Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Red Hat Software Businesses

Marc Ewing Speaks 59

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
Will in Seattle writes "Marc Ewing, Chief Technology Officer of Red Hat Software, opens up, in an interview with cNet, about Microsoft, the IPO, and more" C|Net gets Marc, and Slashdot get's Donnie? Waaait a minute! (We love ya Donnie!) Our interview with Donnie J Barnes (which has more meat than this interview) should be up tomorrow.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Marc Ewing Speaks More

Marc Ewing Speaks

Comments Filter:

  • You "redundant" people need to calm down (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    OK, so Justin and CmdrTaco have commited the sin of posting the same stroy at the same time. Please spare us all the witty redundant story remarks! We don't want to hear it! If you have nothing to say about the article then shut up!

    As for my .02 about the article, I thaught it sucked! Very blasse, other than the comment that RH tried to hire Linus a few years ago, but that isn't surprising either.

  • So everybody's being anal and complaining about the fact that the article is redundant; nobody has complained about the fact that you used an apostrophe in "get's" where it doesn't belong

    So in a way, I'm FIRST . Thus I qualify as a jerk in at least four ways:

    1. Complained about a redundant article
    2. That other people had already complained about
    3. Plus I added a grammar flame
    4. Plus I claimed firsties

    You could probably add that I've ennumerated my sins but don't fix them, I'm posting as an anoymous coward, and I've made an extremely lame post far too long. Damn, I'm going to hell.

  • Oh, please. Shady? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Let's see. You're this company that is reselling a product built by somebody else - who may just decide to stop doing it and go raise weasels or something. You have a vested interest in keeping the product development going, so you offer this guy a big bag o' money to keep doing what he's doing so that your comapny can continue to exist. That's not shady - that's common sense. Happily, Linus foresaw the kind of conflict of interest issues that working for a distributor could raise, and chose not to accept. A wise decision. But to claim that RedHat was attempting to "subvert" Linux is just plain unfair. After all, Alan and Dave are on the RedHat payroll, and they are hardly trying to "subvert" the kernel. Microsoft has ruined our expectations of corporate behaviour. Not all corporations behave like assholes. I trust Bob Young to continue to do The Right Thing by Linux.

  • -1 (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I guess that's -1 to CmdrTaco's Karma for being redundant.
  • I got a laugh out of that. Obviously RedHat does have influence over the general publics perception of what Linux is, but C|Net could have phrased the headline of the article to be more in line with reality.

  • I'm of two minds with respect to the competitive focus on MS. I want to say you're right, this is stupid, concentrate on making Linux better.

    Well, we've always said that the advantage of having multiple Linux distributions is that they can focus on different groups with different needs: Caldera for newbies, Debian for hardcore free software types, Slackware for the old-school, etc. Red Hat can be the distro for the "destroy Microsoft" crowd! They're certainly a decent sized segment of Linux users, they deserve a distro looking after their interests!

    And of course, any ideas and developments the different distros come up with while pursuing their goals, are there for others to take advantage of, if it fits their goals to do so..

  • Ok I just noticed that Justin's article has been removed. I didn't read any of the posts there yet, but there may have been some good ones. At least better than all the joke ones in this article. So my question is: What happens to the posts of removed articles? Was it blankly removed? Did the posts get moved over to here? Or where they not much better than these post and thus could be deleted without much loss?


    --

  • Rob, I thought that you had a list of 'authors' in backslash who were currently logged in -- specifically designed to prevent this... oh, and btw, how's 0.4? (not to be expecting it anytime soon if 0.4 is gonna include this awesome moderation scheme)

  • lol, actually, this whole story nd posting is providing some much needed humor today...

    I say, moderate this post UP!
  • That didn't take long... but he nuked the WRONG ONE!!!! :P I bet the comments were much better on the last one. Ah well.. *chuckle*
  • "They all did get reconfirmed. All those people who had expressed interest at 10-to-12 got confirmed at 12-to-14 and got their shares."

    I didn't get reconfirmed, and as far as I could
    tell from the slashdot postings, I wasn't the
    only one.

    It's no big deal, however I am a little
    disappointed in Marc for saying this in an inter-
    view when it is obvious to most of the community
    that it isn't true.

    Secondly, concentrating on converting MicroSofts
    present or future customers, with the amount of
    monies and marketing MS possess. I just can't
    help but think that this is really dumb. I'm not
    saying ignore MS, but with so many other potential
    markets, you want to go into the one with the
    stiffest competition, and the biggest player. huh?

    Just my $0.00.

  • ... (Score:2)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 )
    Hmm. I'm having feelings of duplicity.

    --
  • But...the stock market evaluation is intended to be the collective indicator of analyst's expectations of *FUTURE* sales.

    Ponder the implications of this for a moment.

    Note: I work for neither MS or RH.

  • First we are cloning slashdot articles.. now slashdot posts. =)

    (sorry, couldn't resist it)

    &ltwaaaaay off-topic&gt Oh yeah, a friend sent me this NT vs. Linux [microsoft.com] link hosted by the boys at Redmond. Makes me feel ill it does :(&ltwaaaaay off-topic&gt
  • First we are cloning sheep.. now slashdot articles. =)

    http://slashdot.org /article.pl?sid=99/09/07/1646246&mode=nested [slashdot.org]

  • Just wondering if that still fits in your "stable" calculation?

    What about the nuclear theory?
    One bomb in Redmond to stop MS, you have to destroy the world to stop Linux.

    (yea, this is silly but it's late, for me)

  • I still think it's rather important. I mean really do you want this [webho.com] to be a common occurence?
  • Wrong. Microsoft would be majorly hurt yes, but they do have other divisions located outside of Redmond.

    They one thing I hate is all of this world domination crap is that I don't want anythig to dominate the world. what's the problem in having 4 good OS of relatively equal market share, plus the clones of each?
  • No I don't I'm just saying it not the perfect solution. If you want to destroy MS you've got to get rid of all of their source code, their drones, and their main HQ.
  • And if they had sold, and bought Microsoft instead, they would have made far more ...
  • Except that MS's stock isn't based on hype of any kind. I can be fairly sure that MSFT isn't going to lose half it's value tomorrow from some market fluctuation - they have stability. RHAT, on the other hand, is not what I would call stable. It's still to early in the game to put much faith in their stock value... That may change, but until it does, I'd rather invest my money in the boys from Redmond.
  • I'm no market expert, but it's not like anyone who made their fortune on IBM stock ever went broke. IBM had stability and they still do. Of course, IBM is no longer the front-runner in the computer industry but that's a far cry from being out of the industry alltogether. I think people see IBM's wipeout with PCs as an indication of how they're doing as a company - This isn't exactly fair. PCs are certainly not they're only business.
  • >3) Burlington Coat Factory announced they would be using RHAT support (260 stores).

    Speaking of Slashdot interviews, couldn't someone get an interview with whoever was responsible for the Linux usage at Burlington Coat Factory.

    It seems whenever the commercial viability of Linux comes up, I always here about this store. Now, I don't believe we have BCF here (though I can't really claim a clue about what coat stores there are in Stockholm), so maybe I'v missed that it is a huge store in America that really matters a lot to people, but if it isn't maybe we should calm down a little.

    I mean, people are bound to notice that it comes up over and over and over and assume that they are the only bussiness to ever use Linux. `Cause, I mean, they aren't, right?


    -
    /. is like a steer's horns, a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in between.
  • Yeah, I'm actually surprised that it's over my $100 end of year target (and you thought I was joshing, right).

    Which, to a sound investor, means ... um, do I have to sell?

    Sigh.

    Buy on the dips, sell on the peaks.

  • So, as the industry analysts drop the MSFT rating and the price drops $2, while RHAT jumps up to $124 (IPO was $14) today ... you were saying?

    Three billionaires and counting ...

    Memo to self: sell? um, maybe. Maybe not ...

  • I'm of two minds with respect to the competitive focus on MS. I want to say you're right, this is stupid, concentrate on making Linux better.

    But MS will target RedHat whether RedHat returns the favor or not. I imagine MS has been quite frustrated for some months in not having a target they really understand with Linux. Where's the company you can attack? Who do you sue? Now, there is a real commercial entity that MS can attack in all it's usual ways. I expect them to try that out, especially after that little matter with the DOJ is retired.

    By making their competitive stance clear, RedHat has keyed in the media to look for FUD and strongarm tactics, should MS attempt them. To some degree it's formalizing what has been partially responsible for making it's stock strong -- the tangible anti-MS sentiment everywhere.

    On the other hand, it's also invited comparison in ways it may not be ready for. Some humility at this point may be wise, it makes defeats less painful, and victories more surprising (newsworthy.) As long as RedHat doesn't get too convinced of it's own invulnerability all should be well.

    Linux has always sold itself quite well, it doesn't need to be promoted as a Windows(tm)-killer. It needs to gain marketshare to the point where hardware vendors write Linux drivers and software vendors release Linux versions concurrently to Windows versions -- after that it's all cake.
  • It obviously means Rob has a higher pecking order than Justin, because one of the higher-uppers chose Rob's post with its myriad offtopic posts and whooped Justin's post to the Slashdot Story Hell.
  • This article is different on a microbiological level. Just like the cloned sheep. :-)
  • yeah... and my comments with it :(
    oh well.
  • People invested in IBM certainly did lose a boat load of money in IBM in the late 80's.... but, if they did not sell, and held on to their shares, they would have more than quinupled their money today.

    These huge, widely diversified companies have incredible staying power.... as well as growth potential.

  • 1) Goldman Sachs and Thomas Weisel started RHAT at a Market Outperform and Buy respectively.

    2) Gateway announced they would be using RHAT's 6.0 OS for qualified ALR server platforms.

    3) Burlington Coat Factory announced they would be using RHAT support (260 stores).

    4) Entered into a pact with V-One, a security software maker.

    5) Began a Japanese unit.

    werd.
  • While he correctly stated Microsoft's market value as still being 100 times that of Redhat's (as a rebuttal to the upsurd price for Redhat), he did not mention anything about Microsft's sales being over a thousand times that of Redhat's.

    And yes, I surely do work for Microsoft, to post such a thing! ;-)

  • C'mon guys! Cut the good Commander some slack! When he sees a good link, he has a duty to post it.. He can't go second guessing the other ops and mamby-pamby-ing around. The story fits the /. profile exactly (RedHat, interview, etc).

    Quit being flamebait over such a slight slip!

  • Our interview with Donnie J Barnes (which has more meat than this interview)


    So, the /. interview is different than this [lwn.net] interview?


    "LWN also has notes from a brief conversation with Donnie Barnes."


    Which 'this' does 'this' refer to? Help me out, here, Rob.

    Oh, and (Score:0 Redundant). heehee
  • and who's gonna page down this far this late anyway, but -

    Here's the thing. There's a lot of "RHAT does not equal Linux" here on /., for good reason(s), whenever a RHAT story comes out. "We" (dorks) understand that, and we know it's important. But, RHAT tried to hire Linus! ...Doesn't that creep you out? Luckily, Linus seems like an all-around good guy who doesn't go for anyone's bait, so RHAT isn't Linux, but, dammit, they tried to be. They tried to buy The Man Himself. That, I think, makes RHAT look more shady (in a sort of typical not-really-frightening-but-crappy-anyhow corporate kind of way) than the (pretty g.d. silly) IPO pseudo-fiasco and RHAT's pseudo-responses to it.

    But then again, I'm not a *real* Linux guy (it won't let me do any of my work on it, yet (...waiting!)), so....

    and PS: FREE DAVEO from Bad Karma! His posts don't blow.

  • All right, "shady" was probably a bit much, but it was more a flip-chapeaux allusion to the RHAT logo than a description of RHAT itself, an allusion designed to capitalize on the common /. equation of "corporate" and "evil," the purpose being to subconsciously sway the average /.er to my point of view without really saying anything. You'll note that it did the opposite to you. Congratulations on your not being average. But I'm a writer, it's my job, I do tricks like that for money, and when I come home I keep doing it for fun. Just like porno stars. Didn't mean to get you so worked up.

    And we don't disagree as much as you think (or at least not in the way that you think). Firstly, kernel subversion doesn't worry me. The GPL was designed to prevent it, and it works. And note that I never mentioned it, although you "quoted" me on it. Secondly, Linux's open-sourced-ness and coder-community popularity negate or at least greatly lessen the strength of that argument. But again, it's not what I was talking about.

    Clarification -

    In this stage of "World Domination," public/press/corporate IT dept./newbie perception means more than at any other point in Linux's life, and the untrue RHAT=Linux idea is prevalent enough among those groups as is. If RHAT had succeeded in its early bid to buy Linus, the RHAT=Linux idea would still be untrue, but harder to combat, because "Yeah, but what about the GPL?" doesn't make sense to the people Linux needs to be sold to now. "Linus works for RHAT" does. That, I think, is what RHAT was looking for. Not "subver[sion]," just deceptive marketing. And no, I don't mean the evil Microsoftian kind of deceptive marketing, but de facto deception based on new-customer unfamiliarity with the world of Linux. The resemblence between "Linux" and "Linus" is stronger than non-geek knowledge of FSF/GPL/OSS will ever be. That's all. I should've been more long-windedly clear the first time, but it was early (for me, late).

    And, obviously, "not all corporations behave like assholes," but the vast majority of corporations do behave like corporations, which isn't inherently bad, but doesn't command trust. RHAT's being a corporation isn't inherently bad, but its occasional/slight/growing(?) tendency to behave like one might be. They certainly have started talking like one (see article). I was just pointing out, with an example that hadn't made it onto /. lately, that we should be wary of RHAT's (not always acknowledged) potential for harm to other distros, if they decide to push more in the RHAT=Linux direction than in the Linux-ain't-Microsoft direction. The attempted purchase of Linus and the planned jump into Suse's market suggest that I'm not totally insane, but don't prove that I'm right either. Hence the presence of a lot of words like "seem" in my original post.

    And, obviously, Alan and Dave have nothing to do with this. As far as I can tell, they're two guys who write code, and some of that coding is done for money. This is an admirable vocation, and I wish I could be as good at it as they are, because then my posts would be marked "insightful" when they're more like "non-responsive." (And I'll refrain from using my M2 status to nail the chump who did that - ain't I the coolest?)

    And re: Bob Young....well, I want good things, hope they happen, wish they would happen really fast, but I don't share your surety in expecting them. And this is not just because RHAT's gone public. That was the "R"ight "T"hing to do, and I think Mr. Young had something to do with that.

  • "Rapport" the biggest news program in Sweden said something about this just now in their morning report from the the stock exchange in USA.

    First they talked about the bubble in Internet companies and then took Red Hat as an example, and said that it rose 30$/hr yesterday. Why ? Because they got two new customers. It's quite clear that this was supposed to be a sarcastic commentary on the Internet Bubble and that the reporter haven't got the faintest what Red Hat really do. It was presented as "Red Hat, a small company that sells service & support". I guess it's true in a way though.

  • CmdrTaco's just tired of seeing us post redundant comments. He just wanted to know why we liked doing it so much and try it out himself....
  • You tried that on Hiroshima & Nagasaki! and look how they replied back.

    You saw the end result and you repent it too!

    Try it here too! We promise you a good reply and repenting too!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan

Close