Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Red Hat Software Businesses Linux Business The Almighty Buck

First Billion Dollar Open Source Software Vendor 75

head_dunce writes "Red Hat is doing very well in this economy. Total revenue and subscription revenue for this quarter is up 28% year-over-year. Jim Whitehurst, President and Chief Executive Officer of Red Hat said, 'Based on the strong first half results, we believe Red Hat remains well positioned to finish fiscal 2012 as the first billion dollar open source software vendor.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Billion Dollar Open Source Software Vendor

Comments Filter:
  • Well done! No-one else will be reporting this amazing milestone for about a year!!!

  • by Curunir_wolf ( 588405 ) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @09:08AM (#37478762) Homepage Journal
    I'd really like to see a breakdown of their subscription revenue. I heard a couple of years ago that their JBoss offerings were growing faster than the OS subscriptions, and they seem to be putting a lot of resources into that line. I think it offers a more compelling value proposition for businesses. I mean, their Linux OS isn't really anything special, compared to other distros or even [gasp!] Windows server, when you consider the subscription / support costs. On the other hand, when you compare the JBoss stuff to similar platforms from IBM, Oracle and the others, it's a hell of a bargain.
    • Re:Which software (Score:5, Informative)

      by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Thursday September 22, 2011 @09:48AM (#37479210) Homepage

      They predict that by 2013 non-OS software will grown to almost half the revenue.

      Source [].

      Middleware (likely JBoss) will be the majority of the non-OS software.

    • by Kludge ( 13653 )

      their Linux OS isn't really anything special, compared to other distros or even [gasp!] Windows server,

      What are you talking about? It's unfakeable.

      Seriously though, it is a very solid distribution with great support for far less money than you would pay for other *nix. And your "Windows server" comparison made me laugh.

    • by Woy ( 606550 )
      or even [gasp!] Windows server Tell that to Diginotar. Ah wait, you can't, because they went with Windows servers, and no longer fucking exist.
  • beer?
  • There's no money in open source software!! It's it's not protected, encrypted, DRM'd, closed source, there can be no profit in it and everyone will pirate and never pay!!

    • Well, if you actually had a clue you'd know that was true.

      RedHat's worth and value is in the investments it made from its IPO sales, the majority of their income is from those investments, not from OSS.

      If they still had to depend on the software side of the business to pay for everything they would have went out of business shortly after their IPO.

  • So, that answers that question people were making by 2008? A bad economy is indeed good for open source.

    My most recent guess was the oposite.

    • The majority of RedHat's income is from investments, not software, so saying a bad economy is good for OSS is misleading at best. OSS isn't wants keeping them afloat. Good investments during a time when everyone else made a bunch of shitty ones is whats keeping them going.

      • The majority of RedHat's income is from investments, not software...

        Red Hat's Statement of Cash Flows [] says otherwise. Over the most recent 12 months reported Red Hat had $23,378,000 in investment income against $107,278,000 in Net Income and $909,277,000 in Revenue. That works out to about 2.5% of Red Hat's income coming from investments. Last time I checked, 2.5% does not constitute a "majority".

  • ...among "open source" companies. Because their model is as close to a closed-source company as they can be without violating licenses. Want a non-paid copy of their OS? Sure, but we're going to make it hard for you to find, and you'd better be able to compile everything from source yourself.

    Note: I'm not knocking Red Hat here. I think they're actually smart, and I think they're successful because they operate more as a profit-seeking enterprise than an idealistic "lets make a few bucks while we change the

    • Even RMS supports Red Hat's trademark enforcement. Not giving away free end user copies of their OS doesn't make them less open source, it just makes them not freeware.
  • And what will happen to all those "defensive" patents that they've been filing?

    If you obtain software patents, you're the enemy. No exceptions, no compromises.

  • and sue the fsck out of Microsoft for character assasination and brinksmanship against thrid party vendors. Force them to show these 'infringements' by Linux or be punished for lying about them for fud and profit.
  • As a Fedora fanboy (let me be clear about my position here) AND a RedHat (RHT) stockholder (money where my mouth is) let me point out that:
    1) Red Hat announced last year that they were approaching the 1 billion mark and hoped to pass it this year
    2) This announcement is merely a prognostication that they will accomplish that this year
    3) their stocks have been a consistent and strong investment for me (as opposed to AMD, various solar energy and battery companies).
    4) Red Hat is a company, they are doing what

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.