Red Hat In Business News 239
jferg was one of the first people to write about
the coverage in today's Observer in regards to the latest business happenings at Red Hat. The article touches on the launch of RH Advanced Server, but one of the most telling statistics was "Red Hat now has 90 percent of its 630 employees working to lure corporations looking to move their computing platform from expensive systems running on the rival Unix operating system to Linux, widely considered to be the more cost-effective choice."
Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Guess I'm just another anti M$ shashdotter though.
Re:Hmm... (Score:1)
"I guess it would make an easier move for a corporation to go from Unix to Linux, but imho Linux's real threat is MS/Unisys, not Unix."
That may be true but I am sure it would be easier for a corporation to go from Unix to Linux.
The real question for RH at this time is not what is the bigger threat but what is the biggest market oportunity. In this case and at this point in time I would say it would be getting businesses to switch from Unix to Linux IMHO
"Guess I'm just another anti M$ shashdotter though."
Aren't we all?
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
RedHat: If RHN worked for windows PCS the same way it does for my linux boxen, and I could run the server myself INSIDE the firewall, you can sell me support.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
If the workstations are going to stay windows, try Altiris Express [altiris.com]. I use Zen 2.0 and am Altiris Certified. Next to Zen, Altiris is the best for workstation inventory/app delivery and adds workstation imaging. You could even use the Zen app packages with Altiris. One drawback is that it is for profit so there will of course be a fee. I don't know if you are MLA with Novell, but if not, then the cost of switching would be negligible.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Not only would you be losing Zenworks, which is great, but what about rights management for system resources? Samba just doesn't offer the fine grain controls that NetWare does.
Now using Linux as an eDirectory server in a NetWare environment would be a cool choice... They work great for all kind of Internet related stuff (NEVER use BorderManager).
Use the right tool for the right job. Usually if you go to work at a larger site and all services are delivered by servers all running the same OS, it's usally because that's all they know about or they have some strange religious devotion to the platform.
The mark of a truely experienced SA is to know all of the options that are available from different vendors to solve a specific problem, what implications are involved in each of them, and untimately choosing the one that works the best with the least negative impact on existing systems.
.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
1. Netware is expensive! Not as bad as MS, but we are shelling out serious, serious moneies for our support/upgrade protection agreeement
2. With linux, I can do more things with the same hardware. For instance, I can run Domino on it (now we use AIX and NT for that)
3. Novell is dying. A lot of the 3rd party apps we use require an NT domain to work properly. That means even more NT servers. Most of these apps work with samba.Many of these companie's tech support types don't even know what a Netware is!
4. Novell is dying (part 2) Have you tried to staff competent Novell admins? They are getting hard to find. We already have a stable of AIX admins here, so staffing is less of concern.
RedHat Needs an Exchange Clone (Score:4, Interesting)
If they were to get a hold of Openmail, they really might be able to slash MS right out of the server space - as long as they could keep MS from messing with the protocols.
AFAIK, Exchange is the number one reason to have MS anywhere near the datacenter.
Re:RedHat Needs an Exchange Clone (Score:4, Interesting)
the draw of the shared email/calendar/public folder/contacts cannot be understated. Nobody cares what's running in the data center, as long as they have groupware that doesn't suck.
Evolution is the outlook killer, but until there's a real Exchange killer, linux servers will not get far past the web/database market. When redhat has THAT, the PHB's will start returning phone calls.
Re:RedHat Needs an Exchange Clone (Score:2)
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.
Will we have a true competitor to Exchange before it's too late? I guess we'll see.
Free beer!!! (Score:2)
and
"This offer is good now and until further notice."
The freeness seems a little precarious, though.
MS SQL Server is for idiots - use Sybase. (Score:2)
MS SQL Server and Sybase were one and the same until release 4.8. They share the same syntax and procedural-SQL extensions (Transact SQL).
Sybase is multi-platform, 64-bit capable, and very cheap (cheaper than MS, especially with the AS bundling). MS's only 64-bit port is to the Itanium, which is still a stranger to the datacenter. Tom Kyte of Oracle fame has criticisms for the Sybase/MS locking model, but the software is capable.
The Linux version of the Sybase 11.0.3.3 server is also available free of charge from linux.sybase.com - this is free for development and deployment. The Sybase 12 family is very inexpensive compared to Oracle and DB2.
The free 11.0.3.3 server was developed for Red Hat. It's SQL implementation is a bit dated (I don't even know if it is SQL92 entry-level-compliant, but a lot of SQL syntax from Postgres and MySQL doesn't work).
Why anybody uses MS SQL Server when a branch of the same code base is available for free boils down to one word: marketing.
Speaking of which - RedHat, be a Sybase partner... (Score:2)
...and start agressively migrating MS SQL Server to RedHat Advanced Server/Sybase. It's a perfect fit.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
_Red Hat_ may be threatened. But then, who cares? "Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
If they go under, Linux will continue, but not at the pace it has been so far.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I guess it would make an easier move for a corporation to go from Unix to Linux, but imho Linux's real threat is MS/Unisys, not Unix.
You're half right. It is relatively easy to go from one of the high end flavors of UNIX to Linux. Reliable, familiar software at close to zero licensing costs that takes advantage of in-house UNIX experience is a no brainer decision for any corporation in that situation with a CIO that has a clue.
The second part is reversed. MS has been hoping to climb up into the server room from the desktop, leveraging the dominance of various complicated lock-in file formats and protocols it owns at the desktop. It's been partially successful since Intel compatible hardware is cheaper relative to traditional high end UNIX RISC platforms. And, with Win2K, they've finally got reliability up to the point where they aren't laughed out of the room.
But Linux is MS/Unisys' real threat, because while they focus on trying to climb up into the lucrative high end of the server room, Linux is coming up from behind, offering an even lower cost option than MS on Intel.
If I were MS, I'd see the biggest problem being high end UNIX shops tunneling through the mid-cost option of Wintel to the even better option of lowest-cost Lintel.
Re:Hmm... (Score:2)
Maybe we can turn this into an Ask Slashdot (although only 5% of the people who will chime in will actually be qualified to do so, I suspect) - are there any migration tools to automate the transition from MS based to Linux based services?
Luring out of 'real' UNIX (Score:3, Interesting)
So does Red Hat have the way out [wehavethewayout.com] or the way in [wehavethewayin.com]?
Re:Luring out of 'real' UNIX (Score:1)
Re:Luring out of 'real' UNIX (Score:1)
Re:Luring out of 'real' UNIX (Score:1)
a cheaper way in, definitely!
www.wehadthewayout.com (Score:2)
Sliding sales... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sliding sales... (Score:2)
Re:Sliding sales... (Score:2)
Mandrake has the right idea (Score:2)
Re:Sliding sales... (Score:2)
If 90% are for marketting. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If 90% are for marketting. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If 90% are for marketting. (Score:1)
Re:If 90% are for marketting. (Score:2)
No argument there, but what about support people? Based on 630 employees, if 90% (~560) of the people are selling, 4% (25) are developing, that leaves about 40 for support, janitors, admins, shipping, etc. I thought support was their primary revenue stream?
Based on my experience, and paying $300/hr, they could barely serve. The guys I dealt with were good, but obviously horribly disorganized and way over-worked.
Re:If 90% are for marketting. (Score:2)
How do you think Alan Cox feels about being lumped in with the "marketers"?
~Sean
Re:If 90% are for marketting. (Score:4, Insightful)
But they don't sell software. Sure they make a nominal amount of money off of selling boxes-o-software, but you just can't really sell something to geeks very easily that they can download.
I think that a marketing shift like they're doing is trying to funnel more people into the parts of their business model that allow them to hire that many people. Pretty much they're a huge consulting firm that just happens to find it convenient to maintain a distro that they have control over.
This is true, and it's good... (Score:2)
Uhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are the other 10% of the guys, on nap duty?
No (Score:2)
(Not a red hat employee)
Re:No (Score:2)
Re:Uhh (Score:2)
I assure you, no one is napping. My friends at Red Hat barely get any sleep at all.
Alan works for Red Hat. (Score:1)
--Charlie
Re:Alan works for Red Hat. (Score:2)
I suppose all this contributes towards a healthy state of mind for kernel development.
What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
So what is counted as Unix? Solaris and ____...
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
HP-UX, SCO-Unixware, AIX...and these are just the ones in use at my office...there are others.
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
And I wonder if their count was able to figure out which distros were linux even though their name doesnt have linux in the title. Or vice versa.
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
HP-UX, SCO-Unixware, AIX...and these are just the ones in use at my office...there are others
Probably counting BSD and its derivatives (including OS X) in there as well. A more meaningful number would be FreeNIX vs. Non-FreeNIX vs. Windows.
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:1)
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article implies that RedHat tries to make money by selling RedHat software to large corporations. That's not entirely true, selling software has ALWAYS been only a fraction of things providing RedHat income. "Services" is mostly support. Corporations want support, support sells, thus, services makes money. Simple.
The only problem with selling support that I can see is the "ethical" side. GNU/Philosophy tells us we should be selling services and software support to people who use our software. The side issue is, if you really DO make great software, why would anyone buy your support ? Do you have to specifically make you software buggy so people can ask you for support and pay ?
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
How many boxes of Windows?
Of course that may not be the way they are counting
P.S.:
You don't need to burn a separate CD for each server. That's wasteful (of time, basically). You just need one, and a backup. Maybe an offsite backup too, but the product is cheap enough and available enough that that's probably overkill.
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:2)
Ah! Support and ease of use are linked...but not in the way you are thinking; making a product easier to use does not reduce support demands, it increases them .
Does that make sense? Here's one example, though after checking with other support departments it seems to be universal.
Back in the stone age, I worked Technical Support for a year and then trained new support techs, ran a testing lab tracking down issues discovered in support, as well as testing and debugging before releasing the software.
The company's main product was a complex, hardware-specific, DOS utility that required the users to fiddle around in hex to figure out the optimal way to use it. Needless to say, our sales were low.
In support, the questions were fairly hard but there were only a half dozen of them...so once you learned the answers, helping the customers was quick and fairly painless -- that, and the fact that the timid customers were scared away before even buying the program.
Though most customers never called, for each box we sold we would get about one 5 minute call.
Even though this was the case, the number one request we had was a tool that would auto-configure the program. That sounded like a good idea, after all if it installs automatically the number of calls would drop and the product should become much more popular. So, we did it. After a year of hard work and tweaking, we released an automated version that did such a good job that our chief programmer found it very difficult to hand tune any better results.
We released the new version and it sold very well. The half dozen types of calls we were getting vanished, and in thier place we ended up with two different types of support requests;
For every box sold, we still recieved about 1 phone call, but now each call averaged about 15 minutes .
After watching the TS managers and a few other departments struggle, they were able to cut the average call time down to about 5 minutes again. It was not unusual to hear that some calls would now last a few hours with follow up that stretched over a few weeks. Yes, quite a few of those calls were because of real problems but it didn't take us long to track them down and fix the really nasty ones. The ones that remained were typically due to broken hardware or hardware/software that was Broken As Designed. More and more time was spent finding how other products failed, and then patching around the bad behaviour in ours. (Also known as "It's not our fault, but it is our problem.")
I have no doubt that RedHat will do well with the support model, even if they continue to make thier 'free' product as easy to use and as defect-free as possible.
More or less Solaris, which is smart... (Score:2)
At the high-end it is likely that linux is not feature competitive, but at the low and mid-range, RedHat can effectively market.
Re:What is "Unix"? (Score:1)
I imagine:
PS. I would have capitalized those as necessary, but the lameness filter bit me in the ass.
Sorta Makes sense..... (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to expand their business, and the way to do that is to go out and let people know who you are and what you can provide them. We have seen from the article that the software itself isn't sustaining them. They need to get the services division up and running and racking more money.
We've all joked about MS having a huge marketing dept and how their product sucked. Now look at RH, their product doesn't really suck, lol barring the RH Linux sucks comments. So if they put the same marketing force out there they might be able to increase their revenues.
I say it might turn out to be one of the best things they've done...or it may bomb and send them back to the drawing board. But either way, it's a start.
Re:Sorta Makes sense..... (Score:2)
Specialty products... (Score:2)
They probably also have upgrade contracts available for the people who buy these. You wouldn't need to save too many hours for that to be a reasonable price. It's not reasonable for me, because a part of what I want to be doing is learning how to build this, but for a company
They are selling a non-Linux embedded OS, for places where Linux won't fit. There will always be places too small for Linux. It's an open source OS, I think it's even GPL, but who's the expert in how to use it? Where does everyone else get training?
They really need to work on their advertising though. If they advertise that what they provide with the distribution is support, then people will expect that this is what they would get if they paid for a support contract, and I sure hope that isn't true. O boy do I...
The "support" that comes with a box is basically how to understand the words on the screen. Maybe a few of the most common glitches that occur. Their real support of the distributions is the error patches and updates that they release. And the major benefit that they provide is a consistent set of applications that work together. They need to clearly separate this from the support that they want people to pay extra for.
New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to business (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm no economist but I see no reason why this should be a terrible thing.
Personally I don't care how corporations fare. I care how individuals fare.
If individuals can succeed, without a corporation then I think that is better anyway. Large organizations tend to carry along overcompensated freeloaders. (Read CEO, CFO, etc.)
I would like to see an economy where individuals are compensated on their merits.
Like I said, I'm no economist and I don't have all the answers but I don't understand why I see articles that intimate that Open Source may fail because it does not work with the old business model.
In my eyes it is the old business model that is failing and a new one needs to be found.
.
Re:New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to busin (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
I'll take it one step further. Large corporations are not the way to go with the Internet in general.
The Internet is a naturally decentralizing force. At the protocol level, it's amazingly decentralized, by design. The tendency is for anything it touches to be decentralized.
Consider software. Open source is the ultimate in decentralized software. Could Open Source exist in anything approaching its current scope if there were no Internet? To be blunt, it couldn't. Look at the progress of the GNU project in 1993, the midpoint of its life to date. This was also just before the great explosion in the 'net.
Consider media. Ten years ago, the average home in the US got, what, 30 channels of TV, plus a newspaper and a few magazines. Now, there are thousands of websites, each offering a different focus and a different point of view.
Consider entertainment. Ten years ago, if you wanted to distribute music on any sort of scale, you had to go to the RIAA or to an indie label that was limited in its reach. If you wanted to have your writing published, you had to go to a publisher of some sort, or pay exorbitant fees to a vanity press. And let's not get started on motion pictures. Now the Internet is allowing real distribution of entertainment media at huge savings (especially when P2P is taken into account).
As the Internet becomes more interwoven into business, business will decentralize. As business decentralizes, wealth and power will decentralize.
In short, it was the great fallacy of the 1990's that you could become rich thanks to the Internet, the dominant effect of which, ultimately, is decentralization.
I disagree. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet what has it done for consumers? Relatively little.
Here again, you focus too much on the delivery protocol and ignore the surrounding facts. While the internet and technology may technically enable artists to remove the so-called middle-men from the actual act of transfering the music/data, it really doesn't make RIAA or its respective labels any less relevant. Their function is primarily one of marketing and capital/risk taking. Even if distribution changes radically (which I could well argue against), RIAA continues and will continue to dominate the industry.
Again, this is not terribly different than the PC OEMs. We have the emergence of MORE choices amongst major companies, that continue to retain some 95% of the market, and a bunch of little guys fighting over scraps. The technology may bring offering choices more into the cost effective region, but there's nothing to say the major media conglomerates will not dominate. The major companies enjoy many significant advantages over the little guys. In any event, there's no real significant decentralization happening here if you measure it as consumer mind/hour share or in dollar figures, just the emergence of increased choice.
Here again, I disagree. While I was no cheerleader of the DotComs, the fallacy of the internet WAS that you could get rich quick without really working for it and without having to generate any real value for society...it was thought of as more of an act of arbitrage than anything else. There is still money to be made by exploiting the benefits of the Internet, but it requires some sanity, risk taking, honest to god effort, and willingness to scrounge for capital and take on all the nay-sayers.
Re:New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to busin (Score:2)
Unfortunately most open source software these days appear to be centralised at SourceForge. That's a massive weak spot that I worry about sometimes.
Re:New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to busin (Score:2)
And how does Open Source software compensate individual coders based on their merits? Seems to me that Open Source is geared towards not compensating *anybody*.
Re:New Approach to Software/ Old Approach to busin (Score:2)
But I'm talking about things well outside of just open source and software. I'm talking about technology enabling people to have more control over their lives and the ability to see the benefits of their own work.
So then how, EXACTLY, can someone be compensated for writing open source software? Are you suggesting compensation by a "warm fuzzy" feeling?
I think that it's a very basic, very simple question that I'm genuinely curious about. How does someone who writes open source software get compensated for their work and skill?
Pardon? (Score:2)
Do you have any supporting arguments/ Yes, CEOs make poor engineers. There's a culture within Slashdot that assumes if someone doesn't have anythign supremely technical to offer they are useless. But experience at a lot of tech companies shows most engineeers also make extremely poor CEOs.
Re:Wow look ma, one of those "New Economy" guys! (Score:2)
Upper level management in the US is grossly overcompensated. Much of this comes directly at the expense of the employees whos labor made their riches possible.
There is a 'club' that one gains entry to- is given the keys to the kingdom- and there is no accountability. This is not even remotely close to capatilism or a free market. It is the very worst kind of communism. The rich club guys continue to bolster one anothers income while the majority of the citizens suffer.
I am far from what you are claiming me to be. I am a paid programmer. I work for a small company. I think that smaller, more flexible business units are the way of the future. Not huge corporations that can suck up the losses here and there.
You fall into the trap of it's all or nothing. You also read little of my post w/out really paying attention to what I said. Your own preconceptions were already hard at work.
I am saying that there will be new ways to do things that have not yet emerged. I say this because...
1) Open Source Will Not Go Away
2) The companies trying to make money using open source are not doing too well.
3) This will not continue indefinitely-- someone will find a way to make the use of open software profitable.
That is all I'm saying. And someone will find a way to work it out.
Is all of corporate America wrotten? No. Is it all good? Most definitely not.
Settle down. Use a little reason and patience.
.
Re:Wow look ma, one of those "New Economy" guys! (Score:2)
Publically-traded shares are not meant to be "seed funding." There is no way, absolutely NO WAY that a company showing a projected 40 unprofitable quarters is going to get funded by any process, especially a public offering.
The bank wants collateral. VCs want 20% annual growth and an IPO, and investors want dividends and stock splits. None of these things can be had without profits.
Good article, medium FUD ratio (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't bad. Commercial Unix is the easiest target for RedHat, it's far easier to convince someone to drop AIX off their 390 and replace it with RedHat than it would be to convince them to ditch Windows on 5e10 little servers. Especially in a "Microsoft Shop" type culture, which is unfortunately where I spend a lot of my time.
My belief is that RedHat has as much chance of success as the next company, and if they need to steal business from Sun, Compaq, HP, IBM to do it, so much the better. At least the customer can still get their hardware from the hardware co's and get their software from RH, best of both worlds.
Opportunistic, not helpful (Score:4, Insightful)
An internal healthy competition in the Unix camp is not necessarily bad, but if the UNIX camp is primarily focussing on getting each other, all will die soon. The only long term hope for survival is to withstand or push back the outside (non-unix).
Re:Opportunistic, not helpful (Score:2)
I don't claim that Redhat should not try to gain any customer, but by only focussing on easier targets of those that currently use a system of the same family, they are NOT serving their own longer term interests.
Re:Opportunistic, not helpful (Score:2)
It is not as if Sun being taken over by anyone is inevitable.
Slow sales? (Score:4, Informative)
I spent half the article waiting for the writer to provide some facts, but by the end, there still weren't any.
She says:
Does this mean RedHat is moving all their employees to the marketing department? Does it mean everybody is told to make 9 cold calls a day? All we're given is the typical investor information, share price, projections, etc., but little information about how the business plan is working or changing.
Frankly, the few real facts that are provided show a mixed bag, hardly worthy of the article's pessimistic title. Yet another Linux story trying to make news rather than report it.
Re:Slow sales? (Score:2)
RH Advanced Server? (Score:5, Funny)
Acquisition target? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's about time (Score:3, Interesting)
Eventually, this was going to happen. Sure, using 90% of the employees is kinda harsh, but IMHO RedHat's going to have to push at the big iron if they plan on making any sort of success. MS and everyone else is banging on the doors of big server farms already.
Maybe they could hire Brian Valentine [theregister.co.uk] to give their sales staff a boost and some spin-doctoring. Just imagine him being a Linux advocate.
Not here at my company... (Score:5, Interesting)
We recently switched all of our hosting equipment from M$ to RehHat (thanks largely to yours truly and the M$ machines' continued insistance on crash-and-burn computing).
The problem for RedHat is that I can get more and better support from #linuxhelp (take your choice of IRC undernets), Linuxdoc or just about anywhere else than I can from some guy at the corporation. I know the OS, and it doesn't take much time to find answers to stuff I don't know.
When I start trying to do undocumented stuff or I start having bizarro problems with the JVM, shared libraries or something else then the RH support guys don't know as much about the problem as I do.
I want to go to people who write the kernel, the libraries, the product or whatever isn't working and ask them. Online. For free.
I think the comments about going to a "club" style support system makes a hell of a lot more sense.
That's been my experience, too... (Score:2)
Tech support is not about fixing problems (Score:2)
Of course, the problem with this scheme, which is really what the last 10-15 years of IT has been all about, is that it's been blame that's been fixed, not problems. Eventually businesses decided that building IT infrastructures and doing stuff besides e-mail and web was so problematic and expensive that it is simply easiest to keep it to e-mail and websurfing and leave it at that. When businesses and consumers en-mass stop buying computers because they are so disgusted with the way their computers don't work, you have the economic mess we have today. Some people point out that the dot-com speculation is really what caused this problem; I agree--you can't make a profit selling dogfood over the internet to people who are digusted with the way their computers work.
I've really gone off on a tanget. Mod down to off-topic at will.
Re:Not here at my company... (Score:2, Funny)
> While for you free online support is good (and often better than tech monkies) it may not be the best for your company. If you get hit by a bus what is the likelyhood of them being able to drop in a replacement with comperable knowledge and skill?
If you get hit by a bus, do you really care what happens to your company afterward?
Re:Not here at my company... (Score:2)
I generally buy one out of every few distributions to support them, but I no longer even consider them as a source of much support.
Of course, perhaps the premium support is a lot better. But the, umh, demo layer of support didn't encourage me to consider it further. OTOH, a basic level of tech support isn't that difficult to hire. And if you want a really custom system, perhaps you should pay a company for specialized support. And if Red Hat has a local office, they would certainly be the logical contractor. But if they don't, perhaps you need to go with someone local.
I presume that their more specialized products, e.g. Red Hat database, come with more that the rudimentary level of support that a distribution comes with. They cost ten times as much, so they'd better! And there would be fewer people knowledgeable in how to properly support them. So, again, it had better come with a bit better support.
But basic distributions
Targeting UNIX vs. Windows (Score:2, Insightful)
It's refreshing to see RedHat put away the Linux vs. Microsoft philospohy that so much of the Slashdot community favors, and focus on building their market share through UNIX conversion.
Extrapolating from this, they look like they're building a solidified UNIX market share, allowing them to eventually focus on the desktop and small server shops where Microsoft truly thrives
Today UNIX, Tomorrow the World! Muhahahah
Business is all about salesmanship (Score:2)
Good for Red Hat. I hope that they can pull through this recession intact; and I think they will, because they seem to understand the basic premises of business.
All this good nes and RHAT stock still dropping (Score:2)
Ive been watching the RHAT stock for the last month VERY close waiting to buy at 4.75 (A mark I set, arbitrary at best)
Rhat has AS(advanced Serve) Is it out of beta ?, and 7.? In beta , its the first beta Ive seen with a Beta2 revision from redhat in....well ever....
People are saying nothing but good things about RedHat from a business and finacial standpoint and yet still the stock slides. 7 is a fair value if I can buy at under 5 , rich I tell you Rich Ill be, ok so a little overenthusiasm on my part.
But why in gods name, does the stock continue to slide ? Ideas anyone ?
Re:All this good nes and RHAT stock still dropping (Score:2)
I guess that part of the equation I, being familiar with them since release 2.0 hadnt thought of....
Well, more hope that itll hit the 4 mark then:)
Or better yet back down to 3 and some change....
Better than caldera the cald 4 for 1 trade to get the value back up , lol....its at 90 now down form 1.40 a week ago, then again Caldera's only, if they have a value, is in SCO im still not sure if thats an asset or liablity
From the mouths of CEOs (Score:5, Informative)
1) Szulik is a decent guy. His message of measuring entrepreneurial success in social terms instead of the quarterly shareholder statement was quite refreshing. He honestly seems to embrace the ideals of Open Source.
2) He stated during the lecture that despite having spent less than $1 million on advertising, RedHat is the 12th most recognized brand name in technology. Though the N&O article may suggest that 90% of their staff is in marketing, it probably suggests instead that they are simply working at making RedHat a better replacement for Unix (this takes marketing AND coders).
3) A number of skeptical members of the audience asked how they would ever make money. There were two answers: subscriptions and services. IBM is the best example of the tremendous market value of services, however Matthew spent more time on the subscription side. Let's be honest. Your average sysadmin doesn't want to have to deal with package management and keeping a system up-to-date. The RHN is a step in the right direction for managing the herculean task... it worked for me. I paid them $60 for a priority membership and I'm most pleased with it.
Re:From the mouths of CEOs (Score:2)
This is why I use Debian. Being able to just type apt-get update; apt-get upgrade, and all the packages and dependencies are upgraded, security patches applied etc, is just fantastic.
It indeed is if you're managing
I do not like to ssh into all the 50+ systems in our datacenter and type apt-get update; apt-get upgrade. I do however like to login to RHN and choose to perform this and that update I care about on all of them automagically...
Re:From the mouths of CEOs (Score:2)
Correct version:
Let's be honest. Your average sysadmin doesn't want to have to deal with package management and keeping a system up-to-date.
This is why I use Debian. Being able to just type apt-get update; apt-get upgrade, and all the packages and dependencies are upgraded, security patches applied etc, is just fantastic. It indeed is if you're managing +/- 10 systems.
I do not like to ssh into all the 50+ systems in our datacenter and type apt-get update; apt-get upgrade. I do however like to login to RHN and choose to perform this and that update I care about on all of them automagically...
Re:Gentoo (Score:2)
will upgrade a Gentoo Linux system from the freshest source?
Fresh does not mean:
Unisys, MS, and Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
A prediction: (Score:2, Insightful)
in short (Score:4, Funny)
90% marketing
09% coding
01% managing
You can make fun all you want. But I think that's the way to go.
Setting the record straight (Score:3, Informative)
Most of Red Hat's revenue does not come from selling the box set, but from other sources; check out their last quarterly report [corporate-ir.net]. Not that the company doesn't make money on people buying the box, but that's not the companies largest revenue stream. Red Hat is a service company and it makes sense, stratigically, to target enterprise customers; they have very deep pockets and are willing to pay for an all encompassing solution, including services like consulting and support. Unlike you and me, aka the cheap bastards!! Well, I don't know about you, but I'm definitely one. Pay for software, you must be mad! Sorry little rant.
As for the fact that Red Hat is targeting a Uni* to Linux migration. Well, some people will disagree with me, but Linux, even with all it's graphical user stuff, is not ready for my Grandmother to use. It's getting there, but I don't think it's there yet. So if a large chunk of the population is unable or uninterested in your software, who do you sell it to? Is it reasonable to think that the people who would be interested in Linux are people who are already interested and are using Uni*? The two are very similar and it's far easier for an administrator or developer who is familiar with Uni* to switch to Linux rather than one who is used to Window$. Corporations have been employing Uni* for quite some time and have been paying people like $un a hefty price for hardware, OS, and support. In the current economic climate, I think it's a great strategy for a company to move to a lower cost IT solution. Why shouldn't Red Hat be the people to turn to? I say kudos Red Hat!
-Runz
90%? Do they have developers working the phones? (Score:2, Funny)
IT Manager: "Oh? What are they?"
Code Monkey: "RTFM!"
*click*
Re:90%? Do they have developers working the phones (Score:2)
You know, this would be funny, except that the few contacts I've had with folks at RH have convinced me that they have a good number of technical folks who would quite cheerfully screw over their company just for the chance to tell someone how stupid they are.
You know who I mean... the type who would be on the other end of this conversation:
Customer: Hmm, you've made a pretty good case... what about scheduling groupware? We're using Exchange right now, and we'd like...
RH Guru: Then run Windows, looser.
Customer: Excuse me?
RH Guru: You mean you've never set up a distributed calendaring system using ssh and perl? What kind of company are you?
Customer: Um, an insurance company...
RH Guru: Then what the HELL do you think you're doing, touching our software?
Customer: Uhhh...
RH Guru: Come talk to us when you've bothered to write a few device drivers. Frickin' loosers...
*click*
Another good sign (Score:4, Interesting)
When the founders/owners/top execs of a company start dumping shares, that's not a good sign. These guys know how the company is really doing.
What rubbish. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What rubbish. (Score:2)
Lotus Notes Anyone? (Score:2)
Least my copy does.
And, if I'm not mistaken, it runs on Linux....
Re:when you devote 90% of your staff to sales (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:when you devote 90% of your staff to sales (Score:1)
Sourceforge itself has just under 400,000 registered users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:when you devote 90% of your staff to sales (Score:1)
and frankly corporate linux solutions, or lack thereof is what's putting other distributions, particularly the french one, out of business.
Re:I still haven't paid for Red Hat 7.2 - (Score:2)
Is it too hard for you to go to Red Hat's Bugzilla and click on the pretty form?
Try something along the lines of "linux os" "version 7.2" "utility" "pppd" and go look at the dates on the reports. Nalin is the maintainer.
Now, that was flamebait. My previous post was merely statement of facts that somebody wanted to suppress.
As for pppd.tar.gz, it's a little more difficult than that because Red Hat has patched their system so heavily. In their defense, I think they had to given the state the 2.4 kernel was released in. I personally like the Red Hat kernel (still using 6.2 in fact).
--Charlie
Re:RedHAT FreeBSD (Score:2)
Jdk 1.3 of suns java virtual machine is %100 supported and installed by defualt on FreeBSD 4.5 and above
"no databases..." Uh [postgres.com],what?. [mysql.org] Oh you want commercial support [www.sybase].
"no win32 support.."
Well let me know when wine and samba ever get ported. Oh wait they are. If you need win32 apps then use windows. Freebsd is not better then linux or vice versa in this.
But the most import thing is that FreeBSD is stable and linux lost this reputation during the 2.4 kernel series. I use to be a big linux supporter but its just not stable enough anymore to bet my job on. Hell on SMP even the 1.0x kernel is better. Sure it only runs on one processor but at least its VM doesnt crash and burn. In other words linux is moving backwards and not forward. In the server world reliability and security are more important then cool bleeding edge features. Also the FreeBSD developers do not rewrite the whole kernel during every release. They just carefully modify the existing code and add new features. This makes cautious IT managers feel alot better since you never have to worry about a totally new OS which has its own sets of quarks every few months. You know %90 of the kernel is unchanged with every