Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer)
Red Hat's home town newspaper has an
article on the company's bond sale. "'We believe the time for us
as a company to take control of the market is now,' said chief financial
officer Kevin Thompson. 'What we've done is capitalize ourselves so that we
can react very quickly to opportunities that come up in the marketplace.'
Customers are demanding products that Red Hat can't offer, Thompson
said. It likely will have to buy other companies to add new products and
services."
(Log in to post comments)
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 14:30 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] Red Hat's actions and words are starting to concern me.I want to be able to easily download an ISO image of a Linux OS so I can test on it without overhead or hassles. They have made this difficult. I don't want any company to "take control of the market". If too many folks start using closed Red Hat tools to install and administer their machines we have lost the openness that we desire. Red Hat seems to be moving in this direction. Their direction is wrong for everyone, including themselves. If they build themselves as a typical software company which makes money by selling closed software they are going to die. Selling closed software to open source converts is like telling a slave they can be 90% free.
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 14:41 UTC (Wed) by jjstwerff (subscriber, #4082) [Link] I have not found a single CLOSED project from Redhat yet.Everything is GPL... Almost every other commercial distro packages closed tools: But not Redhat they are clean, but make money... Thats the real concern here... what if losers become winners... my worldview is in danger
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:00 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] I stand corrected. In hunting around all of the source is available in free-ish licenses. Thus someone could package and redistribute at will.But, I unfortunately did not find a nice link to the ISO's. See: http://linuxmafia.com/faq/RedHat/rhel-isos.html They obviously have the ISO's, they just aren't making them available unless you pay them. This is by no means illegal, but it is certainly not helping. Also, free code that links to a paid service should raise an eyebrow. Do they have a right to do so? At first glance I say, "Of course". But, is that really free though? Let's say I write some GPL code that is just an interface to the real engine and the I make you pay to use the engine and don't show you the code. Is that free? I'm not a guru of anything, I'm just concerned. Ken
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:43 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] RHEL is not intended to have free ISOs. You can get the ISOs to Fedora, which is when RHEL is built on top of. RHEL is for enterprise users, not SOHO users. The source for RHEL is available under the terms requires of the GPL, of course.
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 21:01 UTC (Wed) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] >Also, free code that links to a paid service should raise an eyebrow. Do they have a right to do so? At first glance I say, "Of course". But, is that really free though? Let's say I write some GPL code that is just an interface to the real engine and the I make you pay to use the engine and don't show you the code. Is that free?Seems to me it passes both the free-beer and free-speech tests. Consider that anyone who wants to can modify the free code to link to any instance of a service, rather than the instance initially hardwired to a particular outfit (in this case, RedHat). Consider also that reverse-engineering the RedHat instance of the service would be trivially simple given the free-code side of the protocol. Consider then how easy it would be for anyone else in the world to provide the same service. Could someone else provide the same service for free (beerwise)? Probably not - servers cost money, real estate costs money, electricity costs money, administration costs money. Could someone else undercut RedHat in the event of outrageous profiteering? Certainly. I don't see where there's a freedom problem, if you're not locked into one service provider. And as long as the software on your end is free, and the service is unencumbered by patents, you'll never be locked in.
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 22:07 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] Good points. I'll get over the hoop jumping. Note that the relatively low direct cost isn't the issue. It's the hoop jumping necessary to get a company to pay for any extra cost, making sure those yearly payments handled, and managing the licenses. Note that I would switch if it didn't have to be RHEL for QA purposes.
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 20:14 UTC (Wed) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] I have not found a single CLOSED project from Redhat yet.One comes to mind. They bought Hell's Kitchen Systems to get the CCVS credit card processing software. They sold it for a while, and bundled a demo version with Red Hat 6.2 deluxe (or some such). But they've since abandoned it. Sigh. I'm not complaining, mind you. I agree that Red Hat is one of the best corporate supporters of free software.
Concern Posted Jan 11, 2004 21:27 UTC (Sun) by jorton (guest, #268) [Link] IIRC it's not possible to release the CCVS source code due to the licenses for the protocols it implements (used to talk to the clearing houses).
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 16:05 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] I want to be able to easily download an ISO image of a Linux OS so I can test on it without overhead or hassles. They have made this difficult.I don't understand this. The process is more or less the same as it's been for several years now - download the ISO images, burn 2 or 3 discs, and install. http://fedora.redhat.com/download/ How is this difficult?
Fedora != RHEL Posted Jan 7, 2004 16:23 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] I need the ISO for RHEL, where is that link?
Fedora != RHEL Posted Jan 7, 2004 16:49 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Oh, I see. You're complaining that RH is charging money for RHEL. I'm personally upset that BMW is charging money for cars, but that's just me..You might be interested in Whitebox if you can't afford (or are unwilling to pay for) RHEL. What exactly does RHEL have that you need that Fedora Core lacks?
Bad analogy Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:06 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] > I'm personally upset that BMW is charging money for cars, but that's just me.ISO != physical good They have the ISOs, they are just not making them available. Their incremental cost is zero to make them available as opposed to people downloading the source. BMW obviously has an incremental cost to produce a car. The question is why don't they make ISO's available? It isn't direct cost, it is an impediment to get more people to give them money. Which is legal, but isn't helpful. Also, please see my note above on is a GPL'd interface to a paid service really free...
Bad analogy Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:31 UTC (Wed) by TimCunningham (guest, #10316) [Link] Well, that's not totally true. Bandwidth isn't free.
Bad analogy Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:48 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] Yup, that is why I said, "Their incremental cost is zero to make them available as opposed to people downloading the source".
Bad analogy Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:50 UTC (Wed) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] Not to mention you are paying Red Hat to do the work of making the ISOs. It doesn't have to be an incremental cost to still be a cost. They had to employ many people to put together all that software for you.If it wasn't for the ability to *buy* RHEL (and since you seem to want to aviod other distros) you'd be required to manually download individual packages, build from source, bootstrap a system, patch and configure it, and so on, as an LFS setup, until you had put together a system indentical to RHEL. You are paying Red Hat to employ the people who patched, packaged, tested, and integrated the software on those CDs for you. If you don't want to pay, then you don't get that service. Of course, again, RHEL is just built ontop of Fedora, so if you really want to use the fruit of the Red Hat employees' labor without compensating them for their extensive time, just use Fedora. They make that freely available to all as a community service, even tho nothing says they have to. They are spending time and money maintaining that service for people for free.
Fedora != RHEL Posted Jan 7, 2004 16:51 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] > I need the ISO for RHEL, where is that link?http://www.whiteboxlinux.org Like jjstwerff said, everything they do is 100% open source.
Concern Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:55 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] The GPL requires Red Hat to distribute source; it does not require Red Hat to give anyone a binary who has not paid them. I don't think distributors have any moral obligation to provide ISOs to the public. In any case, I think that the traditional Red Hat ISO concept is wasteful (the idea that you download and burn all the CDs, then install as if you had no network connection); better to have a small core distribution that takes maybe half of one CD, then use that to download and install only the packages the user selects over the net. I'm more concerned about Red Hat putting service bulletins under NDA, as it seems to directly rub up against RMS's main motivation for starting the free software movement: he objected to software companies forbidding people to help their neighbors.
Charging for services is good for business Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:35 UTC (Wed) by mgh (guest, #5696) [Link] Redhat have done, are doing and are seen to be doing a great deal for OS sw in general and Linux in particular. They fund the development of gcc, they produce a large number of GPL tools - for example RH created anaconda which is what allows KNOPPIX to work so well as well as kicking off Gnome and funding OpenGL Graphics driver development work.Believe it or not, companies that wish to use Linux for serious purposes - by serious I mean critical workloads _LIKE_ the fact RH charge. They like it because any company can offer 5 years of support, but if a company is not charging for support they will be gone in 6 months - unable to pay phone bills, internet connection charges etc etc. The fact RH charge commercial rates makes them feel good, comfortable, safe and prepared to even consider relying on RH to be there for them in 2 years time. So go easy on RH - every piece of software they release under the GPL is a donation and every piece of SW the release is under the GPL. Nothing stays the same in life, RH might change and nothing we can do will prevent that, but what is important is what they do today. All RH have done is to lift their game, by lifting their game there is more space for others, more software and more value deposited into Linux and GPL everyday. If RH tried to be everything to everybody then they would be accused of monopolising the market, but by targeting a segment of the market there is heaps of room for Whiteboxes etc provide what RH are not providing. Remember Mandrake started out with a RH distro and now they are a popular distro in their own right. Mark
Charging for services is good for business Posted Jan 7, 2004 17:48 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Red Hat is a major contributor to GCC (probably 50% or so of the GCC development over the last decade comes from Red Hat or Cygnus, which is now part of Red Hat), but there are many other major corporate contributors. The GCC release manager heads a company called CodeSourcery, and funding from HP allows him (and several of his employees) to work on GCC nearly full time. SuSE, ACT, and Apple also employ people to work on GCC full-time or nearly full-time.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 18:12 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] Unless the "e" in your name stands for "Enterprise", what exactly is your claim to the right for convenient access to downloadable iso images of RedHat's Enterprise products? I was neither thrilled nor dismayed by RedHat's recent moves; clearly RedHat is doing/has done no more or less than what it feels it reasonably needs to to survive and prosper, which is not only expected and its right, but, as a publicly owned company, its obligation as well. IMO, Fedora is an entirely acceptable, even generous fullfillment of any other obligations RedHat may have to individual or non-enterprise users and/or its obligations to the Linux community.As far as RedHat's statement that the time is right for them "to take control of the market now", go ahead and get worked up about that if you want. I just gave a little involuntary laugh and moved on. Peter Yellman
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 19:13 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] I didn't claim I had a right, I said I want to. I used to be able to, and now they are making it harder. Sure, it's legal, but do you only do what is required by law? Is that how you want to be treated?I think we just need to be very wary when a company starts talking about control and making things harder to use for profit.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 19:45 UTC (Wed) by ChrisMetzler (guest, #18497) [Link] I didn't claim I had a right, I said I want to. I used to be able to, and now they are making it harder. Sure, it's legal, but do you only do what is required by law? Is that how you want to be treated? No, I don't do only what's required by law. I do what's required by law and what's required to survive. I think we just need to be very wary when a company starts talking about control and making things harder to use for profit. You misspelled "for their own survival." I confess this just boggles my mind. They give their source away; they ask that they be paid for the effort they put into turning that source into a nice, convenient distro (something you could do on your own if you don't feel like paying for it); and you'd begrudge them even that. They give you what you need to do it yourself; but you're annoyed that they won't just do the work for you for free and be quiet about it.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 20:56 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] There is a huge difference between acting "for their own survival" and seeking profit. I must have missed their filing as a non-profit, if you could dig that up and send it to me that'd be great.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 22:00 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] You wrote.>There is a huge difference between acting "for their own survival" and seeking profit. I must have missed their filing as a non-profit, if you could dig that up and send it to me that'd be great. I'm not really sure what you are referencing here, but in any case your statement as it stands on its own is unconditionally wrong: there is absolutely no difference in a publicly traded, for profit, incorporated enterprise entity acting "for their own survival" and seeking profit. The entity described, by definition, must profit to survive. In addition to being a key stated fact in most corporation's charters or articles of incorporation, this concept is also the foundation of capitalism and market economy theory and one of Adam Smith's favorite topics. Can you please tell us what remote country you are living in, where this fact is apparently not common knowledge? Thanks,
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 22:27 UTC (Wed) by Ken (guest, #14505) [Link] The post above mine chose to change profit into a statement about survival and seemingly claimed equivalency. I am just saying they are different things. Saying they are entirely equivalent is saying the world is black and white. One can keep a company alive with a small profit or one can do everything to maximize profits, those are different. Before this change was made, did they not turn a profit? What they are doing is extending profit, that is beyond surviving. The important question is, is it extreme? The line of extremity would be way to subjective to draw clearly. All I am saying is to be careful.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 23:49 UTC (Wed) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] I really don't know what you're trying to prove. The entity in question must profit to survive. Period. That is the single indespensible requirement of a for profit entity in a capitalist economy. Ergo, they are absolutely equivalent. It is true that there exists, even within that absolute requirement, room for differences in corporate (or personal) behavior, especially regarding the lengths to which the owners/managers/executives are willing to go to maximize profits -- e.g., are they willing to engage in questionnable, immoral, illegal, etc. behavior. However interesting that discussion might be, that is a separate issue in the context of this discussion, which arose from the absolute, and ridiculous, statement that you made.Peter Yellman
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 7, 2004 23:36 UTC (Wed) by ChrisMetzler (guest, #18497) [Link] There is a huge difference between acting "for their own survival" and seeking profit. I must have missed their filing as a non-profit, if you could dig that up and send it to me that'd be great. No, what you missed was the years of red ink Red Hat has run until fairly recently. And you'd have them continue to post losses each quarter because you want them to work, and provide you the product of their work, for free.
Red Hat bond sales reach $500 million (News-Observer) Posted Jan 8, 2004 2:27 UTC (Thu) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] I don't see what he big issue against Red Hat is. Red Hat is a public company. They exist for the main purpose of making a profit. That priority stands above all else. I have, as a fact, rarely agreed with any of Red Hat's business strategies, but I'm personally not a Red Hat customer so I have no right to complain. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't pay Red Hat a Red Cent to do anything for me so I have no real right to complain.But as far as open source, the facts are obvious. Does Red Hat make significant contributions of OSS? Yes. Does Red Hat adhere strictly to the GPL? Generally, Yes. Oh, so what's the problem? It's because Red Hat is becoming less and less community oriented. This is an unfortunate thing, but you have to look at it this way: Red Hat is a .com not a .org. If you want a community-oriented Linux distro, go get Gentoo or Debian. Gentoo, as well as many other community-oriented Linux distros (Fedora, KNOPPIX, etc.) have benefited greatly from Red Hat's OSS contributions. And for me, since I'm not a Red Hat costumer, that's the bottom line.
|
|||||||||||||