Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
TurboLinux Businesses

Turbolinux Pulls IPO 103

jeffersonebell writes "Today Turbolinux becomes the latest software company to pull its IPO. Story is here. They sight "current market conditions" as the major reason behind the move." I suspect that most people had figured this would be the case - now isn't the ideal time for an IPO.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Turbolinux Pulls IPO

Comments Filter:
  • Is TurboLinux teh same folks with that whacked out ex-felon CEO?

    Or is that someone else?
  • I haven't looked at the prospectus, but do they make any money unlike most Linux companies. Does anybody know what differentiates them from Redhat, VA Linux and the others? Are they just another me too Linux company that somehow plans to make money from tech support?
  • by cswiii ( 11061 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2001 @10:38AM (#349386)
    They don't sight. they "cite".

    Moderators: I don't give a fuck if you moderate me down. I'd rather be correct.
  • Again? But that trick NEVER works!
  • unfortunately i fear we are going to see many of these kinds of events soon. as the various /. trolls keep pointing out, linux stocks and the computer industry in general are at an economical low. obviously linux itself isnt going to be killed by this but linux companies dying can only be a bad thing.
  • This is a couple days old, as was the new Gameboy story. This was posted yesterday afternoon on CNN (, and the gameboy story I believe was at least a day old as well. It'd be nice to see some more timely stories instead of just seeing stuff rehashed here.

  • by AFCArchvile ( 221494 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2001 @10:43AM (#349390) isn't the ideal time for an IPO.

    Hell, now isn't a good time to work for a potential Chapter 11 company. The stock options that used to entice people into employment are now meaningless, since the companies have stock values so low (or, like Turbolinux, can't even make an IPO). Everyone's watching FC [] right now, and the companies can barely keep any bad news held within the walls of their buildings.

    This recession isn't just about plunging stock values. It's about the loss of trust between companies and their employees.

  • I was never really impressed buy turbo Linux anyway. Debian and Mandrake are much better
  • I don't know how this all works, and I would be very interesting in hearing the truth if i'm wrong, but here is the impression I get of IPOs:

    Company A needs to raise some money, so they decide to sell stock to the public. They set an initial price, say $10/share, and then have their initial offering to the public. In the dot com bonanza days, everyone would by up the stock, and then start trading to those who couldn't get in right away, and the stock climbs from 10 to 100 $/share. However Company A only got $10/share, and its the traders who got rich.

    So if this is how it works, why not IPO now, if the company needs the money? Unless they don't think they can sell the shares they need to at their initail price, they'll be raising the capital they need. It sounds like those in charge want to IPO in a bull market so they themselves (and the others who are lucky enough to buy at the inital price) get rich. However, how does this benefit the company?

    Anyway, I'm majoring in CS, not business... so what do I know? If I'm totally wrong about this, will someone be kind enough to explain how it really works? cuz to me it looks like the bigwigs are sacrificing the good of the company for their own wallets


  • It's "exercise", not excercise!
  • You buy from the company at $10 a share then sell it back to the company at $50 a share while it is rising they in turn sell it back to someone else for $80 and so on. usally you dont sell it to other buyers directly. Its the company that keeps buying it back and selling it. Thats how they make money.
  • Greenspan is playing with interest rates, in an attempt to keep the economy under control, but the policies of the president do have a lot to do with it. Quite frankly, the economy is taking a bit of a downturn right now because consumer confidence is down right now. The transition to a new president is probably to blame, but a lot of people are worried that the new Bush ecomonic plan is a return to the failed trickle-down theory of the 80's


  • by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2001 @10:56AM (#349396)
    Analyst: Due to the fed's refusal to cut the rate down to .002%, no one should invest in the market until they do. The entire country's financial wellbeing depends entirely on the Dow-Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ, so you should listen to everything I say and take it as god given blah blah blah blah blah blah....

    Me: Welcome to the real world, Chester, where the stock market is a reflection of the current economy and not its primary driving factor as has been widely seen as the case due to all the millionaires. You don't think these guys got rich by making and selling a product or service, do you?

    It's GOOD that they've decided to pull their IPO and concentrate on building their business through what could end up being a rough economy. This indicates sound thinking and a desire for their business to survive rather than a hot-headed lust for bottom-line profit.

    If you're really interested in making money off of a privately-held Linux company, approach them privately and not through a broker. Tell them that you've been watching their company and are impressed by their performance. Tell them that you'd like to become and investor. Sink some money into them and sit back for a while that money is wisely spent, in the case of a company like TurboLinux, who is actually turning a profit.

    Down the line, you'll see the long-term benifits over trading public stock.

    IANAA (I am not an accountant.)

  • (Issues a buy recommendation, if you are willing not to sell immediately after it goes public, but wait for market recovery.)
  • No, it can be a good thing. If it means my mom can install the only easy-enough-to-use-but-still-secure-enough-to-sell commercial distro.
  • I'm surprised they could find a venture capatilist who would even consider their IPO, or maybe that's why they're pulling it.

    The markets are in a slump. It may end up being a full scale recession, but as of right now it's just a slump. IPO is for stable/growing markets.

    Too bad people gave Clinton the credit for Regan and Bush's economy and now that Clinton's economic policies are coming home to roost, the same people want to blame someone who has been in office for less than a hundred days.

    Now, maybe people will figure out that Democrat's economic policies are BS and maybe we can get the market back to rising and TurboLinux can IPO with a proper market to do it in.

    Cav Pilot's Reference Page []
  • by Anonymous Coward
    When I first started getting involved with Linux a few years ago, I remember very vividly a longtime friend asking me, "How do you make money on free software?" I gave him the standard reply--you don't make money on sales, but on other things, like consulting, support, services, etc. He wasn't overly impressed, and all along I've had doubts. I love Linux as an OS, but as the core of a business it seems highly questionable.

    I think it's time we all recognized that running a Linux distro company is an up-hill battle all the way. You have to spend a lot of money to develop your product, yet you have to give away copies on the Net, thanks to the GPL and/or the political realities of dealing with the "Linux community." If you try to make money by selling support or services, you're up against the big companies, like IBM, making it very difficult for you to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of your support staff as well as all your developers, admon costs, etc.

    The only way for companies to make money with Linux is by using it to sell other products, like server hardware. And if you're a small company (like VA Linux) competing with IBM, Compaq, HP, and others for hardware sales--lots of luck.

  • I'm not sure whether I'm a fan of anarchy or not. But the current market conditions along with the energy crisis in California seem to be stirring unrest. Rolling blackouts have begun in California (I got out of my Comp Sci class...) and the enconomy is *plunging*. As security systems go down (both physical and network) people may sieze the opportunity to "make a buck".

    Does the combination of economy sucking and energy crisis worry anyone else?

  • The likely scenario is that it doesn't appear that they would even get what they'd like for an offering price (the $10 per share in your example).

    Especially in the heady days of years gone by, the initial buyers in an IPO were a select few (patrons of the underwriting brokerage, political bigwigs, etc.). You could very much make the argument that a company's principal owners get screwed when the $10 IPO goes to $50 right away - they could have given up less ownership to raise the same amount of capital. That's the job of a responsible underwriter to ensure that doesn't happen.

    The only market conditions that have changed are that suddenly, profits actually matter (gasp)! What next, will shareholders actually expect dividends on those profits? When that happens, all hell will really let loose...

  • TurboLinux makes their money selling their cluster server and high availability cluster servers to everything from big businesses to research institutions.

    Their 2-node clustering solution sells for $995 and the 10-node version for $1995. They also offer data server products optimized for DB2 and Oracle 8i, which costs $2,500. These products are aimed at businesses that those prices as a small price with high returns. Combined with support and consulting, TurboLinux is able to make some revenue.
  • It's about the loss of trust between companies and their employees

    Which is why you hear talk of labor unions.

  • And the Fed doesn't control either of them.

    From the washington post []
  • I thought the way it worked was that an IPOing company didn't actually sell all of thier shares all at once. Don't the shares really just trickle out? So if the price goes up, so does the amount of capital generated on the sale of shares after the price went up?

  • As one of those non natives I actually welcome
    A) being corrected so that my english improves
    B) reading and hearing correct english in media.
  • So when any company wants to start charging for what they're doing, they better think long and hard. Most people are of the mind that anything Linux better be free (it's a major selling point in any company I've worked in). There's enough trouble giving it away, let alone raising market capital for a company wanting to make money with it. Now is definately not the time. And I don't know if there ever will be one.
  • It's really tragic, in my opinion, that many of the companies that are holding back from trying to get funding these days because of the market turbulence are the ones who are creating truly innovative, robust platforms or products. Turbolinux's distribution, while not terribly popular, has been an excellent desktop for my graphics workstation, and I really admire their dedication to the Open Source ideal.

    I hope that the market bottoms out before all these tech companies with solid products go under; it would be tragic to see the Open Source revolution derailed because of a worldwide economic collapse.

  • However Company A only got $10/share, and its the traders who got rich.

    In an IPO the company usually holds the vast majority of the shares (i.e. they aren't issued in the IPO), and they then slowly release them on the market after the price has crested. For example if you have an IPO today at $10 the $10 might be "undervalued" to make sure you get lots of interest at the outset for the 1,000,000 shares you release in your IPO, however you hold internally 49,000,000 shares. After the public bids up the stock (limited supply obviously because you've only released 2%) you start selling more of it, hopefully at many multiples that original $10.

    One of the funny things about stocks is that while the #s may be based on fantasty land, fantasy companies can "buy" in stock swaps real companies and no one is the wiser until after the fact. i.e. I hype to the world that I'm going to revolutionize the e-Urination business and by carefully controlling the IPO stock quantity I push up my company, with no product or reasonable possibility of having a profit, to having a net capitalization worth of billions. Then I offer GM shareholders 1.72 UrinaXML LLC shares for each GM share and they say "Hey what a great deal! At current market prices 1 GM share is only equal to 1.5 UrinaXML LLC shares!" and soon I "own" GM and have a real product with real profit potential, etc. It's funny seeing that happen, with sucker victims getting stock swapped into oblivion.

  • It's not a combination, it's roughly a cause and effect.

    As energy prices go up, their burden on the economy increases, and the economy tanks.

    Remember the gas crunch of the early 70's, followed by 70's stagflation?

    Remember the Iraqi's taking over Kuwait and the mini-recession of 1990-1991?

    Of course, all the SUV's on the road are not helping things.

    And a President and Vice-President with serious ties to oil and energy companies have far too much of a vested interest in raising oil prices. The companies that are going to do well in this recession are the oil companies.

    Finally, wanna guess how much oil is used to generate California electricity? Very little, it's mostly natural gas, some nuclear, some hydro and some wind. California energy consumption is about where it normally is, the utilities are just scamming you all by taking power plants offline.
  • by passion ( 84900 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2001 @11:11AM (#349412)

    I agree highly on this.

    Sorry jeffersonebell - this isn't a personal attack, but more of a general community gripe. I've made spelling mistakes as well, but this is an entirely different word. The more that wrong words and bad spelling is used in online forums, the more people are exposed to those words, the more people will spell the word incorrectly.

    Plus, this can make for a real pain in the ass when you're searching for an article title, but can't find it because it was spelled wrong.

    I can do the s/sight/cite/ in my head, but other people can't, and most spidering engines won't.

  • Yes but do they MAKE money, i.e. turn a profit. Just because you sell something doesn't mean you are actually making money....
  • Sounds like a real company with decent margins. Have to check them out and keep an eye out on them. My Sun and Extreme Networks shares haven't been doing too well. What's wrong with Linux is that it's hard to make money only on support. MS, Sun and other companies charge you per server, per seat, per processor and any other per they can think of. Where with Linux GM can buy a copy of Redhat from Amazon and install it on all of their machines. Then hire a few Linux admins to run it all. Total revenue for Redhat is $50.
  • I'm talking about "trust that you're going to have a job." Period. Companies are always looking for cheaper ways to do things, and cutting down on personnel is a commonly used option.
  • Unfortunately, companies have started to find ways around unions. Verizon is increasingly hiring contractors to fill in for unionized workers. And this is after the Verizon strike in October.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    But who watches the grammar watchers...

    "The more that wrong words and bad spelling is used"

    Your subject is plural (words and spelling), but your verb is singular (is). You should have written "are used".

    "Who was that masked, oddball, nitpicker?"
    "Why, that was the Lone Stranger."
    "Hi! Ho! Argentum! Away to work we go!"

  • by Zico ( 14255 ) on Wednesday March 21, 2001 @11:27AM (#349418)

    I mean, seriously, to post about a Linux company's troubles is like to post an article about the sun coming up in the morning. Let's talk about something new.

    As far as Safari goes, is it possible that I just missed the article on it? I can't believe that Slashdot wouldn't mention something this big. If you haven't seen it yet, it's O'Reilly's plan (they've already started) to put all their books online and offer different subscription plans to use them (links: "Safari itself [], and about the design of Safari []). There are so many things to discuss about this approach (which seems pretty innovative), from simply whether or not it will work. I'm definitely interested and almost signed up for it last night. Anybody taken the plunge yet? (The lowest plan is $9.95/month, if you don't feel like checking out the link.)

    And whether you like it or not, HailStorm could change everything from the way that we know it. The fact that AOL and Sun were courting government officials for breakfast to talk about new anti-trust action two days before Microsoft even announced this should tell you how seriously they're taking it. There's a ton of different angles that it could be talked about, whether it's positive, negative, or how other organizations could work with it or duplicate it, but I guess Slashdot is waiting for an appropriately negative article about it before they mention it. ;)


  • This doesn't even make any sense, who modded this up? Bush is talking about drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve for chrissake! Sure, accuse him of being shortsighted and not environmental enough (I'm not saying he is, but I'm saying that such a case could be made), but he's definately NOT restricting oil supplies.

    As for the rest, California energy consumption has increased dramatically over the last 5-10 years, but due to regulations, power companies have been unable to build more plants. The prices are frozen, so by not producing power, the power companies would have much lower profits. They can only make money when they sell their product.

  • Out of all my experiences I just don't think OpenSource business should even bother going public. The traders out there today aren't looking to invest in good companies.. They're looking to pump and dump stocks that sound good. Quality is no longer the issue with most investors.

    So why put Linux in the line of fire with for profit companies. Can I tell you the the response I get from my investor buddies when I say "I use Linux" is "Why? The stock is at 5 (or whatever it's at these days" Investors for the most part are idiots and are looking to make a buck. None of them have any loylties to good companies. That's pretty much what put us in the situation we are in today. These pump and dumpers and day traders had their fun with the market. The feds came in and made all these adjustments after just a few months without looking at what might happen in the long term. Now we're stuck with the market in the same place in was before this started and who's been hurt? The US companies and the US economy.

    So Good Job TurboLinux. Keep yourself off the market. Investors will just cock tease you as they try and make a buck off your stock before they let it drop into the toliet.

    I for one am taking all the money I would have invested and going to Vegas. My odds are better and I want feel like a cheap whore tomorrow morning (although maybe I'll have one in bed with me ;) )
  • you can figure out where
  • Thanx (yes this is not the official spelling :-)
  • I don't believe that's the case. The word "media" is plural. It's also one of the most misused words in the language! Come on, don't mod this thread as Offtopic - what's so bad about a discussion around the proper use of English?
  • Okay, here goes.

    There's trouble in the middle East, oil prices rise.

    All of sudden, there's a demand for more domestic oil, people don't like spending an extra buck to fill their cars. Who'se gonna fill that demand, and make more profits? Oil Companies

    What if you encouraged conservation and public transit, who would lose money? Oil Companies

    Now, which presidential candidates were banked by oil companies, to the extent of being hired by them for millions a year (Halliburton)? Bush and Cheney

    Now, explain to me how drilling for oil is going to help California generate more electricity, when the power plants use coal, natural gas, nuclear or hydro.
  • No, it can be a good thing. If it means my mom can install the only easy-enough-to-use-but-still-secure-enough-to-sell commercial distro.

    Oxymoron. The easier it is to use, the less secure the distro.

    Personally, I like TurboLinux's server offerings. Their package list is predominantly based on redhat, but unlike the latter, TLS default install does not, I repeat, DOES NOT leave you with anon-ftp on, rpc.statd holes, an old vulnerable version of bind, etc. etc.

    It's just a shame they didn't go public earlier. Then we could lament their poor stock price like we do for redhat and valinux.

    "all your spam are belong to us"

  • Unfortunately it seems a lot of the Linux companies aren't making money, not just TurboLinux. All of their stocks have been dropping dramatically. In fact judging from this article [], written in January, Linux stocks were going down even before the .com stocks started slipping (correct me if I'm wrong).
  • by peterjm ( 1865 )
    where are you when I want to laugh at turbolnux?
  • I think at first everybody thought one of these was going to be the next MS or Oracle, but then reality set in. It took Microsoft almost 20 years to reach it's current point. As with the .com euphoria everybody thought these "New Economy" companies would establish well known brand names in 12-18 months instead of the usuall decade or so.
  • You're right! Drilling for oil will not help California produce more power. They're completely seperate issues. Let me try this again.

    Drilling for oil in Alaska increases the supply of oil.

    Increased supply, without increased demand, means lower prices.

    Lower prices mean smaller profits for oil companies.

    As for California, that's a completely seperate issue which is mainly due to poor energy regulation (consumer prices are regulated, but supply prices are not, so a minor increase in wholesale energy prices drives all the utilites out of business).

  • You should take a step back: Company A wants money. Why? To expand operations? To make up for cash shortfall? To make the company more liquid? That's your first question. Maybe you don't need money at all, maybe instead you can just use existing profits and wait a year or two.

    Let's say you've decided you need outside capital, now you have to decide how to get it. Private placement from a big investor? Bringing in some partners and sharing the business? Getting a venture capital company to invest? Going public with an IPO? These are all ways to raise money, and while an IPO is the most glamourous, it is rarely the best way to go about it. Going public is incredibly expensive to a business, and should normally only be done after the company is successful, profitable, and with a solid business plan for spending the excess money.

    The moral of the story is: think twice before you IPO. It's almost always better to stay private. Only IPO when you're already successful. This will save you, your employees, and investors alot of time and trouble.

  • No, it's called "We don't want to IPO in an economy where tech-companies are high-risk."

    Think -- would _YOU_ be heavily investing in tech stocks at the moment? Only if you're a Foolish investor (which I happen to be...*grin*).


  • No, I think he was thinking about LinuxOne.
  • You are probably thinking of LinuxOne...

    Do a search for "linuxone" and "fraud"...

    Topic on []

    Investorville discussion []

  • Unfortunately, companies have started to find ways around unions. Verizon is increasingly hiring contractors to fill in for unionized workers. And this is after the Verizon strike in October.

    i'm a verizon contractor, and i'm getting laid off along with all of my coworkers. why? because the employees of another contractor on the same contract went union. they're moving all our jobs to "right-to-work" states.

    the new economy can bite my bag, frankly.

  • all that drilling equipment sitting around costs an oil company money, with no chance to recoup their investment, unless it's drilling.

    lower prices don't necessarily mean lower profits, they can decrease their profits per barrel as long as they make it up in volume.

    Economics goes into great depth at optimal profit price, balancing supply-demand against prices.

    I think they just want to keep their oil rigs busy.
  • sight == the condition of being able to see something
    cite == the act of making a statement

    Hemos == the condition of being someone without a spell and grammer checker


  • ^grammer^grammar

    DOH! :P

  • They're big banks who broker the IPO. They also esentially write one big check for all the stock and it's up to them to make sure investors buy it all.

    So if they can't find enough investors who are interested in X shares at Y price, they take the hit.

    Trolls throughout history:

  • Not meaning to flame, but the economy was going down long before clinton was out off office. And even then presidents rarely see the effects of the seeds they sow. (So clintons good econmy was because of bush 1 while bush 2's economy slowdown is because of clinton.)

    The market cycles up and down normaly, ask any seasoned stockbroker.
  • You asked for it.

    "but can't find it because it was spelled wrong." is also gramatically incorrect. You should have written:

    ",but can't find it because it was spelled incorrectly."

  • Too bad people gave Clinton the credit for Regan and Bush's economy and now that Clinton's economic policies are coming home to roost, the same people want to blame someone who has been in office for less than a hundred days.

    Pop quiz: which Clinton economic policy was most responsible for the current market correction, and which of Regan/Bush policies was most responsible for the record expansion of the 90's?

    In what manner did Clinton's policy of deficit reduction/balanced budgets contribute to the market correction of 2000/2001? How big of a factor was it?

    How much of a factor were increased free trade and the NAFTA accord in the current economic slowdown?

    The national debt (under Reagan/Bush) tripled in the 80's. Was this a direct cause of the 90's expansion, or did it hinder it? Please use sound and accepted economic principals to support your argument (hint: Rush Limbaugh is not an economist).

    You parrot the typical far right's "blame everything on the Democrats" lines, but the problem with people like you is that you can never back up your statements with facts.
  • For one thing, like someone already said, in a weak market they can't demand the initial price that they were hoping for. So, in your example, they could only get $7/share.

    Also, while the traditional point of an IPO was to raise money, that became a secondary result with dot-coms. Most of them only issued public stock for a small fraction of the company and most had no use for a large pool of capital anyway. The real point was to get a spectacular run-up on the post-IPO price to make the founders, insiders and friends rich and to create valuable stock to use to acquire other stupid companies.

    That's why when, say, VA Linux went out at $~40 and went up to $320, it was viewed as a good thing. If they had cared about raising money, they would have sued their investment bankers for malpractice.

    Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.

  • When you sell stock, you aren't selling it to the company that issued it (there is an exception known as a "stock buyback," but that's a different story).

    You are selling your shares to a broker or a "market maker" that trades in the company's stock. They, in turn, sell it to someone else. If a company's stock loses half its value in a day (or doubles in a day), the company doesn't lose (or make) any money at all. The affect of the stock price on the company is a bit more indirect. It affects market perception of the company, the ability to attract employees by using stock options, and the number of shares necessary to buy other companies using stock swaps.

  • At risk of being OT, I think the fed /did/ cut interest rates by .5 percent yesterday. Doesn't change much, though...
  • Well, no. Typically in an IPO, company A contracts with an investment bank to sell a specific number of shares at a specific price and gives the bank the option to sell an additional number of shares into the market (this overallotment is called the Greenshoe, or just the Shoe.) The company gets the specified price per share, less the underwriter's commission (which is so often 7% that the banks are being investigated for antitrust.)

    Company A may later sell more shares, but it almost never gets to trickle them out, and is usually restricted by the underwriter from selling more within a specific period of time so as not to hurt the marketability of the initial offering. Any offering of shares by the company (a "primary" offering) is at a set price and is accompanied by all the government-is-your-friend paperwork required by the SEC. Shares that are not registered in an SEC filing can only be sold to the public under exemptions built into the law. These exemptions are typically for small offerings by individuals out onto the open market after a specific holding period (Rule 144 sales).

    The investment bank may make quite a bit of money trickling out the shares in the shoe, but that is their money, not the company's. The company only gets the offering price, less commission.

    The reason IPOs typically have a jump in price after they start trading is that the banker deliberately (and with knowledge of the company) underprices the deal. Anecdotally, the average IPO is discounted 15% for sale to institutions, meaning the institution expects to make about 15% by flipping their shares to the general public. This, in effect, compensates them for the risk they take in being part of the distribution network. Cynics would say it also makes them beholden to the i-banks for when harder to sell deals come around (like, which institutions would have bought Loudcloud without some favors being called in?) Institutions are well aware that (historically again, not just during bubble-mania) IPOs have less appreciation, on average, than the broader market - they are bad investments in the medium-term.

    The company agrees to this underpricing for two reasons. The first is that they are negotiating the price with the investment bank. This deserves emphasis, because many managements believe that the investment bank is their *agent* in the sale. This is not true. The investment bank does not necessarily have the best interests of the company as their primary concern. In fact, given the volume of business from any one small company just going public versus the volume of business from incredibly large institutional investors that are active in every offering they do, you figure out who they want to please the most. What happens is that the night before public trading commences, management of the company and the the i-bankers sit down and negotiate the offering price. The management wants a high price, obviously, and the bankers want a price that will allow them to sell the deal and get a kick after public trading starts. They determine this price by callin the potential investors and feeling them out about their interest at different price levels. They want the deal to be two or three times oversold (demand for two or three times the number of shares being sold at the given price). This allows them to see some increase in price in the short-term. The second reason management doesn't want to overprice a deal is that if their stock price drops like a rock immediately after the offering, the chances of investors coming back in the next offering is small, limiting their ability to raise money or do a secondary in the future.

  • Fuck, there was a 5% growth rate last year. You really call that 'going down'?

    Of course, all the cheap credit that Greenspan was flipping around was causing all that growth. And you can't keep the economy going on cheap credit. (Yesterday's lowered rate will probably just increase inflation without increasing growth. That plus an energy crisis equals good ol' 70s style stagflation.)

    GHW Bush does gets some credit for the Clinton boom. Why? He raised taxes which cut the deficit (and then the GOP abandoned him for it). Clinton also gets some credit for raising taxes again, and generally not increasing spending too much (cutting defense by quite a bit for example).

    Now we got GW Bush. Pretty much the only affect on the economy he could have had has been using the "R" word for political purposes. Trust me, hearing the president talking about a recession was a shock to most Americans in the midst of the hugest boom in recent history. That and proposed huge tax cut + proposed huge military spending increases + proposed pretty big domestic spending increases (as political payola to the dems), has made Wall Street pretty damn nervous.

    Not that Wall Street == the economy, but Bush definately has had psychological effect on people's short term outlook. Which may have been the effect he was looking for - have the downterm early in his term unlike his father who had it late (as in right before the election).

    Besides, by your logic, Carter was responsible for the Reagan boom and Reagan was responsible for the Bush recession.
  • <This indicates sound thinking and a desire for their business to survive rather than a hot-headed lust for bottom-line profit. >

    No, it indicates that the market has absolutely no desire to own this stock. If there was demand, they would still be going public. If you think otherwise, your dumber than your post suggests.

    Anyone have any proof that TL actually makes a profit as all the zealots say? Since they are not a public company, they have no regulatory requirement to produce audited financial statements...

    Yep, just another post defending Linux... no mater what the news, it can always be twisted to make Linux look like a concerned, responsible company...
  • 10.
    9. Hey We're A Linux Company Too, Inc.
    4. Virtual Sushi
    2. Refurbished Porno Warehouse
  • This is different. The mistake that jeffersonebell made was to use a word that had a definition different from the one that he intended to use. passion just had bad grammar. IMO the former is far worse. Whereas bad grammar shows a lack of thought, word misusage shows a lack of understanding.
  • this can make for a real pain in the ass when you're searching for an article title, but can't find it because it was spelled wrong.

    I found out recently just how true this could be. I accidentally searched for "reprt" instead of "report". Luckily, google is nice enough to try to correct you, but the results [] are interesting.

  • The oil companies are more driven by the market than they are drivers of the market. The drivers of the market are the oil producing nations and the oil consuming nations. OPEC produces less, supply goes down, price goes up; America consumes heating oil in a cold winter, demand goes up, price goes up. Most oil companies have now shifted from a cost-based mode (where they limit production to conserve costs) to production-mode (where they produce as much as possible). Their long-term plans are based on a strike price of $10/barrel; the rest is profit.

    If all else fails, move to Houston. You'll learn more about the energy economy and will have a job when tech goes sour. That is, until oil gets cheap again...

  • by job0 ( 134689 )
    'They sight "current market conditions"' shouldn't that be cite??
  • And who watches those whom watch the grammar watchers?

    You should have written "are used".

    You should have written: You should have written "are used."

    Punctuation is placed inside quotes. Not "like this". But "like this."


  • companies have started to find ways around unions

    While not exactly a tech company, Vickers closed down a 500+ employee plant in Omaha when it chose to unionize.

    While I'm not a big union fan, this level of backlash does seem excessive...

  • "Reagan was responsible for the Bush recession."

    I've heard this many times, and beleave it too. However, just because its happened a few times in the same time frame doesn't mean it will always. Could be 10 years, or it could be 1 year.(in the same term)

    I do agree that what the president says does affect peoples reactions causing problems with in the market.

    There are a lot of factors that cuase good/bad economies and most do not point to the current president.
  • It's not just a pain in the ass for non-English speakers and lost on search engines, it's highly unprofesional. The differences between there/their/they're, sight/site/cite and its/it's are substantial and there is no excuse for using an incorrect version, especially by editors (right Taco?) Even when it's in a quote, any self-respecting news organization will append a [sic] after a booboo so a quote can remain a quote. Otherwise it's a tyop or illiteracy.

    And don't give me that 'well, you can't expect non-english speakers to be able to write correct english' bull. I will bet anything that the large, huge, vast majority of people making those mistakes are native english speakers, furthermore, most (if not all) of them are from the US. Most other countries' educational systems place a somewhat higher value on the written word and as a result their citizens tend to make more careful word selections.

    Shame on you all, the least you can accomplish in your life is to learn proper usage of your native tongue.

  • Is it just me or was the Turbolinux booth at Comdex in Vegas almost as offensive as the Creative Labs booth?

    I still have nightmares of the infommercial guy saying "TURBO Linux".

  • No, there is talk of labor unions because these days people can't just walk up to a company, with unknown and unproven skills, apply for a position with unknown qualifications and requirements, ask for $100k+/year and get it. Since companies need to pay real money now (not the worthless paper called stock options) wages are being depressed, and with financing all shot to hell they're also watching where the money goes. So no more slacking off for you, you need to justify your existance now. Hence unions, so you don't have to.
  • Oxymoron. The easier it is to use, the less secure the distro.

    That's why snowshovelboy says "easy-enough-to-use-but-still-secure-enough".

    I agree with you that their server offerings are decent. On the other hand, it is not 'free/open software". Well, it does not 'really' matter to me. But just still wondering whether selling free/open software makes money.


  • You really think Debian and Mandrake are much better? If true, then fine, everyone could have his/her own opinion. (Is that in correct grammar?)

    I just worry this would bring up another distributions flamewar.

  • I don't understand...

    Rolling blackouts have begun in California (I got out of my Comp Sci class...)

    So you study Comp Sci because of money not because you like computers/software? (not even partially?)

  • Even Canadian watch News:)

    Love your country. Say it once again. Love your COUNTRY...

  • Who needs a speel/gramma checker when you have 1000s of Usenet/Slashdot users who will do it for free.
  • "whom" is a historical accident, the remainder of the accusative case (not otherwise used in English) inherited from Anglo-Saxon. As such, it is correctly used in situations of transitivity -- which means that your first sentence is wrong. You should have written: And who watches those who watch the grammar watchers?
  • Their CDs come with all sorts of hardware these days. They are how I know which type of network card or other device to buy in the store.

    But who really uses their distribution?

    Any word on what its like from any users? deb, rpm or tar.gz based?
  • by Rix ( 54095 )
    By you, perhaps. I choose not too, as it implies that the punctuation is part of the quote.

    If we were talking about a programming language, then yes, there would be a "correct" way. Compilers are a little less complex than people, we don't expect as much from them. Natural languages are different, people can derive meaning without exacting specification. I'll use whatever spelling/grammer pleases me the most, and there's nothing you can do about it.

    Rick Kirkland
  • I'm far from a market whiz, but wouldn't a bear market be a good time to IPO? There's nowhere to go but up. Look at all the pretty dotcoms who IPOed recently that crashed along with the market. If TurboLinux IPOed now, one would think they would climb as the market recovered (assuming it does).

    Obviously there are a lot of smart people who made the decision not to IPO, so there must be a reason that I have no clue about.
  • The bottom line is that you need to have a differentiating technology in a big enough market. Right now all the VC's are very careful about anyinvestment and nobody wants to take a risk of the uncertainties of tomorrow; but this doesn't mean that everybody is going down. It just means that you can't startup a dotcom named and expect to become a billionaire anymore.
  • Eye agry maybee VA linucks kuld cell it as a cervix?
  • Any word on what its like from any users? deb, rpm or tar.gz based?

    I got a copy of their PRE-RELEASE 1.1.2 NFR in a magazine subscription. It was basically trash. I even sent them email complaining about the quality. They took offense when I suggested they could fill the whipping-boy post in the community ;-)

  • I think it's rather assinine to fail to attribute to President Clinton the success of the economics market during his second term in office.

    Granted, part of the reason for the boom was the military decline started by the first Bush administration, which pushed companies into R&D on consumer goods instead of government goods. This was a good thing, and I find it disappointing that the new Baby Bush appears to want to go back to the cold war economy that led to foreign countries out competing us in industries we used to be leaders(automobile, television, radio, etc).

    But a large reason for the boom was simply the Clinton administration hands-off policy with regards to the economy. Actually this is the prime difference between Clinton and say Reagan. Reagan had a in-your-face style of government, whereas the Clinton government just didn't interrupt peoples daily lives much at all. It gave people time and opportunity to concern themselves with other more important issues.

    The only real example of the Clinton administration mucking where they shouldn't have is with the Microsoft lawsuit. There was a recent Forbes article which attributes much of the malaise in the tech market to the Microsoft lawsuit. Essentially pointing out that the tech companies were really just riding on the coattails of Microsoft.

    There was another article, I believe in either Salon or Slate, which I read which pointed out another factor of politics and the market. The Baby Bush administration favors the old Republican standby companies... Big Oil, Big Manufacturing, Defense, etc. But not technology, etc.

    What that article pointed to is that the market is now shifting with the political winds. Tech is gone, the new administration isn't gonig to promote it. But the other industries stocks are doing quite well.

    For instance, go check out the stock charts on Raytheon, an old Bush family defense company. It hit it's 52-week peak in early February, while the tech market was still blundering into oblivion. Even though it's down in the past month, it's still considerably above it's 52-week low from last April.

    Face it. The Clinton administration was good for Technology. Look at just a handful of the positive things he did as President for our market:

    - Eliminated the GPS satellite encryption
    - Raised limits on super computer exports
    - Nearly eliminated limits on encryption export
    - Provided funding and an atmosphere of regulations which encouraged internet expansion

    and so on.

    Under the Bush administration you won't see this type of cooperation. They have already began talk about again restricting computer exports. I fully suspect even the encryption export restrctions will once again be "reviewed" and then later reverted back to their old form.

    Where's the focus been just in the past 100 days? Oil and Energy companies.

    The writing is on the wall, it just takes some intelligence to read it.
  • When you sell stock, you aren't selling it to the company that issued it (there is an exception known as a "stock buyback," but that's a different story).

    Not necessarily. When you buy an IPO like a Linux one, about 70 to 80 per cent of the money ends up going to the company. When you sell your shares, they may be bought back by the company (for use in ESOPs), bought by other investors, or a market maker may buy them for his float (since he oversold or expects to sell them to a buyer).

    You are selling your shares to a broker or a "market maker" that trades in the company's stock. They, in turn, sell it to someone else. If a company's stock loses half its value in a day (or doubles in a day), the company doesn't lose (or make) any money at all. The affect of the stock price on the company is a bit more indirect. It affects market perception of the company, the ability to attract employees by using stock options, and the number of shares necessary to buy other companies using stock swaps.

    If a company has an outstanding buy order, such as a recent warrant by ArtistDirect to buy back stock at a price between $1.25 and $1.50 a share (trading below $1 now - I have some), then a number of things can happen - the company can buy directly if it has a seat on the exchange (e.g. MSDW could buy its own stock), a market maker could buy it in anticipation of selling it to the company, another investor could buy it (to hold or to sell, or to fill a short order).

    But most of the time, you don't sell it back to the company - unless they just announced a large stock buyback.

    One of the tricks of being a major holder is that you have to announce when you sell or buy things - Warren Buffet likes to accumulate stocks very slowly so people don't wise up that he's buying the company, for example, as that drives up the price of the stock he's buying.

    A way around this is for two stockholders to make a direct exchange of shares - I sell my MSFT shares direct to Bill Gates, he cuts me a check. But if Bill G is a major holder, he has to announce it beyond a certain level.

  • I say Amen and again AAAmmmen!
  • Oh yeah...labor unions will save us. Talk about the cure being worse than the disease!
  • It's more than a couple of days old -- well over a month has past since this was made public. It was buried at the bottom of the press release from TurboLinux [], dated 21 Feb 2001 and picked up by LWN [] in their Commerce section [] from the next day.
  • Dividends are not what stock trading is low, sell high. If you're going to buy stock for dividends do like my grandfather and buy General Electric stock and then sit on it for 40 years.
  • The problem with that idea is that the situation is different if you're a company ISSUING stock. If you are the one ISSUING, you're not getting money directly if the stock goes up unless you issue MORE stock.

    For example, in the current market conditions, if you issued stock at 20 dollars each, then you would get 20 x all the amount of stock being issued. If the market conditions are bad though, and poeple are not willin to buy at 20, then it may be dramatically lower, like 8. So the amount of funding they get will also be lower. This has NOTHING to do with the stock going up. If the stock goes up after the IPO, (REGARDLESS weather the ipo was at a low price or high) the company can issue more stock, but not at the same amount as the IPO.

    Hope that clears things up
  • "ho are creating truly innovative, robust platforms or products."

    Frankly, I don't see how Linux is innovative or even particulary robust.
    I mean it is another Unix clone and not the best at that ( Solaris is much more stable and scalable at this point.)
  • How were they failed ?
    Any examples ?
  • "ho are creating truly innovative, robust platforms or products."

    Just who are you calling a ho? Just because I am using a female name gives you no right to reefer to me as a 'ho'.

  • I use the adsubtract proxy application, so I never see any ads. On yahoo, cnn or slashdot. it's nice. install it and enjoy ;)
  • You're absolutely correct - when it comes to stock trading, the short-term trader couldn't care less about dividends. He's just looking for the "greater fool" to come along and pay a higher price. For investors who actually look at buying stocks as buying into the ownership of a company, dividends are important.

    Think about it - without the prospect of receiving a dividend (sharing in the company's profits), what is the financial justification for buying a particular stock??? There is none, other than the hope that someone else will come along and buy it from you at a higher price. And why should they pay a higher price? Because they think that there's an even greater fool out there.

    One of the biggest problems with our current tax structure is that your typical stock trader would pay less in capital gains taxes than they would on dividends received, so there's a tax incentive to steer away from dividend-paying companies. That trend takes away one of the fundamental means by which stocks can be evaluated.

  • passion just had bad grammar... Whereas bad grammar shows a lack of thought

    You are correct. I apologize for making a post to slashdot that wasn't entirely thought out.

    It won't be the only one you find... :P

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn