire or
license the
relevant code to protect themselves and ensure they aren't caught
without
alternatives.
An Open Source Danger
Zone?
In my eyes, the bubble associated with open source is less related to the millions of VC dollars and more related to the reliance on software and components that are not part of a company's internal IP. When Oracle acquired InnoDB, it had a less than positive effect on MySQL, but MySQL is a smart enough company to not bet the farm on something it doesn't own. It owns enough IP to sustain its products-and it's business from the risk associated with relying on someone else's code.
IT Groundwork has built a business
on top of an open
source network monitoring project called Nagios. They don't own the
copyrights
and they don't employ the creator. Kleiner-backed SpikeSource offers
"certified stacks" of open source software components, but they don't
actually create the open source components themselves.
And in SpikeSource's case, Red Hat announced that
they too would offer "certified
stacks." Who do think is going to win that battle? Red Hat, the
one-stop
shop that offers the OS and the apps, or the company that offers merely
a
portion of the total package. Does SpikeSource have the IP or
alternative
revenue sources to withstand Red Hat? Let's wish them
luckand hope they
know the LinuxCare tale.
If there is a bubble, it will burst when the open
source projects these new company's products and services depend on go
private,
fork, or get acquired. The market for open source is so new we haven't
seen
much of this yet. Only time will tell if the recently funded open
source
companies can build sustainable businesses, or if this grand experiment
will
result in a few 800 pound gorillas and many tiny monkeys.
Have something important to say to the Slashdot community? Email roblimo at slashdot period org with the complete article or an article proposal.
That's not the only thing (Score:2)
I wish business were that easy. It's not just about avoiding the mistakes of your predecessors, though that's probably a necessity.
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish business were that easy. It's not just about avoiding the mistakes of your predecessors, though that's probably a necessity.
Right. It's also about doing the same things right. I saw a presentation by Bill Matthews of Hurricane Labs [hurricanelabs.com] (no affiliation). He was presenting on building a company on open source. He said that number one thing is to not take venture capital. He said that the investors will likely force your company in a direction in which you do not want go, if it means they think they will get a higher return.
Basically, he said to start small and self-fund as much as possible. That is what he did and he claims that he and his partners were able to make Hurrican Labs profitable in two years. When I start out on my own, I plan to at least give self-funding a shot before seeking venture capital.
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:2)
One of the mistakes a lot of startups make is to take the first VC offer they get. It's hard to get funding sometimes, even for the best of concepts, but startups should vet their investors as much as the investors vet them.
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:2)
You're right. Some business plans, generally those that involve manufacturing, will take a good bit of cash. Software companies have extremely low barriers to entry, and thus software companies should not need very much at all. I can't even begin to understand why VC's would think that a software company would need any more than $50K to start.
My retail business
Er... where do *you* live? (Score:2)
I can't even begin to understand why VC's would think that a software company would need any more than $50K to start.
You gotta assume that anything halfway decent is going to take at least two or three people at least two or three months. 50k would not even pay the rent aorund here for two people for 6 months, not to mention food, etc. Plus you have capital requirements like a server and some desktops, and an office. Hell the office alone would be 10k for six months.
Unless you plan on doing development ou
Anatomy of a start-up (Score:5, Interesting)
I managed to turn a $25K credit card into a $1mil+/year business in 3 years. Now, granted, that's very, very unusual, but the same principles apply.
The way I'd do a software start-up:
- Keep current job. Unless you're wealthy, you still need income. Don't expect a dime of income for 6 months-year. Work 8 hours a day, and program on nights and the weekends. If you expect ANY free tiem for the first few years, you'll be sorely disappointed. Imagine a newborn baby, but maybe twins.
- No office. They're a complete waste of money. Work at home and meet clients at your local coffee shop. An office is a luxury that you can get any time.
- For a server, grab a used PC for $100. Unless you're doing intensive graphics, or biological number crunching a "server" is a waste.
- Payroll: None. Either do it yourself, or bring in partners. But to expect to be paid at the beginning is unrealistic to the extreme. Remember, you don't even know if your idea is going to generate a nickel at the beginning.
- Food: Ramen Noodles and peanut butter.
I'm completely serious about this. This is how most successful start-ups work. Why? Because with lots of cash at the beginning (like $100K), you don't need to worry about costs, and that's a great way to start a terrible habit. Learn how cheaply you can run your business and still get by early on. Bust your ass, and *make* it work. There's no incentive to make it work if you've got tons of other people's money. Most companies also don't get any kind of financing right out of the gate. We're 3 years old, and just now looking for our first outside investors, and that's considred premature for most new businesses. We can do it beause we've had very strong growth, and most importantly: PROFIT.
What I'm describing is incredibly difficult, but it's the usual way successful companies are formed. Most of those dot-bombs with millions and millions blew threw it at an obscene rate, and still never generated a single dime of income.
Re:Anatomy of a start-up (Score:2)
Re:Anatomy of a start-up (Score:2)
One of the problems with having such a lean period, though, is that it is VERY tempting to accept any VC offer in the first round of funding -- this is where some startups lose control of the product.
Basically, though, what you're saying is that for software startups, you've got to have a product (even if not complete) before you should try to get funding. No surprises there, and I was working off the assumption in my previous posts that yo
Re:Anatomy of a start-up (Score:2)
It's a BUSINESS. You have to know who you are going to be selling to, and what margin it is.
I worked as stockbroker in the 90's and you would not believe the number of prospectuses that said something along the lines of: We have never sold our product/service and we have no reasonable basis in fact to believe that anyone will ever purchase our goods or services
You can guess how many of those businesses still exist.
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:1)
If you have just one, they become your overlords in all but name. If you are very, very lucky, they have some real experience in your chosen field and allow you some latitude when it comes to decision making that costs additional money.
We aren't so lucky. Our sole VC keeps
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:2)
I have funded myself for the most part - and only twice - both were low value loans to tide over a temporary cash flow problem. Once I borrowed some money to pay off some salaries when two of
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:2)
Too bad you haven't taken a couple of econ courses yourself. When you have a partnership or sole proprietorship (e.g., most of the businesses in existence since the dawn of time) the only actions that you take are the ones that benefit you.
Re:That's not the only thing (Score:2)
I myself am attracted to opensource as a geek because I like to read code and see how things are done, but make no mistake that is not the primary reason for using open source. The primary reason is to get other work done... A computer to me is just a lump of metal and plastic, what's important to me is what is done.
On the other hand there are people that want/need
I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
The 90s are over. I hate to break it to my fellow geeks, but being successful in a startup was always a risky proposition even in the heyday. Your best bet, now, is to learn how to properly brown-nose and pick up lots of business and office-politics skills and make yourself satisfied with the "employee" thing. Working for other people kind of sucks, but it's better than suffering grand delusions of greatness.
Then again, it's christmas time and I like being a grinch. So go suck a glass ornament.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't luck - that's what people say who do not have the dedication or risk accepting attitude. You can always use whatever luck you have - there is always some option.
That said, there is a lot of luck involved - but it determines the level of success, not who is successful.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:Millionaires (Score:2)
Sending kids to college alone can be a 250,000 expense. A nice house in an urban area is at least 3/4 or 1 million.
If you don't want to ride the debt train forever your best bet is to take risks young and shoot for the moon a few times. If you hit it, you win it, if you don't, well you'll hopefully be smart enough to just get a job and eek out the debt lifestyle.
-david
Re:Millionaires (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
I hear what you're saying. Our fellow geeks may want to think of other opportunities outside of OSS, if its that bad. I, for one, am doing that. And these days with IT being a must for a successful business (you can't do things with those old fashioned book ledgers by hand and expect to keep up with the competition.), it gives me some confi
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
Currently, I earn about six figures.
-Most startups fail.
-Any successful startup tends not to even turn one time of profit for two to five years.
So . . . how long is it going to take me and my earth-shatteringly brilliant idea to finally start turning six figures in PERSONAL PROFIT per year? And once you've accomplished that - what's the big deal? You've now invested FAR more energy, time, money and financial stability (loans) to get what you already had
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Get funded and the party has begun ! High class hookers,
mountains of cocaine, convertable vintage corvettes, company boat parties around manhattan or the bay.
Succeed or fail its still a crazy wave to ride. I miss the good old days even though my stock options
were worth $-85,000 at the end of it all. Oh, and some computer stuff gets done in there somewhere.
I know what you are talking about though. There are people that seek
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
-l
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
He'd obviously have some insight for this.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
In general, I quite happily am an asshole and reap the rewards of it. Ask any fellow asshole. It's a badge of honor.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
These people generally spent a few years working for someone else, got a knowledge of the business, then setup for themselves. In the case of the designer, when he quit, he came away with a ready-made group of clients who followed him from his last job. None of them make millions, but they each make enough to support themselves fairly well.
If you want to work for yourself, work for someone else long enough to learn the ropes. Do a quick management course to help you pickup at least the basics (book-keeping, tax, information privay laws, industry-specific legislation, etc). Save up enough money to keep your head above water for your first year should it prove to be a lean one and give it a shot.
And the really good thing is, I don't have to be worried about all the stupid industrial reforms the government just passed.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
More importantly, as geeks are fond of saying "I'm an engineer - not a manager". They don't want to be bothered with business things. They want to sit in a dark roo
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
It depends on how you define a geek, and also what type of business t
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
Therefore, I suspect you secretly LIKE taking those roles. That's not an unusual thing here at Slashdot by the way... don't feel like the Lone Ranger. I've done it myself a few times. Like, right now!
By the way:
MySpace.com.
(essentially) zero to $500,000,000 in about 18 months.
It's just too much of a lure for normal people to resist, despite the reality.
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:1)
Yes, please listen to this...the less people I have competing with me, the larger my share of the market is!
Seriously, not everyone out there will "make it big", but pulling in a 100-200k a year salary running a small business would be
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
Re:I hate to be a dick, but . . . (Score:2)
But it is worthwhile to give it a shot to see if it does really work out.
I will let you on a little secret - it is not a "revolutionary" idea which is going to make/break your company. Your success as a businessman/employee/sportsperson is defined by a three simple words - reliability, consistency and inexpensive. You can make it really big in anything if you are consistent, reliable and inexpensive.
The sad truth is very few businesses and ind
OSS is not at its tipping point - yet. (Score:2, Insightful)
They were just ahead of their time. Like Go computer was. Now, there's a market for handheld and tablet devices. OSS' time will come. When, if I knew that, I'd be investing/starting something myself!
Linuxcare ... beh (Score:4, Insightful)
Using Linuxcare or VALinux or even Redhat to judge the financial viability of open source companies doesn't paint a complete picture. The number of companies deploying open source technologies in their production infrastructures, embedding Linux in their hardware and porting their software in order to save their customers' hardware budget, these are a better barometer of the movement's success than the attempts of the aforementioned companies to make money off of something which is intrinsically free.
Re:Linuxcare ... beh (Score:1)
I agree. Open Source is a production method (like the assembly line) not a business model. There are both successful and unsuccessful comp
Re:Linuxcare ... beh (Score:2)
Linuxcare had some really sharp guys (Score:3, Informative)
Andrew Tridgell (Samba, Rsync)
Paul Mackerraas (Linux on PPC)
Rusty Russel (iptables and lots of other kernel stuff)
Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP)
in Italy, we had Alessandro Rubini, Paolo Molaro (now doing some really good stuff with Mono), and a bunch of other talented guys. The group in Canada also had some very good hackers. In short, there were a lot of smart people there - I doubt I'll ever see anything like it again.
The pro
No Wikipedia article on Nassaur (Score:2)
Everybody wins... (Score:2)
So, PostgreSQL gets more users, EnterpriseDB has programmers actively working on the code, and since PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed, EnterpriseDB can have a closed-source product whil
Re:Everybody wins... (Score:2)
As far as I understand the BSD license, the problem with the above is that EnterpriseDB has no obligation to contribute the code or documents it generates back to the PostgreSQL project.I wouldn't mind a license that allowed companies to close the source, but forced th
Re:Everybody wins... (Score:2)
Yup, that's correct, there's no legal obligation. They are never forced to contribute a single line of code.
But at the very least they'll be a success story for the project and will spread awareness of it. And it's in their interest to have bugs in the core platform fixed, so they probably will contribute something occasionally, if only a bug report or two. At least, that's been my experience on other BSD projects; it all seems to work out fine...
Re:Everybody wins... (Score:1)
> and give nothing back... I wonder how many of them last?
Right on!
Other not so memorable names .... (Score:2, Interesting)
Aaron
Re:Other not so memorable names .... (Score:2)
Re:Other not so memorable names .... (Score:1)
-tyler
Re:Other not so memorable names .... (Score:1)
Aaron
Re:sick of it (Score:1)
Seems to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seems to me... (Score:1)
Been there...got killed (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that Open Source businesses are yet to hit their prime, and when they do, it will be big. If I were to do it again, I would offer both open source and proprietary, and sell the benefits to Open Source. Some companies are not ready to try open source yet. However, when you say "Mr. Customer, I can do that for $10,000.00 plus $4,000.00 in services. OR...I can use this open source utility which will give you every thing you want, and it will only cost you the services..."
I think that would have made it better. Just a guess, but it was fun trying.
Re:Been there...got killed (Score:2, Interesting)
Wouldn't you WANT them to buy the proprietary software? More money for you...
I love the concept of Open Source business, but I have trouble envisioning them existing anywhere other than for enterprise-level services. That's not to say OSS won't be used on the desktop--that's already happening with products such as Firefox or OOo. It's just that I would imagine that, at the home-user level, nobody would pay for
What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:5, Insightful)
They know absolutely nothing about what happened to LinuxCare, except that it tanked. My impression is that it's a good example of a geek-founded company taking on Professional Management to keep the VCs happy and getting royally fucked over by the Professional Management with the Impressive Credentials.
Suits never want to take the rap when suits screw-up. You can bet that if the geeks had tried to maintain control and tanked the company, the business press would never stop yammering on about how they obviously needed Professional Management.
Re:What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:3, Insightful)
For RedHat, it doesn't matter if their source code is out in the open. What is valuable to them is their network of developers (e.g. mindshare) and t
Re:What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:2)
What you're saying is what I was saying: they have a brand. They have no "IP" to speak of.
No, nice try though... (Score:3, Informative)
Red Hat didn't have IP for the most part
Guessing again? (Score:1)
Re:What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:5, Informative)
> geek-founded company taking on Professional Management
> to keep the VCs happy and getting royally fucked over
> by the Professional Management with the Impressive Credentials.
Bingo. I joined Linuxcare in early 1999 as employee #27, and stayed until January 2001. For a while it was paradise. I mean, who wouldn't like having Rasmus Lerdorf and Andrew Tridgell working a few cubes away? The level of talent there was really rather spectacular.
But then . . . . a couple of very bad VC-installed apples at the very top of the company destroyed the place by a) squandering the funding on absurd levels of growth and infrastructure, b) failing to IPO in time, and (worst of all) c) creating a geeks-vs-suits culture that came to consume everybody in petty office politics. In a reversal of stereotype, it was the original founders who had the most sanity. They held the tech talent in place as long as they could.
Sure, Linxucare's open-source services model was a little ahead of its time but the company, leaned down, could have hung on through the bursting of the bubble and eventually come to thrive. Its confidence that Linux had a future in the enterprise has been more than vindicated. Now, it's IBM Global Services and similar scooping up all the Linux services income. Sigh, what could have been . . . .
Re:What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems to me that A is pretty much the standard prelude to B in VC-backed explode-o-pop companies. How else did you want them to go about doing an "IPO in time"? Given that it all came down to gambling that you'd get out before the bubble burst back then, I can't help but think that the problem was that the failure was in not building a viable business...I'll certainly concede that it coul
Re:What exactly to they mean by "IP"? (Score:2)
It is shorthand for I'm a clueless buzzword user. Just look at all the IP the successful companies that support Microsft systems own, urm right virtually all of it belongs to a handful of big players, most of whom don't deliver such support services themselves but supply the software market for such services. The reason they survive is because there is a large market for their services. Most of the big .com companies I worked for were a few years too early, and badly
Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:1)
True. Open source does not have enough information to be a business model, but open source can be a part of a business model. It can me part of a business strategy. Sun Microsystems, for example, is heavily adopting an open source strategy, even to the extent that they are open sourcing thier OS, and CPUs.
So when you see open source business model, think business model that includes an open source strategy. Most models then include some sort
Re:Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:1)
Now Apple sell their operating system, packaged with a bunch of other stuff, but the core underlying operating system can still be downloaded and free. The reality being that I've not the time to recompile an entire operating system - even if I did know how - so I've rather buy it done for me in a box. And this is very much part of their bus
Re:Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, if I were an investor I'd remove the words Open Source from the business plan. Then see if you'd invest in yet another consulting business (or whatever it is) anyway.
Re:Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Open Source StartUp Bubble (Score:2)
T
I was almost a customer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I was almost a customer (Score:1)
Clearly Dave, you were not at Linuxcare back then, (Score:5, Interesting)
While your story is nice it's not factual. Your article while interesting is based upon some assumptions that were prevalent outside the company. The real inside story was much different.
The key factor as you put it "But the key factor to LinuxCare's spectacular death spiral was the fact that they were going up against Red Hat" was not even a factor. The primary factor was bad management brought in by Kleiner Perkins. The original team had a good idea, but the VC's thought they knew better then the guys who understood Linux and the time and place.
KP forced a bad management team, the team made/forced some incredibly bad choices, to the point of criminal activity. Money was spent like water down a drain. Without the help of the bad KP choices LC would still be a going concern, in fact it would be what OSDL is now, it was headed there, just was destroyed by bad management.
There were no executives from that time that went on to become part of Levanta, there was a single executive that was hired after the demise of the KP team, he was a bean counter with no leadership experience.
The real Linuxcare people had IP ideas that could have been developed, but they were not allowed to develop it. The current product that Levanta is currently touting is 4th or 5th generation of one of those ideas that was started on the sly by folks on tiger teams who tried to save the company after the KP management team was forced out. Too little too late.
Linuxcare was ahead of it's time but they had the cash to stay the time, they had the team to make it work, they were forced to take bad management at many senior levels.
Re:Clearly Dave, you were not at Linuxcare back th (Score:2)
Re:Clearly Dave, you were not at Linuxcare back th (Score:2, Interesting)
So I'm not sure what the value of your point is since all of your facts are inc
Re:Clearly Dave, you were not at Linuxcare back th (Score:2)
Business Models (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like dieting. No matter what the diet fads are, the only way to lose weight is to eat less and exercise. Similarly, no matter what the Open Source pundits tell you, the only way to keep a business running is to sell a product or service other people are will to pay for.
The Open Source fairy going to come along and give you a magical business plan. So start eating less, exercising more, and selling a product people want.
Re:Business Models (Score:1)
If you have a distributed management style you can also raise your chances; its all about that fact that one pe
Re:Business Models (Score:2)
So you're saying if I walk into a bank with two other partners, the bank will think, "Wow, 80-90% chance of success! Give them the loan now!"
Sorry, but I have to dispute your claim that nearly all UK startups with 3 directors are successful. That's an
Re:Business Models (Score:1)
IP? (Score:2)
Since most of the shops who adopted Linux ended up coming from Unix, they didn't need these companies to hold their hands through every command issued at the prompt, and since Linux runs on commodity hardware, the value add of "Linux-compatible hardware at exhorbitant prices" wasn't reall
Missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure the VC people made it sound great... "10 billion eyeballs looking at thousands of Red Hat Linux servers... someone needs to support the servers!"
The problem is that they were a third party in a commodity business. If I buy a server from IBM, HP or Dell, I'll get hardware support. Linux support is and was available from Suse,Red Hat, etc.
So where was the growth? If Linux failed, Linuxcare would be out of business. If Linux took off, IBM, HP, Dell, Sun, etc will offer support themselves, with established professional services groups to make it easier.
Re:Missing the point... (Score:2)
Re:open source business - oxymoron? (Score:2, Informative)
You can make profits from services and support, if not from the software directly. At least, thats the standard line you hear from most OSS companies. I don't think that the system is dominated by GNU.org, at least not in a negative way.
Many GPL'd products are doing just fine, MySQL as a major example.
The whole point of this piece was to show that investors-and many in the community are being naive in thinking that they can make money easily. It can be done, but it's n
Re:open source business - oxymoron? (Score:1)
Re:The article is rose tinted regarding Linuxcare (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The article is rose tinted regarding Linuxcare (Score:2)