Slashdot talks with Red Hat 95
One of our first and most pressing questions for Donnie was, "What the heck are they going to do with all of this fresh money?" The answer, as one would expect, was some mumbo-jumbo, with some hints of future plans. Barnes said, "We will certainly grow development, marketing, sales, etc." And to whet the appetite of users, "You can certainly expect the 'grow development' part to include some neat new toys for Linux, though we don't preannounce new features. ;-)."
So the company itself will be growing, as we would expect, and the staff will be growing as well. However, what's interesting is the comments on where it will grow.
According to Barnes, "International expansion is a key area for us," which is "very expensive." It is partly due to the sheer expense that they have not really pursued this area before. Some of the shifting in this direction can be seen already, in actions like the severing of the relationship with their former Japanese distributor. In that case Red Hat "basically chose to enter the Japanese market in a bigger way and bring our products and services into that area directly." At the current time, they plan to focus on a European expansion first, to be followed by an Asian expansion soon after.
Waidaminute! Europe? Isn't there already a certain Germanic company established over there? Well, yes. We pressed Barnes about moving into what's considered to be S.u.S.E. Territory, and, on a broader scale, what's going to happen with the expansion of Linux-based companies and competition that will happen between them.
Barnes's response is one that Bob Young has been giving for quite some time; that rather then trying to play a zero-sum game, taking users away from each other, the aim of the Linux companies is to make the entire pie bigger so that /every/ company can grow. Well, every company but Microsoft, I guess, but the point is still there. Both CT and I find this to be a bit idealistic, but given the current atmosphere of change, maybe it will be how things fall out - we'll see how things shape up over the next six months to a year.
So with all this money: International Expansion, more developers, marketing and saleses staff. And, for the record, "...no, there are no big ticket surprises like Lear Jets..."
However, Marc might be purchasing a Porsche dealership. (Note: Joke! Don't sue me, Marc. Please).
The question that everyone had, whether they got the letter, didn't get the letter or just watched the fireworks was the E*Trade/Red Hat stock situation.
In summary, the numbers broke down as following:
5000 open source developers were invited to participate
1300 responded, indicating interest
1150 of those were ultimately able to participate
Looks pretty good, right? It'd be interesting to know how many of those 1150 had to go back and try again, but c'est la vie. When asked about RH's feelings on the stock offering, Barnes said, "We feel that an over 88% participation rate was very good for the community at large." We talked about the people angry about the situation, whether or not a lot of the people originally banned were able to get in. His response: "Most of the angry people were [able to get in], but the bumps we had in the way caused them to be confused as to where they were and what level of participation they could expect. But at the end, most of the angry people were able to participate and I think came away happy."
What I thought was interesting was what precipitated the whole meltdown: Bad Information? Clash of Cultures? Red Hat's answer: "Mostly lack of information, and some bad information from E*TRADE's 'systems.'"
Additionally, "Sure, the open source community meeting big business and high finance was part of it too. Both sides needed education about the other, and I think lots of education happened. :)" I'm sure many of the companes looking at similar situations watched the RH IPO closely, trying to figure out what they did right, and what they can do differently. Barnes recommends examining what happened with them, and also shopping around. The latter part to that comment is the interesting part: Not dissing E*Trade, and Barnes does say they would at least shop them against other brokerage houses, but I think that the lesson learned here is to make sure of the house you use, especially after watching the Red Hat fiasco.
And given the recent hoopla over Unisys's perceived attempt to charge for GIFs that use the LZW patent, and Red Hat's closeness with major patent holders like IBM and Hewlett-Packard it seemed appropriate to talk about software patents. Red Hat's take on software patents: "Well, I think it should be fairly obvious that software patents are a bad idea in general and we are not in favor of them." Additionally, when it comes to big-boys like IBM, HP and others they "...will be working to try to lobby in the proper areas to help this issue. Yes, we do care about that stuff and have already begun talking to folks." (Note: I envisioned Bob Young with a flamethrower in the IBM Corporate Lobby)
Despite this, Barnes allowed for the fact that "Given current regulations you may see RH own patents one day. That may be unavoidable until the current way they are handled is changed." RMS would be displeased, but Barnes said that "What folks do with these patents, otoh, can be vasty different." That's an odd world, but I think it's just a further sign of how messed up the US Patent Office is, regarding software patents.
The issue of software patents led to talk about the other software licenses that have come out, like the APSL and Sun Community Source License. As you would expect, Red Hat would like to see fewer open source licenses, but "...at the end of the day, as long as they are truly open source and companies are *using* them, I don't really care." Barnes is pleased to see that Sun is taking steps to making good software more widely availible. I asked if Sun was viewed as being a competitor. Barnes says that perhaps, but that RH is trying to make fundamental changes to the way software is built. "Perhaps Sun will join. They have taken steps in that direction so far, so they could be an ally."
Oh, and again for the record, Hurricane Dennis got Barnes "personally quite wet."
The last question sparked a lot of back-and-forth, regarding the whole Red Hat trademark issue.
(Note: To get background on this, read the original article, and the subsequent follow-up with a letter from Bob Young.)
The following, according to Barnes, is what's going on: "We have to protect our trademark. People were selling hand-burned CDs and using our name, box image, and logo to do it. We had customers complain vehemently to us directly about that as they felt burned. We had to take action to keep that from happening." This was what sparked the original issue with Amazon, and how it appeared that Red Hat was banning anyone from using their name in any way unlicensed by them. The issue, then, is, how do people know what they're getting? For example, people want to know what they're getting when they buy Cheapbytes/LinuxMall/Bob's1$LinuxEmporium/LinuxCentral Linux. Are they getting Debian, Suse, Red Hat, Caldera etc.? Recognizing that Red Hat has a valid brand they must protect, where does that leave the manufacturers? RH's answer: "If they ship "Red Hat Linux" as their own "Cheapbytes Linux", then it must *be* Red Hat Linux. We can verify that with PGP signatures and the like. They can say it contains Red Hat Linux, but they can't explicitely *call* it that." For example, under this scheme, they could "call it `Foo Linux which contains Red Hat Linux 6.0' or something similar." What they can't do, however, would be to release a CD with a PGP signature that checks out, but call it Red Hat Linux. Only Red Hat can explicity title their distribution "Red Hat Linux". And if a company puts out a CD saying it "Contains Red Hat" and the PGP doesn't check out (e.g. modified from original or something, then "they can't say that and we'd have cause to have the product sales stopped."
Phew. So, how do you handle something like Mandrake-Linux? Can you call say "Derived from Red Hat Linux?" Barnes points out that he's not a trademark lawyer, so don't hold him to be a legal litmus test, but that, yes, that will be possible. (Note:More guidelines on this will be coming out soon. Keep an eye on Red Hat's site for details.)
But when it comes to recognition, of course Red Hat appreciates being recognized for having contributed, e.g. Mandrake putting "Derived from Red Hat" on the CD. As Barnes says, "Acknowledgment of one's hard work is always welcome. We just want it done properly... they can take Internet bits and build their own name. You don't see us claiming the name of every other distribution that contributed some code to RH, do you? But they can take our code and use it. That's what this is all about."
Wrap-up:: Interesting to talk with Donnie, and you can see that the quiet period has been hard on them - being unable to respond to comments would be, I suppose. It seems that the basic direction of Red Hat remains unchanged; that is, commitment to the GPL, working with the industry on software patent issues, and trying to get people to join the "movement." The greatest concern that CT and I is how all of this money will affect them as an organization, but I suppose that's an issue for the greater Linux universe as well. Only time will tell. And, on that platitudianal note..
disclaimer:Hemos owns shares in Red Hat
SEC to place restrictions of /. stories. (Score:1)
Re:Side effects... (Score:1)
> because nearly 2/3 of all invited didn't buy in).
Umm... have you considered that perhaps the rest weren't US citizens, or couldn't afford to buy 100 shares?
> There is now one group of Linux supporters who are invested in Redhat and another group, whose
> contributions to Linux will incrase nothing but their peer recognition.
That is grossly untrue-- you think that nobody working on Linux made anything _until_ RedHat went public?
What kind of crack are you smoking?
> It may be interesting to watch, how non commercial Linux distributions will perform.
I think they will do just fine. After all, most people have always worked on Linux because it's what they _wanted_ to do. Those who contributed to non-commercial distributions in the past could always have gone and worked for a commercial software company instead (and indeed many did at the same time!)
> As a non RH share holder, I feel no reason to contribute to RH anymore.
Well, if you use RH, it's in your best interest to work on it. If not, then who cares?
> But I think that my efforts will be invested better into something like Debian.
Why not work on something that benefits the community as a whole? There are probably very few things that you could do that would _only_ benefit Debian, after all
Side effects... (Score:1)
developers (people who seem to hate money,
because nearly 2/3 of all invited didn't buy in).
There is now one group of Linux supporters who are
invested in Redhat and another group, whose
contributions to Linux will incrase nothing but
their peer recognition.
It may be interesting to watch, how non commercial
Linux distributions will perform.
I cannot speak for others but I'll switch from RH
to Debian despite RH's rpm is IMHO a better tool
than Debian's dpkg.
As a non RH share holder, I feel no reason to
contribute to RH anymore. But I think that my
efforts will be invested better into something
like Debian.
So if I cannot sniff the nasty smell of money, at
least I wanna sniff that fresh breeze, which only
exists on top of the mountains.
Go Linux GO!
Re:Trademark Issues (Score:1)
there image as providing good customer support), or
2) Provide the support for something they are not making revenues off of, which
makes costs them money.
I sincerely doubt that #2 is even an option.
Red Hat has a responsibility to support their product
but if a user didn't buy from them, or a duly
authorized agent, the user isn't entitled to support.
If somebody finds themself in a situation where
they feel they got burned because Red Hat will not
give them support on a product they _did_not_buy_ from them,
that person has 2 options
1)Blame the person they bought it from.
2)Blame themself for being a poor consumer.
Besides, RHATs stockholders cannot allow the company to give free support.
Open Source is a new thing for people, in time they will learn the subtleties.
Re:Trust,etc: This post is dangerous (Score:1)
Ok, I guess that I should have stuck a great big this is a biased view notice at the top of my post. Point taken.
As far as the employee departure issue goes, this was not the departure of a run-of-the-mill employee. This was not a low-level position. As it appears to me, this was the lead GUI developer with Red Hat, although I could easily be mistaken.
I'm tired of swapping GUI environments; I want to see Red Hat stabilize. That's not going to happen in the next release if we go to Windowmaker, or some other wm that supports gnome. This issue is worthy of an address by somebody in authority, even if they chose not to address Raster's departure. Personally, I hope that inertia keeps us with E (I don't know what's in 6.1).
As far as the IPO is concerned, lots of trouble could have been avoided if Etrade qualified you before you sent the money. Being denied with nothing out of pocket is an entirely different situation than being denied after sending Etrade a couple grand and setting up an IRA with lots of sticky tax rules. Maybe SEC rules don't permit this.
And maybe it is a little unprofessional of me, and maybe what I'm saying is under heavy FUD influence. But this is only because I myself have fear, uncertainty and doubt regarding the situation.
Red Hat is the best UNIX company, IMHO. They are the first with new standards, the first to GPL their work, and their ideals are laudable and serve us all (e.g., KDE). But they have had a few high-profile problems recently, and they need to insure that the trend does not continue.
Re:M2's get over here! (Score:1)
Not that I have anything against Alan or his posts. Some are great. Some are just two line opinions. In this he's like all of us! Why do they ALL get moderated up?
"Zinging" is the wrong idea. It implies you're shooting off -1's with impunity, when you should be reading carefully
That being said... who is this Donnie Barnes? It might have been helpful to tell those of us a little bit about him before diving into a noninformative interview. ;) Not all of us have a RedHat swimsuit calendar with biographic information on each of the employees!
If anything, it was nice to find out "basic direction of Red Hat remains unchanged". Thank you Hemos!
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:1)
--
Re:Credit (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:1)
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:1)
Re:Credit (Score:1)
Re:Holy Wars (Score:1)
If Sun's current definition of "open source" is to be applied:
"Is it open? Yes, but if you use it for commercial use [even internal production use], you need to get [pay] for a non-development license."
Wouldn't it be better tho? (Score:1)
is based off RedHat Linux and lists it's
improvements (like the ones you mentioned) on
the box make it even more enticing?
I would feel a lot more comfortable purchasing
Mandrake Linux this way since I know how well-
established RedHat Linux already is. And wouldn't
perceive Mandrake Linux as another startup distro
that probably still needs to get a lot of things
ironed-out.
Just what I think.
Re:REDHAT = MICROSOFT (Score:1)
Re:Good work Hemos! (Score:1)
Re:Trust, Red Hat CDs, etc. (Score:1)
I don't follow your logic that IPO==bad management. Is it wrong for them to make money off of Linux? You say much of your career is based on Redhat. So you make a living partly with their products, right? For which you've paid them, what? Probably not much, directly. But by bringing people to use Redhat Linux, you've probably benefitted Redhat and Linux. Much the same way that Redhat benefits the Linux community in part by bringing people to linux. What's the problem.
As for the Raster issue, it's usually considered in bad taste to comment on a former employee. What if Bob Young *doesn't* wish Raster well? Best not to say anything either way. Some confirmation of Radhat's plans in the GUI area would be nice, but if Raster no longer works for Redhat, he isn't exactly qualified to be a spokesman for their future plans. Redhat may still be considering it's options in that area.
As for your CD's, I don't see why you need permission from Redhat to distribute the software. As it says in the interview...'emil's Nifty-neato-keen Linux Distrib - derived from Redhat Linux'. Maybe I don't fully understand the situation though.
Raster's departure (Score:1)
Tob
Re:Credit (Score:1)
--
Holy Wars (Score:1)
Suggestion to Mr. Young (Score:1)
Just my advice when that whole software patent thing gets brought up next time. Good luck!
Bad Mojo
Re:Ahhh..... (Score:1)
The Linux market is fragmenting... Though mostly compatible, the more companies that spring up, the more MSFT can point to Linux becoming as fragmented as Unix (Which isn't really all that bad)... So it really helps alleviate the FUD factor that Microsoft can pile on if there are fewer rather than more distributions to choose from.
Right now, Redhat's feeling like they can take on the world with due to their market cap (what's been going on with it these past few days? The burling coat factory is OLD NEWS, yet that seems to be the only compelling reason it's stock could make that leap). In a few quarters, if they're not generating decent revenues, their stock will probably get pummelled as investors realize it's not growing to their expectations. At that point, I'd wonder if RHAT will turn on the other Linux distro's. And no one can stop them. The GPL doesn't allow "anyone may use this source for anything, except if you're so-and-so"
My 2 cents...
Re:Fate of possible Red Hat patents? (Score:1)
...
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
...
For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
- Tim
Re:Why afraid of intra-Linux competition? (Score:1)
Re:M2's get over here! (Score:1)
Re:Trust,etc: This post is dangerous (Score:1)
It doesn't matter. It *is* bad form to do much of any public talking about an employee's departure. You don't see Fortune 500 companies saying much when CEO's leave, do you?
I'm tired of swapping GUI environments; I want to see Red Hat stabilize. That's not going to happen in the next release if we go to Windowmaker, or some other wm that supports gnome
You don't have to keep swapping environments. Just like with kernels, there's noone out there saying "YOU MUST CHANGE YOUR WINDOW MANAGER!". That's one of the great things about Linux, IMHO...I can change my window manager on a whim. And I've been pondering dumping E/Gnome for Windowmaker lately, myself. And there's never been any word out there that E wouldn't support Gnome anymore. And if there was, it'd probably be from Raster's end, not Red Hat's.
As far as the IPO is concerned, lots of trouble could have been avoided if Etrade qualified you before you sent the money.
How can you say that this is a problem of Red Hat's? They have nothing to do with the way E*Trade runs shop.
You'll pardon my saying so, but I think you've got some wrong impressions about things. I don't mean this as a flame or a slam, just an opinion.
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:1)
I dunno... then again that's why they lock me in a closet with a bunch of machines.... It's safer that way
Re:International Expansion (Score:1)
They're selling Red Hat 6.0 on the shelves in PC World (large computer hardware + software chain) in the UK.
ObNote: That typeface looks horribly familiar.
*holds up RH6.0 distro box*
*holds up Win98 distro box*
Hmm......
--
This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along.
Re:How about a DVD PLAYER!!!?!? (Score:1)
--
This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along.
Re:REDHAT = MICROSOFT (Score:1)
Redhat is currently the most successful linux company. They have done this through creating a valuable product and marketing it creatively, unlike like our friends at Microsoft.
They deserve their success.
The Granny Effect (Score:1)
So, Red Hat extends the market into the desktop and the server space, at the cost of future growth of Microsoft. And the grannies love the fact that the kids think they're cool for buying them Red Hat Linux boxen, plus they save Hundreds of Dollars when they do. Win win.
After 2002 it all changes, with the surviving large-marketshare distros battling for dominance, but for now, this is the playing field:
Grannies for desktop
and
CEOs for servers
Choosy Grannies and CEOs both know Red Hat is Reliable and Good. Plus they adore the snap-brim logo and the cautious rebel image style effect.
It's image, quality, reputation. Not what you or I care about, just the fluff
I think mods are working ok (Score:1)
Remember, the M2 serves up a bunch of random posts, without the parent comment, so even an M2 might not help if an M1 Flamebaits or Trolls you. When I can't be sure if it's Fair or Unfair (due to context, I usually don't weigh in, unless it's heap full 'o grammatical errors and misspelling. Or if it's in ALL CAPS. I have no mercy for such things, having once been a proofreader.
Re: Granny and Tux (Score:1)
Strength of Microsoft overseas... (Score:1)
Disclaimers: no, I have no knowledge that this is Red Hat's actual plan, nor do I make a substantive claim that a formal alliance exists between Red Hat and any other party. Nor am I so naive to believe that the coziness such a relationship implies would last forever; given the state of affairs I postulate, there could be a nasty breakup/competition in the future. But cross that bridge when you come to it, not before. As it is, take this as a plausible and possibly desirable speculation.
Redhat has to be happy about Mandrakes success (Score:1)
Re:International Expansion (Score:1)
Re:Good work Hemos! (Score:1)
--
Re:REDHAT = MICROSOFT (Score:1)
So since Caldera is a company, they should have to make their own kernel? Same with any other version of Linux run by a "company?"
I have no idea why you think Red Hat making a separate kernel would be of any benefit to the Linux community.
What is Red Hat doing to make the kernel proprietary? Linux-Mandrake is direct evidence that it isn't.
You can get Red Hat for free, either from Red Hat themselves, from Cheapbytes, or from a Red Hat derivative like Mandrake. The only reason they are restricting the use of the name is because they don't want to have to support everyone else's distribution.
Of course they'd have a hellish battle in court if they broke the GPL... but where did you get the idea that they were going to do that?
--
Best man winning... (Score:1)
The advantage of open source is that no one can win, at least not in the sort of way Microsoft can. Even if Red Hat gained 90% of the market, they still wouldn't have the sort of monopoly Microsoft does. The barriers to entry in competing directly with Microsoft are huge. You have to put together the capital to build a new OS. The barriers to entry in competing directly with a theoretical Red Hat monopoly are very small. All you have to do is copy some CDs, hire some good people and you're there.
This, of course, is a hugely good thing, as it means that regardless of market shares, Linux companies are going to be under competitive pressure to improve.
Re:Where are rest of the shares? (Score:1)
I know a number of shares went towards Redhat employees (not counting officers). That could account for the missing shares.
I did not think anyone in the affinity program got more than 400.
But of coure, I am probably dead-ass wrong.
Ahhh..... (Score:1)
The main competition for Redhat is not going to be Microsoft... it is going to be other Linux software and support companies that will spring up. As will surely happen given the instant IPO success with Redhat.
Just as Amazon.com's competitors soon become buy.com and the likes, instead of (as much) Barnes & Nobles.... Redhat is not going to be the only company to do this... they just happened to be the first to go public.
A diferent way to look at things. I just think they need to stop focusing so much on Microsoft in order to succeed.
Re:REDHAT = MICROSOFT (Score:1)
Though it's okay, it IS WRONG to go out there under the shield of the Free Software Foundation, fraudulently make people believe that you are this loving "organization" that just wants to help people get software.
If RH is going to be a company, then they need to be a company. If they want to do Linux, then they should make their own kernel.
Seeing as how the Linux kernel is under a free license, Red Hat is going to have a hellified battle in court if they ever try the Microsoft route and become 100% propriatory.
I really like what Red Hat has done for Linux, and the community. I support them in full and hope the best for them.
However, if they're going to be a business, then they won't have me as a consumer.
I'm basically just reaching out to Red Hat and asking them not to turn into corperate guys with sticks up their bums. I like the way Red Hat goes about their business right now, I'd like to keep it that way.
Re:Ahhh..... (Score:1)
>down to if you want a potential market of half a million or half a billion.
I agree with this right now. My only question is what happens if (when) this is no longer the case. When everyone has a bit more equal share, and all of a sudden Linux-competiter-x is just as good a target as Microsoft. Will the companies stay as "friendly" and community minded then?
I am hoping that what we are seeing with Red Hat and all anmd the way they do business is really different, and that it is not just the circumstances that are different. As I like to say, only time will tell, though hopefully all of us can make a difference too.
Re:Side effects... (Score:1)
> because nearly 2/3 of all invited didn't buy in).
I still don't get those numbers, but perhaps the emails went to people away, dead accounts, people who just didn't have the capital up front, etc.
>There is now one group of Linux supporters who are invested in Redhat and another group,
>whose contributions to Linux will incrase nothing but their peer recognition
I disagree with this, I am sure a lot of people who contributed to "Red Hat" will continue to contribute for the same reasons.
I recieved the offer but got rejected by E*Trade, however I feel I can say that my reasons would not have changed.
>As a non RH share holder, I feel no reason to
>contribute to RH anymore. But I think that my
>efforts will be invested better into something
>like Debian.
I don't see why you would no longer want to contribute to RH. You weren't getting anything (read money) for it before, and still aren't. How has anything changed? The only thing that has changed is the people that benefit from it. Now shareholders benefit, and not just employees.
Besides, I don't know too many people who contribute "just" to Red Hat. Most projects (including mine) are used in multiple distributions, so I am contributing to everyone. Even if you work on something Red Hat specific, like the installer, well it is GPL'ed, so you are still contributing to everyone. That in my mind is the beauty of how Red Hat works.
And yes, I run both Red Hat and Debian, and distrbute packages for both.
Um... check that market again please :) (Score:1)
Typical business tactic. But it's by a business whose product is freely available in all the best ways
Go Redhat Go!
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
Re:competition is good (Score:1)
Remember too that the USA and USSR got along during WWII and my calender says it is 1939.
Re:Trust,etc: This post is dangerous (Score:1)
Mandrake and RedHat (Score:2)
Just some points:
- Where is the sticker on RedHat's distro paying tribute to all the people who contributed to their distribution?
- Mandrake isn't a RedHat clone any more. It started back with 5.1 with some adaptations but has now aquired a reputation of its own. 'Derived from RedHat' may have been true for versions up to 6.0, but bringing up this topic now - after the Axa investment - has some foul taste.
- Where are the CPU optimizations in RedHat? Starting with 6.0 Mandrake has recompiled every single package for optimum speed. I mean, if you compile everything on your own, make customized configuration and boot files that would qualify for being called a new distribution.
- Mandrake keeps compability with RedHats file hierarchy because we think compability is a Good Thing(TM). But this doesn't make us a RH clone. Should we fragmentarize further by making up a standard of our own, just to avoid being forced to advertise for RedHat?
Regardsan one time AC ;-) (I love this new feature!)
Trust, Red Hat CDs, etc. (Score:2)
I think that the most profound lesson that any of us can take from the past three months is that we can no longer implicitly trust Red Hat, either as a product or as a corporate entity.
I guess things had to go this way, but it is disturbing as more and more of my career is based upon Red Hat. I would have liked to keep the trust up at least a little longer.
We've seen two main problems recently: the IPO, and Raster's departure. Raster asserts that E will no longer be Red Hat's choice of a window manager, to which Red Hat has not replied. More GUI confusion is the last thing that Red Hat needs at this time.
I think that Bob Young should have wished Raster well in a public way, then confirmed or denied if E will be ejected from future distributions.
These problems illustrate bad management. I only hope that the ominous trend does not continue.
As far as CDs go, I am shortly publishing material that will include Red Hat Linux. The legal staff is having difficulty in getting permission to merge the updates into the distribution. If I can't do this, there won't be room for all these updates.
IMHO, whenever the updates exceed 50MB, there should be an automatic new version with the updates applied.
Red Hat needs to get its act together in many ways, but this would be a good start.
Re:Ahhh..... (Score:2)
I'm glad that Red Hat and all other linux distributions, and any good UN*X have standards on how to handle shared libraries correctly, and don't have incompatible versions of their programs for different versions of X and whatnot.
Use whatever operating system / distribution you want, no one is forcing you do do anything. I use Red Hat because (a) I go to the school where it all started, so I guess there's some local pride there.
not exactly a zero sum game (Score:2)
They are not the only valuation method that is valid. Clearly when a company generates profits that money goes somewhere. If it is payed out in dividends it gets taxed twice (once as corporate profit, and once as income), and is often reinvested in any case. If instead the company reinvests that money either in it's own operations or by acquisitions, the assets (book value) and purchase price (market value) both naturally increase. The stockholder can get the effect of dividends by selling a small portion of his stock holdings if he wishes and, if he has held the stock for a sufficient length of time (1 year?), he pays only capital gains tax at 15% instead of income tax.
In either the dividend case or growth case, the key is profits, and more importantly the expected growth in future profits. The only other reasonable basis for valuation is the expected value of a acquisition of the company by a larger one.
That being said, I agree that Red Hat, and many internet companies can't justify their collosal valuations. A few, like eBay, are profitable and have the potential to become much more profitable without much more costs by leveraging the network effects of their clients and customers.
I don't see Red Hat being able to make Microsoft's profit margins without Microsoft's market control and proprietaryness. Their support model works well but the costs seem to scale fairly linearly with revenues. Boxed software sales are fairly high margin, but are hard to support without proprietary components (which the current boxed sets _do_ in fact have, just not much).
So the bottom line is that Red Hat, and all other recent IPO's, don't have to have dividends to justify their price. But they will have to have profits, and soon.
--
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:2)
This announcement seems to have started the upward trend.
Basically they're teaming up with another company to make extranet server software with encryption.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19990907/wr/tec
Re:Mandrake and RedHat (Score:2)
On the off chance I'm missing your point completely (and I believe I am), here are a few quick responses to your points:
1. Red Hat doesn't come in a box big enough to hold a sticker acknowledging everyone who's contributed to it. If there's one on Mandrake, the only reason it fits is because someone was awfully selective about whose names got printed on it, and left out the vast majority of contributors.
2. Are you saying Mandrake *isn't* based on Red Hat? How do you figure? Last time I checked, a VERY high percentage of packages were recompiled versions of the RedHat packages, and it was still being described as "based on Red Hat Linux."
3. Where are the Mandrake versions for non-Intel processors? I'm sure I'm missing your point here.
4. Sticking to a "Red Hat hierarchy" in itself does not a clone make. However, coupled with the almost direct copying of the packages available, most with absolutely no differences beyond the compiler used to build them, does in some eyes. My apologies if you don't like the perception, but IMHO it's pretty justified.
My apologies for a way-off-topic post, or if it sounds like I'm putting down Mandrake. I've got no problem with it -- some of my best friends use Mandrake.
However, for someone to come right out and say it's not the direct offspring of Red Hat (without which it probably never would have existed) seems to me to be some really blind egotism.
Re:Credit (Score:2)
"joebob fixed a nasty/esoteric bug dealing with 3c59x driver".
Does it need to highlight *exactly* what you contributed? No.
Do academic papers clearly delineate where one's work stops and another's starts? No.
For example, if I'm working off of some student's graduate thesis for my own work, unless I'm quoting directly, I talk to the person first, let him/her know what I'm doing, and go from there, in exchange for me clearly saying, "this idea of mine is clearly based on an idea first espoused by Dr. Soand So". Credit given. Pointer to the exact source listed in the references/bibliography. If you want to see the original, you get to look it up yourself.
I don't see where the problems are.
Re:Credit (Score:2)
--
Patents (Score:2)
They'd then be able to enter into the kind of "patent swap" deals that big companies do with one another on behalf of the free software world.
It's time to beat the dead horse again. (Score:2)
The 1,150 number given by Donnie has to come from E*TRADE. There's no way Red Hat can know the exact number, except from E*TRADE themselves.
Now, take a look at this article [slashdot.org]. If you read further on, you'll see that many people reported that E*TRADE was giving them only up to 400 shares.
According to my abacus, 400*1150 does not come out anywhere near 800,000 shares which were allocated to this directed share program. People should've been able to purchase at least 700 shares, using these numbers, assuming that everyone applied for at least that amount. There were many people, it seems, that only applied for 100 or 200 shares, so the excess amount had to go back into the pot for people who applied for more shares.
Also, I seem to recall that earlier E*TRADE claimed that there were 2,000 participants left, but I can't find that reference anywhere. If anyone kept the link to that story, please forward it to me via the feedback form on my web page.
Now, this 1,150 number also comes from E*TRADE, and I'm suspicious of this number as well. Let's refresh our collective memories, and go back to the previous Slashdot article. The day before, if you recall, E*TRADE basically threw everyone out of the directed share program. Their excuse, as far as anyone could tell, was that everyone must reconfirm their application because the IPO has been repriced at $14. Furthermore, people claimed that they had ridiculously small time window where they were supposed to reconfirm.
The extension announced in that Slashdot article came about as a result of this latest move by E*TRADE. Now, take a careful look at that telephone number where people were directed to call. Go back to that Slashdot announcement, and read it.
Now, that doesn't look like the number of E*TRADE's toll-free call center, does it? It looks to me like a telephone number for one of E*TRADE's offices. Reviewing my files, I believe that this telephone number really belongs to E*TRADE's Legal and Compliance division. Apparently, this whole mess was kicked up to them to handle, after being horribly botched by their lower-level staff. Or, it might've been Jason Saxon's extension, but in either case, this is a single telephone line.
Now, the extension of the reconfirmation interval was for one business day only. Can anyone please convince me that E*TRADE fully expected to handle almost 1,200 calls on that lone telephone number within the space of one business day??? Can someone make that case for me, please?
Now, as far as I can tell, E*TRADE was legally required to distribute that 800,000 shares allocated to the directed share program, unless there was insufficient number of applications. By all accounts, E*TRADE put an upper limit on the maximum number of shares anyone could've purchased, and this number of 1,150 participants just doesn't add up. Just doesn't add up at all.
--
Re:Credit (Score:2)
competition is good (Score:2)
Competition is a good thing if it is kept fair.
As long as RH does not resort to the same tactics that a certain other company uses like buying out and threatening its competiton, it will be good. It will force all these companies to produce better products, that will have to be more stable.
This in turn should mean that some of these distributions should be super easy to install for newbies, and super easy to configure for newbies, and hopefuly more 'english' like doocumentation other than man pages. Yes I have used man pages, and often I understand them, but some newbies may not. Gnome has a good start to an interface to man, but there are some features lacking.
Don't get me wrong I am very happy with my configuration, and distribution. There are a few things I wish I had and if I get the time will write myself.
I hope that this competition in Europe will make SuSE open up a little in there Licensing of there YaST and there distribution too. Currently SuSE has 'evaluation' distributions, which IMHO I think is bogus.
I wonder whow this will affect the Easy Linux distribution. Maybe well see cdroms of there show up on linuxcentral, and linuxmall. I'd love to test them out.
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:2)
slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:2)
So I've been VERY happy the past day or so watching it generate at 120+ (Thanks Mom)
but now I'm wondering if someone could do a little interpolation to see this phenomenon.....
It seems like the stock climbed everytime that there was a story posted on
Re:Trust,etc: This post is dangerous (Score:2)
In other words, I disagree that the events illustrate bad management, and I question the use of the powerful term "ominous." Furthermore, I question how professional it is for you to make these public claims when you're having private troubles with the company in question. I've always considered it illegitimate to air one's dirty laundry in public, particularly before there's been a resolution of the situation.
In short, whether you intended it or not, this post smacks suspiciously of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. I would hope you would either substantiate or retract these claims, preferably the latter. For some reason you've been moderated pretty high, and I fear that you're spreading ill will without sufficient justification.
Why afraid of intra-Linux competition? (Score:2)
"Waidaminute! Europe? Isn't there already a certain Germanic company established over there? Well, yes. We pressed Barnes about moving into what's considered to be S.u.S.E. Territory..."
This strongly implies that Hemos doesn't expect to see, or doesn't want to see, Linux companies battling each other. I've seen this from other people as well. What's up with this? Everybody wants competition with Microsoft but no competition with each other? Let Linux distros duke it out and the best man win. I agree with Donnie Barnes, that while some companies may make more money than others, there should be plenty to go around in the post-MSFT world.
But.... (Score:2)
Right now, that company is Redhat... and they are smart to further the Wall Street iterpretation that they are indeed, the embodiment of linux. They will always have the advantage of being the first. But the first often fail.
It is like all the E-Trades out there.... their *real* competition is not the full service brokerage firms that they attack in their ads, it is the other countless on-line brokerage firms that have sprung up. Those ads are not as much to entice people from the Merril Lynch's out there... but to differentiate themselves as the best alternative to that.
I believe this market will soon grow to mirror that.
Sure, but.... (Score:2)
Sure, the Linux distribution vendors are competing with each other. JoeBuck gave you that in his posting [slashdot.org].
The question is, is this a good thing? Will they attempt to differentiate on value or try to lock you in with incompatibilities, as the Unix vendors have done?
There's been a lot of talk on /. recently about ethics. I've always thought that the practice of going out of your way to decrease the value of a product to increase revenue is unethical. Hardware vendors used to do this all the time. The fact that the first 486 SX chips actually went through an extra process step to disable the floating point processor is an example of this. Intel later developed a 486 core without the floating point processor, but doing that initially was wrong. I could list off a half-dozen less famous examples in hardware, but you get the idea.
The same thing happens in software. A company will implement unnecessary source level incompatibilities just to make porting large systems difficult. POSIX helped some, but it still happens.
Perhaps a summit of the Linux distribution vendors is in order. Maybe someone could draft a "Treaty" that all will be asked to sign. Signatories would be allowed to display some Trademark in advertising. Something like "Linux Common Compatibility Assured - Version 1", or something that captures this idea.
At a minimum, it would assure that all Linux distributions support some set of FSF compilers/libraries/headers, that some "standard" set of X Windows headers/libraries/Server be available. Maybe a "standard" Perl, Python, Tcl/Tk, GTk, etc. etc. will install and work directly on the system with a provided installation/configuration procedure.
The vendors would be free to provide newer releases of any of these things, but the distribution should work with some agreed upon set.
The vendors product would be "out of compliance" if it is shown that they are engaging in a bad faith effort to break any of the agreed upon software interfaces. It's too much to ask the vendors that all of these software interfaces work to some level of compliance. The validation would be way too expensive and lead to endless debate and problems, especially with regard to validation on different architectures.
What do people think? Would this address a problem? Or would this kind of compliance be just another check list kind of thing that didn't mean very much?
Re:Red Hat, Microsoft (Score:2)
This is the same reason why I don't fear about redhat - in fact, it's why I think Red Hat is probably the _greatest_ thing to happen to Linux in a long time. Not for what they may bring to the project as a provider of source and whatnot (which I don't know all that much about anyways), but for putting a corprorate lookalike face on Linux. Which is obviously not what's REALLY going on (Red Hat != Microsoft for all time), but the sort of endlusers who normally buy Microsoft 'cause it's Microsoft can't see any different.
RH's duping the endluser, like Microsoft, but it's in a _good_ way
I can see it now... "Nobody was ever fired for buying Red Hat" - at least that there's a company who can't dictate the important parts of policy if it ever gets taken over by some troll and gets corrupted...
(Now all I have to do is hope that RH doesn't start getting into anti-MS FUD like so many Linux supporters seem to go for...)
"I don't believe that there is one, single, perfect spiritual way and, in realizing that, obviously you become a lot more open."
Re:slashdot story leads to market increase? (Score:2)
Where are rest of the shares? (Score:3)
Re:Trust, Red Hat CDs, etc. (Score:3)
--
Geoff Harrison (http://mandrake.net)
Senior Software Engineer - VA Linux Labs (http://www.valinux.com)
Mistake (Score:3)
The Unix companies all thought that their main competition was each other, so they messed things up and did their best to break source-compatibility between the different Unix flavors. Meanwhile people were tossing out their Unix systems and putting in NT.
It would be a disaster for Linux if the vendors start thinking of each other as the primary competition -- because it means they will be motivated to break compatibility.
SuSE is certainly competing with Red Hat, but each company can do far better by taking away users from Microsoft than either can by trying to take users away from each other.
Closed Source Installer ? (Score:3)
that story from, not assume it was ever closed..
Trademark Issues (Score:3)
If you remember, the whole point of the GPL vs BSD licence was that people *know* who did it, i.e. you put your mark on it!
Red Hat only gets money if people are willing to pay more for their distro 'cause they know what they're getting.
If RedHat doesn't protect that, then what do they get from Open Source? They're a company, not a cool individual who does neat stuff fro fun. They must have a bottom line or they're out of the game.
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
Fate of possible Red Hat patents? (Score:4)
What will happen in the event that Red Hat does decide to file patents? Will they be donated to the FSF?
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Credit (Score:4)
The current system appears to be either give people credit inline with the contributed source code, put their names under the authors/contributors section, or create a dedicated CREDITS file to list contributions in more detail. None of these systems is ideal.
How is redhat (and obviously the larger free software community) dealing with this problem?
--
International Expansion (Score:4)
I would be interested to know more about how they plan to reach the market here (Europe). Obviously getting RH into the stores is the main thing, but are we likely to see country customised websites, advertising campaigns and the like over here? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
In my experience, European marketing is often very different to US marketing. I have frequently criticised Netscape in the past for concentrating on the end-user server market here, when leased line costs are so expensive, that the vast majority of companies host with ISP's. If Netscape had focussed on selling to ISP's first and cooperating in helping them deliver new services, they could have a way bigger market share. As it is, most ISP's here offer IIS for database driven sites.
My point is that Red Hat will need people with local experience and be prepared to listen to them if they want to crack the local markets (you guys listening? Drop me a mail
Re:Ahhh..... (Score:4)
Here are some made-up numbers: Say Linux has 10% of the total OS market. Of that RedHat has 30%, or 3% of total, and the other distributions have 70%.
Who has the other 90% of the OS market? Microsoft of course! So RedHat can either fight the other Linux distributions to get at the other 7% or they can target the remaining 90% that Microsoft has.
Instead of a big slice of a small pie, give me a smaller slice of a much bigger pie.
Re:Trademark Issues (Score:5)
1) Tell them it is not _really_ RedHat, and they don't support it. (Incidentally hurting there image as providing good customer support), or
2) Provide the support for something they are not making revenues off of, which makes costs them money.
The reason for the trademark issue is not with experienced users, it is with company image and support costs. I understand RedHat's reasoning on this issue, and I think they are taking the correct approach to solving the problem. All they are saying is that they only want to have to deal with support issues for sales that they actually make.
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually, MSFT is the near timeframe competition (Score:5)
So, yeah, around 2002-2005 we'll see the Linux Wars (TM) between Red Hat, S.u.S.e., and whatever distros are doing ok then, but for the next few years the big boy on the block is Microsoft.
If I was Red Hat (wait, I own shares - guess I am), I would offer an O2K disaster relief program. For anyone who installed W2K and O2K, offer to give them a $24.95 upgrade to RH 6.2 with StarOffice with full docs and support, so they can get their servers back running in production mode.
Cheap, effective, and gets MSFT where it hurts.
Red Hat, Microsoft (Score:5)
What RH is doing is successfully bringing Linux into the corporate world, by showing it can be neatly supported, that it can be marketed successfully and that it is a viable business solution with a company front. Unfortunately, no amount of good-willed hacker PR can achieve that. The market is a place for suits and ties.
Even if RH turns into a Microsoft for the year 2000, they still won't dictate the core, only affect the public's perception of Linux by altering its distribution. What you end up with, once the fluff is over, is still the same old GPL apps.
Imagine if DOS has been Open Sourced from the get-go, and Microsoft then built their own distribution of it, including a custom-built GUI called Windows. You could download the DOS kernel for free, try other GUI's if you wanted, and Microsoft would be busy trying to enhance the user-friendliness of Windows, not trying to pass it off as a decent OS.
And as long as I could hack the OS and decide which GUI I want with it, I'd be fine if Microsoft was in that position. So I don't fear about Red Hat.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."