

Red Hat Closes SF, Office, Lays Off Staff 147
pmccallick writes: "Wired is reporting that Red Hat just closed its SF office. The article goes beyond stating the facts to suggest that RH's business model is flawed." To be fair, the article also quotes an analyst who points out that Red Hat "has $320 million in cash on hand, that it consistently meets quarterly revenue expectations, and that its gross margins are improving."
West Coast was mostly web designers, right? (Score:1)
I forget the name of the company they hired most of them away from, but it was covered here.
--
Who believe this? (Score:2)
It seems to me that the word was loud and clear at the time of their IPO. "We don't want another Microsoft!" Didn't this ring in the ears of everyone with a spare 10$M under their pillow as not overtaking?
Too much ego power. *tsk-tsk*
Re:Value is ephermal... (Score:1)
I was thinking of it more in terms of quashing competition rather than a solid investment by Microsoft. I realize that most of RHATs value is based on people and goodwill, and that as soon as the purchase was completed, there would be little value left. However, Microsoft sets back Linux distribution (via Red Hat) and advocacy (Slashdot) pretty significantly with just a smidgen of its cash.
Of course, its all hypothetical, and I don't believe it would ever happen. But its fun to say 'what if'.
Re:Just look at their stock prices (Score:2)
Re:Nonsense article. (Score:1)
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:1)
Don't forget people who like to reward good work. I've purchased a boxed version of RedHat's 6.0-6.2(notice 7 isn't in there...). In each case I already had an ISO of RedHat burned and installed on my system, but wanted to reward RedHat for putting together a distribution that served me well. Just because the software is offered for free doesnt mean consumers won't still voluntarily compensate them for their work.
treke
Re:Half sounds like so much (Score:2)
Re:Just look at their stock prices (Score:2)
Yes, their stock was seriously overvalued during what turned into a .com-IPO-blitz. Fortunately, they're one of the few ".com"s (I hesitate to call them that because of this) that had a (semi-)solid business model and product. Yes, its untested - but its still solid. They're making money and growing slowly, even if they aren't growing to match that initial stock price.
-RickHunter
That's why I'm moving to Maine (Score:2)
In Santa Cruz, California [cruzio.com] I was paying $1275 a month to rent a two bedroom half of a duplex. In St. John's, I rented a three bedroom two-story house for $500, and in Maine I'll be owning a four-bedroom home for a house payment of $799 - with an oversized two-car garage.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Please start adding Editorial acronym expanders (Score:1)
For a minute I though Red Hat had closed their "sexual fetish" office and I was getting ready to send them an email demanding it back!
They have cash.. so why close? (Score:1)
Re:Preemptive Strike. (Score:1)
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:1)
1. OEM's such as VA Linux, Penguin, and hopefuls Dell and Gateway.
2. Small - Mid-Size Business Networks. Admins don't want to mess with all of the rpms and want the auto update feature, plus support.
Re:How does this work? (Score:2)
a nitpick (Score:2)
Marketoid will work for food! (Score:1)
Could also be slacker coders and other people who are pretty much useless. We all know that every company has them, those people who bullshit so much and don't do any work, they were hired during a blitz to get more staff and the HR were so impressed by all the buzz words that they were hired. Most companies need to do this from time to time
-b
Re: (Score:1)
Hiring during layoffs (Score:2)
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Re:Half sounds like so much (Score:3)
^^ Moderate the above up! ^^ (Score:1)
The only weakness RedHat has is having to wait until business gets enough brains to realize that the 25% it spends on software product is always followed by another 75% of support. (Which achieves only about 50% effectiveness on the initial 25%.) RedHat *starts* with, "Where do you want to go today?" and finishes with something like, "Now that we got you here, where do you want to go tomorrow?" and so on.
This means cash flow for sure even though the margins won't ever touch Microsoft's. But someday, this model eventually takes over, and then nobody's will.
Re:Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:1)
RedHat Ready for Self-Destruction? (Score:1)
Here's why... Most people that use Linux are computer literate and proficient. Agreed?
Well, computer-proficient geeks like us want and need dsl or other broadband services in our homes. And as dsl ramps up more and more of us will be downloading the iso's directly and burning them ourselves.
So how's RedHat going to turn up a dime given this kind of situation?
But then RedHat already knows this, that's why they're looking everywhere else for new strategies.
Their idea of embedded systems is great, although, like vrml, who knows when it's gonna "really" make an impact...
The other is perhaps to sell a security service whereby customers can get instant emails as to when updates are available, and then, with a command or two, have it ALL updated rather than having the admin manually go in and update each individual piece.
Yes, security flaws are very very common with Linux, even more common than with Windows. Why? Because this thing is open-sourced, and there are tons of readily available cracks on the net. Sigh... I see a flame already...
Re:Just look at their stock prices (Score:2)
Note that it can take several years for a company to make a profit after starting up, private or public. Hell, Red Hat might still fail in the end - but you can't fault them for making the attempt to succeed, and the company shows no signs of closing its doors.
They're not dead yet, not by a long shot.
Re:RedHat Ready for Self-Destruction? (Score:1)
Re:My Favourite Quote (Score:1)
who is buying redhat? (Score:2)
who are they marketing to, exactly?
Making money from Free Software.... (Score:1)
--
Business re-orgs do not imply financial probs. (Score:1)
In my last job I was "re-orged" about 5 times...
Big companies do this all the time..
Picking Holes (Score:3)
2) The comments on RH management are from a former RH executive. Salt. Pinch.
3) The web strategy has been constantly "evolving". Can you say Yahoo! ? From search engine to portal to AOL-wannabe.
4) They're meeting their forecasts - generally a sign of management that understands what they're doing.
That's sorta hypocritical... (Score:2)
Good Business, Bad Hype (Score:4)
IMO, Redhat is a good $500M operation. They have lots of cash, are doing well with expectations, and are slimming down operations in the post-dotcom-internet-irrationalstockblitz era.
Investors tend to hate on redhat now because they paid an irrational amount of money for the stock. However, the stock was good but just far to expensive. It is like paying $1000 for a sack of idaho potatoes. They will be great mashed with some roast garlic...Mmmmm. They were not worth the $1000, but they were worth a buck or two.
The IPO was raised and raised and raised because everyone wanted redhat, and it went through the roof, and it was always an interesting model worth some attention, but a 25B market cap was insane! That is close to GM right now! I think redhat can sell to a small audience, but it won't ever be a 25B dollar operation.
Target price: $3, and then it gets an ACCUMULATE rating.
Flawed is an Understatement (Score:2)
We have seen this scenario before.
One of the things that IS similar to your average dotcom that once attracted investors is their cash reserve. Their most recent burn rate is apparently $1.9 million per quarter. At that rate, their reserves will last perhaps 20 years. If their management is to blame, as opposed to a faulty business model, look for them to start bailing out. Quickly. The downturn in the U.S. economy couldn't have come at a worse time for Red Hat. I wouldn't go near these guys with a 10-foot pole.
Re:Preemptive Strike. (Score:2)
Surprised? (Score:1)
What is one way to lower your competition? Make a better product? Sometimes. Better yet, buy your competition, then close their operations! Most major companies have done it at least once. Look at the auto market for example, or Microsoft.
----------------
Life isn't fair...
Re:They have cash.. so why close? (Score:1)
I have a solution (Score:1)
Re:^^ Moderate the above up! ^^ (Score:2)
No, they are not. They are a distributer who repackage other peoples applications. Almost all of the stuff they sell was written by others. They build, configure, integrate and package it. This is primarily what a distributor does.
The old paradigm of selling software *products* is dead.
On what do you base this claim ?
Now (as always) service is all that's left after the industry gets crowded and the margins decrease to nothing.
On the contrary, if you can create a software product that is valuable to your customers, there's no reason why the margins should decrease.
The only weakness RedHat has is having to wait until business gets enough brains to realize that the 25% it spends on software product is always followed by another 75% of support.
If it is indeed support that is more expensive, then that would seem to be more reason why the product is worth spending on (for example, if you spend 40% more on the product, and save 30% on support, you are making money.)
This means cash flow for sure even though the margins won't ever touch Microsoft's. But someday, this model eventually takes over, and then nobody's will.
Socialism is good for socialist economies.
Re:How does this work? (Score:2)
This is not entirely true. Redhat primarily repackage and integrate. They do not develop an enormous amount of software (there is not one major software project that has been initiated and completed at Redhat).
For example, anyone who buys Oracle Applications is free to modify the system themselves, yet Oracle has a huge business contracting out consultants for $500/hour to do modifications. The reason? Oracle built it,
But Redhat didn't "build" Linux (well, they compiled it, but they didn't write it).
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:2)
So why waste resources on development, and distribution packaging ? Why not just sell support ? would it not be more profitable ? THat's the problem with the "write-free-software-and-sell-support" "business" model. You're running two operations, one profitable (selling support) and one unprofitable (writing free software). So why maintain the unprofitable operation ? For example, why is it in Redhat's interests to allow their distribution to be downloaded for free, and why is it in their interests to fund software development >
Re:Good Business, Bad Hype (Score:2)
No, unlike most dotcoms, redhat was in existence and growing with revinue before they went IPO. Most dotcoms start on the VC they make in the IPO. By having hundreds of millions of cash they can affoard to massively upscale operations and take some hits for a few years. Now they are slimming with lots of cash in hand, and it looks like they may have a 50-50 chance of actually making it. In the world of small cap investment, those are very good odds (if they were actually small cap like they should be).
Just because you don't like linux does not mean that there isnt a market. Investment in companies on the basis of whether you enjoy their products is a horrible mistake that many people make. This includes the people who love linux and bought redhat at $100 a share. It includes people who love windows and bought MS at $100 a share.
Re:Nonsense article. (Score:1)
I believe that is what Red Hat Network [redhat.com] tryes to accomplish.
5) Consider dropping your distro and adopting Debian. I know you are proud of RH, but the realeases appear to have significant flaws...7.0, 6.0, 5.0 were all disasters.
Eh.. pardon me, but why on earth should Red Hat become Debian? Personally, I see no advantages in Debian except maybe apt (which is basically just aconvinient frontend to a package system and can be adapted to rpm).
I also think that RH7 is the best Red Hat I have ever used. I don't see what the "disaster" should be about.
Re:How does this work? (Score:1)
Remember, guys, RedHat bought Cygnus. Does that ring a bell?
Cygnus made plenty of money supporting custom ports of GCC and other tools for big computer vendors, especially embedded processors (intel960 anyone?).
The money from developing custom ports of the tools to new systems can be quite respectable. And Redhat having bought Cygnus gives them about
half of all the developers of the core GNU toolkit.
So I think people are just out to lunch when they say that RedHat is just a packager of Linux
distros. They are in fact an extremely high powered software development and consulting house.
Sheesh. Who do you think maintains GCC?
how the hell can redhat lose money (Score:1)
the only real flaw is that anyone can download a redhat iso and sell it cheaper, and sometimes better then redhat (mandrake) they are there own rival.
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:1)
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:1)
You know, it's not like RedHat is sitting around doing fuck all.
Dell, IBM, and NUMEROUS Fortune 500s suck on RedHat's TEAT to get the linux cred they so desperately want. What better way to spit in BillG.'s face than to get in bed with the enemy? Believe me, I live in the Triangle where RedHat is based. They're not exactly hurting. Ericsson, OTOH, just CLOSED DOWN their whole RTP prescence. So much for companies with physical product trumping a software "services" company.
When it all comes down to it, the jewelcase and box means shit in this day and age. Anyone trying to sell a linux distro that is not freely available will fall below the radar, PERIOD. And RedHat reaps the profit.
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:1)
I'm with you on this one. I had a downloaded ISO of 6.2, but when I needed a copy to load onto a server here at work, I got them to shell out for a full copy of 6.2 Pro - damn cheaper than the NT and 10 CAL's that would be required otherwise!
I would do the same (Score:1)
Re:Making money from Free Software.... (Score:1)
Maybe that is why they make money from support. Companies still want support, and they pay for it. A major support contract is big money.
And of course the occasional home user that wants to not have to download all of it, and wants printed manuals. And support, of course.
Redhat's "business" model. (Score:3)
Just what is Redhat's business model? Long term, how are you ever going to build a business as successful as people were predicting Redhat was going to be, selling something that is free?
Sure, they can sell some CDs and some training, that's could amount to a pretty successful business, but not a software empire like Microsoft or anything of that magnitude. This is the reason that RH's share price [yahoo.com] is tanking hard.
I personally think Redhat is a good thing to have around because they employr programmers that work on things I use, but as a business they reek.
And the P/E is *what*?! (Score:4)
All of which are true. But until RHAT starts making money, it's still not necessarily a good investment.
It's a better buy at $6.50 than at $150. But that doesn't make it a good buy.
With $42M in revenue, you're still paying about 25 years' worth of revenue for every dollar's worth of stock you buy.
The comparables for the rest of the sector are 12 years, and for the rest of the market, two years.
Just 'cuz a stock is inexpensive doesn't mean it's cheap. Don't confuse your feel for the future of the technology (Linux) with the future of the stock price (RHAT). The market's littered with the corpses of people who've made that mistake.
The stock market's about making money, not about boosting technology. It's neither good nor bad - it just is.
analysts (Score:1)
Please, analysts can twist words to make anything seem under or overvalued.
If this is the case, why doesn't this analyst buy all of the $6.00 stock he/she can get their hands on?
Re:RedHat Ready for Self-Destruction? (Score:1)
Idealists != Airheads
Examples of organizations who rely on almost nothing but their brand to make them gigantically profitable and/or powerful:
Re:redundant office (Score:1)
Every mid-to-large business who uses linux buys the box version, buys the support, and hires RHCEs to maintain the internal servers. Don't think they implement things just because they had some money to burn. Everything is strategic considering they are only a seven-year old company.
Re:^^ Moderate the above up! ^^ (Score:1)
Productivity software in the windows market is dead. You cannot create a mass market productivity application in that market. It will be either a give-away product tagging on to a few corporate sales for survival, or it will be a short cash-in until Microsoft takes over the niche and integrates it into Windows if its popular enough. On the GNU/Linux side the dynamic is a bit different, but basically the same; the needed features will make it into free office productivity suites, and the unneeded features arent a strong enough selling point to have any market.
There are only two real markets for software that have some long-term viability and that is entertainment software and vertical markets. And support, but that isnt a product.
Good Business for Model Workers (Score:1)
First, having expensive real estate office space in SF with expensive duplicate staff is a waste. Due to job market, not a bad deal to be cut loose, especially if they let you keep your options.
Second, Open Source does not mean it's good business automatically. You can do Open Source in Spokane, WA, for a lot less per employee than in San Francisco, CA. Price, about a fourth, counting office space and employee costs. Or do it in other parts of the country.
Third, pricing of their stock means little at this point. My personal evaluation is they're worth about $20/share, since I priced them at $40/share at IPO. When it got nuts ($140) I sold, and bought back in at 105 (25 shares), 28 (75 shares), and 22 (200 shares). Sold the 105 shares to declare technical loss and wash out the gains from the original 14 shares I sold at 140. I still think most tech stocks are overpriced by about twice their current market pricing. I will probably buy some more RHAT this month.
Fourth, just because Red Hat is acting like a business doesn't change anything for Corel or VA Linux Systems. The latter is just a box maker, and margins are always slim in that sector. Wake me when all the IPO shares are sold out from expired lockups
Re:Just look at their stock prices (Score:1)
I guess the concept of an IPO rush escapes you? The companies continue to putt along just fine, whatever else the market thinks.
The stock market never has been, and never will be, the be-all and end-all of Linux or other Free/OSS software.
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:1)
Are they successful? Does it work? Well, you see about as many people equating Linux with Redhat as you see people equating Ketchup with Heinz. In my opinion that is hugely successful.
Will it be hugely profitable? Not likely. The very idea of Opensource and Redhats buisness model is to create the ultimate commodity market where Linux is as prevalent as water. Still, Evian makes money from water, dont they?
If some dot-com investor weenies didnt read the actual buisness model or the large amount of information and interviews available on just these very things and paid software-monopoly worth for a commodity buisness then that's their problem, not Redhats.
Re:Picking Holes (Score:1)
Guess which I'd choose.
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:2)
Easy, they aren't trying to make money selling the software. Their business plan is to make money selling support, both to end-users and corporations.
Support is an important issue for corporations right now, due to the fact that PHBs love buzzwords, but hate spending money on clueful admins.
Cost of Support (Score:2)
Support is expensive and time consuming. Outsourcing makes sense.
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:4)
A few months ago I had the opportunity to meet Redhat COO Tim Buckley at Penn State. I am a marketing major and I asked him about Redhat and marketing. Basically I asked him, what Redhat is doing to market to people who don't have a very strong idea about computing. I said that if someone perceives Linux as being too complicated to use, it is too complicated for them because a fundamental concept of marketing is the customer's perception is their reality. Ie. you can say Linux is easy to use until you are blue in the face but if people disagree, then you are wrong.
He said that is a major concern of Redhat's and they are working with Eazel and Gnome to make a better user interface, to ultimately make Linux easier to use.
He also went on to say that they want to agressively go after the pda market.
Pretty interesting stuff. He was a really positive guy who said he liked working for Redhat because he truly believed in the philosphies behind Linux.
Ben
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:2)
I sometimes think that Redhat et al is somewhat like shareware without the obligation to pay. You can get it for free, but if you have any self-respect, you get the commercial box to support the makers (and bill it to your client, of course
------------------
Sigh (Score:2)
Anyone can sell tech support, sell me something I can't get anywhere else. How about web based applications like McAfee [mcafee.com] is offering their customers now? Or better software bundles on you distrib CD's? (I saw some Linux shipping with ViaVoice just a few days ago for $60, same price as ViaVoice without an OS is).
redundant office (Score:5)
Re:Preemptive Strike. (Score:2)
say so (and they won `best server solution' earlier this year from
some linux conference or another). What they don't do is try to make
support their core revenue stream, and they try to follow organic
growth (ie. build on your profits) rather than the IPO lottery.
Today that's looking like a smart strategy, though I think Red
Hat's troubles are overstated (one learns as little about the
fundamentals of a business from share prices in the middle of a run on
tech stocks as one does from them in the middle of an IPO gold rush).
QUOTE from RH person (Score:2)
"Red Hat laid off personnel doing duplicate work, said spokeswoman Melissa London. "Nine acquisitions in the past year created a lot of redundancies," she said."
Regardless of the financial health of RedHat, that's a perfectly valid statement. They did a lot of buying, and now they're streamlining. This bunch of closures and layoffs isn't spelling the end of anything.
Re:Half sounds like so much (Score:3)
Sun Microsystems today announced their intention to lay off a third of their Marketting staff in their Solor Robotic Lab which employess three people.
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:2)
Redhat only lost 1.8 million, on close to 20 million in revenue. They are close to profitablity! They are proving the model.... sure they're not going to over take microsoft any time soon, but they are not going away. So what if they closed a office of 25 people... The story just had quotes from a bunch of laid off, disgruntled employee's....
-Tripp
Re:Preemptive Strike. (Score:2)
Yes, Suse makes money, but their business model is very different from Red Hat's.
I hesitate to say whether all Suse code qualifies as Free Software or open Source, because I'm not sure. I think their installer isn't, and I'm not sure about YAST (their configuration tool). I know for sure that all Red Hat code _is_ GPL.
Anyway, I don't want to start a distro-war here, but I'm merely saying Suse doesn't have the same business model as Red Hat.
--
Not a bad deal for the former employees (Score:2)
experienced that Red Hat is a much better ex-employer than "current-employer":
the article is right when it says that they can't follow a strategy: their marketing strategy in Europe was very unclear and constantly changing. Result: SuSE is still very much the market leader in Germary (~80% of market share), and Mandrake which hardly existed 2 years ago, has more than 50% of market share in France.
Working at Red Hat was not a good experience for me (although you like to see plans changed on a weekly basis, but I don't)
On the other hand, Red Hat is a GREAT ex-employer.
Just add "Worked for Red Hat for X years" at the top of your resume, and post it on Internet.
I had up to 5 offers a day, and finally was offered a job that paid 50% more that Red Hat...
(and RHAT stock-options won't be worth anything before quite a while. Hopefully I'm not one of
the employees that used the offered 15% discount to buy stock at $150... that are now only worth $6.)
Re:Good news? Bad news? Good point. (Score:2)
Can you imagine this scenerio:
Obviously this would not be a very good idea. Rural Montana doesn't have the connectivity and workforce that is necessary for a_____________
Re:Different in Europe (Re:who is buying redhat?) (Score:2)
Andrew Tannenbaum allegedly said, "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a stationwagon loaded with tapes." The point is that the bandwidth you can get online can't rival the bandwidth you can get via physical media for large volumes of data. My installs from CD take around 20-25 minutes typically. And that it predictable. Downloading is more variable. If I had a CD burner, I would probably burn my own, but I don't.
Re:analysts (Score:2)
Good news? Bad news? (Score:3)
The day that businesses, big and small, are judged by the quality of their work, rather than the $/acre of their site will be the day that economic Russian Roulette and ecological suicide are placed in the museum alongside Roman ruins, Egyptian mummies and other relics of failed experiments in society.
Re:Good news? Bad news? (Score:2)
will be the day that economic Russian Roulette and ecological suicide are placed in the museum
I agree with most of your post, but...
Egyptian mummies and other relics of failed experiments in society.
I sure wouldn't call Egyptian mummies failed experiments. The reason that we all know about them is because of their relatively sophisticated embalming methods.
Re:How does this work? (Score:2)
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:2)
RH gets their logo stuck on as many things as possible, forges alliances with existing players, and generally enters the PHB's field of vision. All but the most myopic PHB's are now aware of them.
Not necessarily a bad thing (Score:3)
On another note, I'm sure many of the employees that where part of the "review" in SF where quoting Office Space frequently
Re:How does this work? (Score:2)
I agree (Score:2)
Now that I'm more familiar with LINUX (2.5 years now), I'm experimenting with Debian.
Link? (Score:2)
And how's LNUX doing? (Score:2)
Re:Redhat's "business" model. (Score:2)
Last I checked, they weren't reaping anything resembling a profit ...
Their model is a nice idea, but there;'s no evidence that it's viable.
Re:And the P/E is *what*?! (Score:2)
Well, I both agree and disagree with your statement. In actuality, you should have said "when RHAT resumes making money". People tend to forget this, but RedHat *did* earn $.04 per share one quarter last year, and *did* earn money from time to time before their IPO. If you look at all the quarterly data, it does appear that they're far closer to having actual earnings in 2001 than many other (fallen) IPO littermates. Now, having said that, I think the last quarterly earnings report, due out any day now, is *really* important. If they beat the analyst estimates, possibly by breaking even last quarter, then people will feel much better about their prospects again.
The other day I tried to figure out what price I'd buy Red Hat at, and the answer was about $4 per share until I knew what the last quarter was really like. Given the lack of earnings warnings, I suspect they finished somewhere between -.02 per share to break even. But now I *suspect* there will be some charge against earnings in the next quarter for the consolidation of offices (3 offices and 20 people got trimmed). However, this should be put into perspective: I think Red Hat should be making about $5 million in interest on their cash this last quarter, and next year they could make about $20 million. That alone is enough to paper over a lot of sins, so if their sales revenue grows at anything like the rate I would expect, they will be well into the black by this time next year.
Annoyingly, I suspect their stock will remain just a tad over-priced for the foreseeable future. :-(
Nonsense article. (Score:5)
How many other dot coms have plunged steeper over the same period, and have no product on the shelves at all? Quite a few. At least RH has real labs, real contracts, real projects and a real product.
Half a staff of 25 in a closed San Francisco office gets job offers in Oakland and Sunnyvale. Not to be insensitive, but out of 550 employees, this is hardly "a crisis" for RedHat.
I'll be the first to admit that RedHat has made/is making/shall make serious mistakes, but this closure is very mild (unless you're part of the half with no offer, that would/does suck, I've been there)
My advice to RH is the same as it has always been:
1) Drop the dumb subscriber model -- have a free login that is as good as Debian's Apt (you could learn a lot about packaging by watching "apt-get update; apt-get dist-upgrade" run on a debian box!)
2) Have a "silver/gold/platinum" tiered subscription model, in addition to the free one, w/ guaranteed response time/login (higher level == better performance/response). Be willing to sell "one time" tickets as well as annual subscriptions.
3) Somehow, someway, accelerate the various Gnome/Nautilus/Glade and other development tools such that its easier to manage and handle projects, create docs, etc. I know there are people out there working on "javadoc" like things for c/C++ -- hire them and make it nice.
4) Consider starting/sponsoring a project to CLEAN UP
5) Consider dropping your distro and adopting Debian. I know you are proud of RH, but the realeases appear to have significant flaws...7.0, 6.0, 5.0 were all disasters.
huzzah for slashdot and wired (Score:2)
It seems to me that the way to figure out how to run your company is to shit-can a whole slew of people, and then ask them how the company should be run. Obviously wired news knows a reliable source when it sees one.</sarcasm>
bottom line - RH laid off ~10 people. This is headline news?
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
Re:Half sounds like so much (Score:3)
You're missing the point. RH had claimed that the SF office was critical when it opened, and now they are closing it? And what about that business model? It's hard to plan long-term when you base your plan on a certain market cap, and then that market cap gets slashed by 1/10th and more...
Different in Europe (Re:who is buying redhat?) (Score:3)
I'm a student of cs in Germany. All of my fellow students use Linux one way or the other and all of them have bought pre-packaged commercial Linuces in the past.
(Of course, one of them would buy Suse 5.1 and give it to the rest, then the next gets 5.2 and gives it to the rest etc., but there is no systematic borrowing going on. I had four boxes of consecutive Suse editions lying around here before I switched to Debian recently.)
But still, I think the ratio of buyers is quite high here. Probably mostly because downloading is more expensive and less convenient over here. Still, the morale is high, too. I enjoyed ordering Suse boxes for the companies that I worked for, because I knew it supported a product, a company and a distribution scheme I like.
------------------
Value is ephermal... (Score:2)
It wouldn't have total control over distribution of GCC, or Red Hat Linux, or any such stuff, after all, Mandrake was originally based essentially on RHAT's distribution.
The source of market value for these companies is indeed rather "vaprous;" it is mainly in the possibility of future cash flows, and with the way that free software is "like herding cats," it won't be the Iron Fist Of Bill that would pull in the money, but rather a rather more subtle, less rigid Waiting Carefully For The Money To Perhaps Come In.
Half sounds like so much (Score:5)
Half sounds like a lot until you realize its only about ten people. The headline makes it sound so bad, when it really isn't.
How does this work? (Score:2)
How do they license Linux for use in the embedded devices. Aside from the obvious alternatives (pocketlinux [pocketlinux.com],ucLinux [uclinux.org]) why would a manufacturer rely on Red Hat to provide something that is already in existence, in which Red Hat really has no claims to 'license' a kernel that they don't own. As far as the distribution goes, if they are licensing it to commercial vendors for embedded systems is there any packages for the at-home hackers on this system?
I think that Red Hat does have a sound product, the company does seem somewhat strange. I still do not understand their primary source of long term revenue, perhaps I never will.
The stock had been way overvalued, he said, thanks to overly enthusiastic investors who "believed Red Hat was going to overtake Microsoft. They don't believe that now." Thankfully he at least said that. Best part of the article summed up right there.
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:2)
People who have slow(modem) network connections.
People who want the documentation or support.
People who need people(how did that get in there?)
People who don't want to spend 3000 hours downloading all th rpms.etc....
If I were to install at work I would do a network
install(one machine no frills). But at home I buy
prepackaged versions. Just because it's worth $30.00 not to have to download all the programs
that come with red-hat.
Plus I would think a lot of developers would want
the packaged version because that's what most
people will probably use and if there are any
bugs in the distribution that will affect their
code they will probably want to know.
Owl's Head, near Rockland (Score:2)
Rockland is the site of the Maine Lobster Festival and the Farnsworth Museum, where much of the Wyeth family's paintings are kept. I think it's a pretty cool place. Owl's head is pretty sparsely populated.
We had the house pretty thoroughly inspected. Some things were fixed up by the previous owners. It is indeed on a septic system.
Michael D. Crawford
GoingWare Inc
Just look at their stock prices (Score:2)
From the Wired articlue: "But its stock has taken a breathtaking fall, dropping from $151 to around $6 in less than a year."
Seriously, just look at this graph [quicken.com]! If the stock prices, along with the firing of employees are any sign, then this is not merely due to "created by acquisitions, and said the move has nothing to do with any troubles at Red Hat."
Re:who is buying redhat? (Score:2)
--
Re:Nonsense article. (Score:2)
As far as the subscription model, most everything that they charge for is free on the Debian website, and is actually accessible as well (I've never been able to upgrade my system on the free side of RH).
I know of no tiered model of RHN as I described.
When I first used Linux, it was slackware, around 1995. Maybe every 4-6 months I had to redo the system due to tarball drift.
RH 7.0 was a nightmare to me. The kernel wouldn't compile, PIs DRM/XFree 4.0 wouldn't compile, netscape seemed to go bonkers (even worse than usual) We tried oracle on it at work, and had to revert to 6.2...the queries would just hang the GUI.
I like being able to use newer stuff, but I want it stable. I switched over to Debian, and it just seems very rock solid. XFree 4.0, helix-gnome, accerated openGL and quake3 -- all work great on my Debian boxes. I've never had this consistently on RH.
Debian has a major learning curve, but I believe it is a better, more stable distro. magicfilterconfig is not as nice as the RH utilities.
My only point is...if RH is so good at big projects and doing the GUI interfaces...and in many cases this is true...why not leave the distro integration and testing to Debian? When I read the Debian bug database and compare it to RedHats...some of the people at Debian really, really shine.
There are great people at RH, too....obviously. Maybe they should pool their talents...that's all I'm trying to say.
Re:Good news? Bad news? Good point. (Score:2)
Preemptive Strike. (Score:5)
$320,000,000 on hand? (Score:2)
Despite their minor woes, 3 offices in the bay area is rather much. With Oakland and Sunnyvale they pretty much cover the ends of the bay. SF must have been a money pit.
--