Slashdot Mirror
BusinessWeek on LinuxOne
lactose_intolerant writes "Another "mainstream" look at LinuxOne by BusinessWeek. They too are suspicious. " Pretty icy review right there. Apparently the business world thinks as much of this company as we do. Still it will be interesting to see what happens with this.
Why the hatred for LinuxOne? Because they're doing exactly what the GPL allows and reselling a version of Linux that they themselves haven't changed at all? They're really not
that evil, I don't think. Just a couple guys seeing dollar signs... Give them a chance.
I think a great deal of people think that if you offer the exact same thing as someone else you are perhaps cheating by using their product. If I can get a distribution from the original company and someone else sells it then why?
Maybe everyone would have a different outlook if they were offering shares back to the community? Probably....
I for one really don't buy stock at the present time at all. Is there a way that you can say spend about 10 bucks on the stock market by yourself without getting one of those fat cat brockers to do it for you?
Oh, and maybe possibly first post.
As usual all the people who have no lives got that first anyway.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Brilliant, all-round, and hopefully another nail in the coffin of a -very- suspicious IPO.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
LinuxOne isn't the only company trying to cash in on the IPO craze with a half assed buisness plan. I'm doing it too. Here's my press release:
Shoeboy: The Next Open Source, eCommerce IPO
Seattle, WA Shoeboy, a producer of gametes used in meiotic reproduction, hopes to be one of the next individuals to benefit from the Open Source and eCommerce surges on Wall Street as he readies himself for an IPO.
Shoeboy, based in Seattle, Washington, sells packages of DNA called gametes (or more specifically sperm) that, in conjunction with other gametes known as eggs can produce an embryo that can eventually learn to play the piano and perform integral calculus. The sperm delivery market has traditionally been highly competitive, with even market leaders like Wilt Chamberlain only able to service 20,000 customers. Part of this is due to the primitive and inefficient delivery system know as sex. According to Shoeboy, this is the main reason for Wall Street's dismissal of reproduction as a "hobbyist market."
Shoeboy hopes to overcome these limitations by abandoning sex and selling his sperm over the internet. " eFertilization makes sense as a way to eliminate complexity for customers who have a hard time finding the time and resources for traditional reproduction," said International Data Corp. analyst Jean Bozman. "There's less need for people at the user site to interact with their reproductive system," she said.
"Shoeboy next month plans to file with the Semen Exchange Commission for an initial pubic offering," announced Shoeboy. The IPO itself is scheduled roughly for the end of March.
An IPO, in which an individual sells genetic stock to the public, provides an infusion of cash, but historically has also placed the individual at increased risk of syphilis. This is another area in which Shoeboy's internet solution is preferable to sex. "Sex is too risky," says Bozman. "Increasingly, consumers are going to say, 'Why do we want to fool around with other people when we can get something prepackaged, and it's no muss, no fuss?'"
Skeptics have argued that Shoeboy's plans reflect desperation rather than innovation. "This is simply a last ditch effort after the catastrophic failure of Shoeboy's 'One Size Disappoints All' marketing campaign," said Technology Business Research analyst Joe Ferlazzo. "Additionally, Shoeboy has a history of dissatisfied customers. He just doesn't have the equipment to do the job well."
Shoeboy admits that his record is not a successful one, but he argues that the problems he encountered do not apply to the internet business model. "First off, equipment isn't an issue. My equipment is the most compact in the industry, and I have extremely low latency - were talking 8 seconds here. Then there's bandwidth - In the last year I've managed to fill 36 pint jars - any more and I'd have to get a bigger freezer. The real obstacle to my sperm distribution has been the unwillingness of my customers to be in the same room with me. With the internet, now they don't even have to be in the same state! What could go wrong?"
Shoeboy is also quick to point out that his product is completely open source. "Since all future products based on my DNA source code will (by age 13 or so) feel a nearly uncontrollable urge to redistribute their own DNA source code, I am in compliance with the terms of the GPL - just like Linux." Linux, an open-source operating system that competes with Windows NT, was the basis for several successful IPOs in 1999, including Red Hat, VA Linux Systems and Cobalt Networks. VA Linux, in particular, had a record first trading day last month.
Shoeboy hopes to raise nearly $35 million dollars through the IPO. This money will be used to purchase several jars of Vaseline, a subscription to "Barely Legal" and the Shoeboy.com domain.
--Shoeboy
LinuxOne claims to be reselling, but nobody has found any evidence that they are really doing so. They also claim to have a Chinese-language version of Linux. Again, nobody has seen it. $4677 in software development costs in 1999 would not have been enough to even translate output messages, let alone test the changes. So what we have is a company lying about having products and hoping the financial markets won't see through their story before the IPO hits the boards. I'd call that cause for contempt, and BusinessWeek seems to agree.
Jenny
Anybody I've ever heard has said that an IPO has to be carfully orchestrated and publicized in order to succeed. From the looks of this the only publicity is bad and nobody at the company is willing to promote it. The only way I could see it making money is if the day traders jump on it and attract the ignorant. Otherwise, the poeople who would be stupid enough to buy in won't be smart enough to know it's there.
That could be worth something to someone. Not necessarily a lot, and if the actions of the company sully the names, the names lose value.
But for someone wanting to start a Linux company, buying LINX out would represent an interesting way of getting onto the stock market, so long as their price wasn't too high.
I'd think a million dollars to be "too high," personally...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
I think a great deal of people think that if you offer the exact same thing as someone else you are perhaps cheating by using their product. If I can get a distribution from the original company and someone else sells it then why?
Um, cause they could sell it cheaper by having company X do their R&D?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
How much of the touted stick market gain can be accounted for by volitaile tech stock these days? A good number of the .com's including Amazon don't post a profit, and are loosing money faster than LinuxOne. Almost like LinuxOne has a better financial outlook.
.com they won't care weather or not we have a real product.
Regardless, the price on internet companies, legitemate or not is overinflated, this sort of thing just points out how ridiculous the actual stock market behavior is.
J. Lartbait: Hey this web stuff is the hot new thing
T. Clueless: Yeah, let's get in on the action
J. Lartbait: but running an online store is to much work and I can't figure out this whole HTML thing, and we'd need lots of startup capital.
T. Clueless: Maybee there's something that's available for free that we can sell for a profit... like air.
J. Lartbait: Right, I heard about something like that Linux.
T. Clueless: But how do we get Linux? It's free right...
J. Lartbait: Don't worry about that. People are so blinded by the
the rest is just a story.
Honestly, who wouldn't want to make a million dollars?
Then, there's the cut-and-paste filing. Sorry, but there's nothing virtuous about being able to use Windows Notepad.
Third, there's this little matter of return. What are the shareholders going to be getting for their hard-earned cash? At present, sod all.
Fourthly, there's that ticker marker - LINX. Don't tell me that they couldn't have found a different set of letters that would denote their company just as well, if not better, without obviously trying to confuse non-tech investors into buying into what they think is the Linux OS itself.
Fifthly, there's that leeetle "lie" about Linux Lite running under Windows. Look it up in their FAQ. It doesn't actually run under Windows at all. Linux Lite is nothing more than "loadlin" with window-dressing.
Last, but by no means least, they say they've 10 employees, earning between $60-$80K -EACH-, and they only had the cash left to spend $4K on development. You'd blow more than $4K on computers and other necessary junk, just to start the damn company up! In short, they really didn't spend a cent on developing a single line of code. That's what they're saying.
They -are- allowed to resell Linux, sure. A lot of people do. Cheapbytes has probably made a mint on the process. What they are -not- allowed to do is defraud investors or prosopective customers by outright deception. And, yes, even the few "half-truths" are still deception. Either a claim is honest and open or it isn't. And theirs ain't.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
My Company, Nothing Inc, is planning on making a Initial Public Offering on the NASDAQ exchange.
We do not produce anything, we do not offer any services, and we do not distribute anything. Essentially, we make nothing, do nothing, sell nothing. Our annual turnover is zero, profits zero, however we have great potential for making future profits, as you must have realised by now.
Given the high demand for stocks from such companies, such as thisandthatportal.com and Linuxone, we believe you are making the right decision by investing in our stock.
Our initial asking offer is US$10.00 per share, but we believe that before the end of the first day of trading, our shares are going to be worth US$100.00 each.
Thank you very much for your interest
(signed)
N. Othing
CEO
Nothing Inc.
LinuxOne is cashing in on the hype (duh), but rather than taking a relaxed whats-the-worst-that-could-happen-to-me approach we ought to be out there telling people not to make a bad business decision. If we play our cards right the "linux community" (cough) would come out with a greater credibility - not only do we know the technology, but we know how to use it in the marketplace. If investors are NOT burned as a result of listening to us, they'll be willing to do it again when a company that *really can* make money comes along. Our support (think: CUSTOMERS) ought to be something a company in this market strives for.. not something to be easily discounted. If we want a community, we've gotta fight for it, and we have to act like one. This starts with a condemnation of those who are out to damage it.
Seems they prefer Red Hat over their own Linux. That's interesting.
$ telnet www.linuxone.net 80
Trying 216.101.248.91...
Connected to rinoa.LinuxOne.NET.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 19:38:38 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) (Red Hat/Linux)
Last-Modified: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 03:26:04 GMT
ETag: "dc003-3642-3876ae4c"
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 13890
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html
Connection closed by foreign host.
I have to admit that this article brightened my day a bit. I'm glad that the guys in suits have enough common sense to see what LinuxOne is trying to be. Maybe there's hope for those business folk after all?
;)
Nah.
As much as I hate to see people who have nothing to do with (or contribute to) Linux take advantage of it to try to make a quick million or two, all we can do is inform potential investors of the scam they are pulling. Luckily, Business Week did just that. It's a trusted source, read by alot of investors, so it will help protecting folks who will probably lose their investment in that company anyway.
Unfortunately, If people still go ahead and invest in that company.. then there is not much that can be done, and the scam will have succeeded. Their plan is one of misinformation of investors. Counter measure? Information. =)
Also, This kind of scam could not happen over "strongly licensed" software, since the company who owns that software would certainly not allow it. However, in a free software world, people are bound to like their new-found software liberties, and some will unfortunately abuse them to make a quick capitalist buck.
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
A couple of weeks ago, when there was speculation about RedHat buying Corel, everyone here was saying how much credence some people in the investment community give to the discussions on Slashdot. If the majority of the comments regarding LinuxOne say that the company adds no value to the Linux community and will not help Linux expand its presence in any market, won't the "smart money" avoid the stock? (And, what could anyone do to protect the dumb money? Even the SEC can't stop every scam.)
If anything, I would argue that LinuxOne could benefit the community by clearly pointing out the value that companies like RedHat, VA Linux, and LinuxCare are bringing to the market.
--
Dave Aiello
-- Dave Aiello
He might be. His quote of Bruce Perens is nearly verbatim from this post by Bruce.
One problem (of many) with shorting a company's stock. . . You will be left high and dry if trading is suspended in the underlying stock. Which is a definite possiblity in this case. (as always, past performance does not guarantee future returns)
yeah, except that you're not allowed to short IPOs. nice try.
The only thing that is wrong about it is that you have to distribute the source changes only if you distribute the object code, which is a pretty fine grain point for those not versed in the idiosyncrasies of the GPL. Calm down.
-Rich
. . . it likely IS thier linux. From what I understand, the first LinuxOne beta was a BARELY modified RedHat; where they didn't even finish changing all the names from "RedHat" to "LinuxOne". I personally haven't seen the beta, or the first release that came out ONE MONTH later, but I don't imagnie all that much changed in that short of time.
These guys are so many flavors of shady it hurts.
Bad things often happen to good people,
It is up to them to see that they remain good.
We're starting to sound like a Religion.
Now, I think it's important to have a sense of unity and be able to do things together, but all this blather about the Community makes it sound like we are all the same, or at least, we all have common goals and ambitions. It sounds like we're all here to defend the Linux "name brand", to uphold the Faith, to chase the Infidels back to the dark holes they have emerged from.
Excuse me, but I already have a religion, and it's not Linux. I am here (1) to make money (i.e., my work), (2) to have a good time using software that's fun and (3) help out some other people (like kids in schools or NFP organizations). Linux happens to be the best tool I've found to do this, but that doesn't mean I worship the Brand Name.
If some stupid investors lose their shirts on a bobus IPO, I'll shed no tears over them. It won't affect my goals (1), (2) or (3) above. If anything, it will deflate the incredible hype over all things Linux, and perhaps we can all get back to real work again.
No. People hate LinuxONE either because (1) they are jealous ("Why can't I make millions like they do?"), or (2) because they are taking it as a slap in their collective faces (the "community" thing) or (3) because they are honestly bothered by the lies and broken promises that this guy has left in his wake.
This is not my Crusade however. I am glad that the news is getting out, and it sounds like this whole thing is going to flop, but I'll lose no sleep over it. I have more important things to worry about than some sheister taking advantage of my favorite hobby.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
The product selection has a flea-market/surplus feel to it (a box of XT floppy controllers for $1 each, used diskettes for $0.10 - just peel off the old MS Windows label). The list of CDs includes about a dozen linux-related labels but the back of the CD on the shelf touts it as one of the most complete distributions for 1997.
I asked for one of the well-known distributions and was told that "we have our own" and was directed to two stacks of boxes.
One stack was labeled Winlinux. A box was open and I looked inside. There is a bright yellow CD with www.super-telecom.com on it. That domain does not appear to exist though it also appears in some of PSs print ads. The instructions were a short center-folded 8.5x11 photocopy of rather bad quality. From what I could read, the purchaser was supposed to contact eilink to "activate" the product. Nobody was available who could answer my questions but it appeared to be some sort of pre-configured version of Linux that was designed to connect a small office to the eilink ISP.
Next to that stack was a stack of LinuxOne. The box appeared to be vintage generic flea-market with bright colors and superlatives such as Super Value on the back and a boilerplate shrink-wrap license on the front. The only thing that indicated what product was inside was the LinuxOne manual (another cheesy-looking photocopy number) shrink-wrapped to the front of the box.
I didn't feel like shelling out the $30 to buy either product so I can't comment on what is on the disk or on the quality of any available technical support. Using the look of the packaging and manual as a guide, however, I wouldn't expect much.
LinuxOne now has a PowerPC product. One of their people showed up at Macworld Expo, at our booth. We were stunned -- an actual person! And he took one of our CDs and wandered off. (The CDs were free.) We were too stunned to say anything... but they may be making an announcement any day now about a PowerPC port. ;)
-- haaz.
That could be a delicate matter -- would Linus want to start distinguishing between companies and people authorized to use the Linux mark and ones which are not? That's a slippery slope. Is that even possible now given the multitude of "Linux" products and the usual requirements that trademark rights be defended vigorously?
We actually Slashdotted BusinessWeek? That's a new record. Let's all head to Yahoo and see if we can disrupt 200million+ hits a day in traffic :)
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
It's not a LinuxOne site, it's pr0n.
In case you were wondering why that post was moderated as a "Troll." Thought those of you at work might especially appreciate the warning.
Yes, Bilbo, there is a Linux Community. It exists as certainly as freedom and generosity and
Source Code exist, and you know that they abound and give to your computer its most reliable operating system. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Linux Community! It would be as dreary as if there were no Slashdot.
I am a member of any number of "communities" and I'm happy to say that in none of them is everyone all the same. We share the defining characteristic, but often little else.
Getting the truth out about LinuxOne is a real sucess story for the Linux Community. It has happened because Bruce Perens put information on technocrat.net and in large part because there were discussions here.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
This is complete nonsense, and demonstrates how totally bogus information is fed to us by the "most prestigious" media outlets in the country. I'm not a lawyer, but I've been writing and publishing tech articles and books for over 20 years.
Neither the SEC nor any other body has the right or power to remove copyright protection from ANY written work. Copyright protection is provided by an international treaty that has been signed by almost all of the countries of the world except China. Before we could approve the treaty, we were required to bring the U.S. copyright statues into conformance with international law. For example, our copyright protection was extended from 29 years until the author's death, and then to the death of the person who first inherited the right from the author. This prevented classic works from passing into the public domain before the author's death, something that happened routinely to authors who didn't understand their requirements to re-register the work after 29 years.
The salient part of the treaty here is something called "common law copyright." Under this provision any original work, whether written by an individual or a company, is protected by common law copyright from the instant that it is placed in a form accessible to human beings -- that is, when it is written down or recorded. The process of registering your work with the Copyright Office is simply a legal protection, so that you can prove that you claimed authorship from such and such a date. It is absolutely not required that you apply for or be granted an official copyright in order for your work to protected>/B>. All you must prove is original authorship.
Notice the following disclaimer on SlashDot: "The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. Slashdot is not responsible for what they say." This little bit of legalese simply restates the common law copyright rule: if you wrote it, you own it!
However, I still think we take ourselves too seriously. When I start reading, "we ought to be out there..." or "If we play our cards right...", I start to worry. I do not consider myself an anarchist, but even I like a little anarchy now and then. After all, it is a fundamental building block of the Internet. There are a lot of things in life worth fighting for, but I don't think a "loose-knit but well-connected community" is one of them. Working for? YES! But let's focus our attention and energy on making Good Software, not on punishing people who might damage our "brand name".
After all, isn't it the "battle mentality" that got Microsoft into the state it's in now???
Your Servant, B. Baggins
I like it! The IPO-watchers should flock to this one, seeing as it combines the buzzwords of software and biotechnology. Still, some caution is advised.
One problem with distributing DNA source code via gametes is that in that form it won't even compile, much less run. Gametes need to be combined with their corresponding gametes (sperm with egg, f'rinstance) in order to result in usable output. By distributing only sperm over the Internet, Shoeboy cannot guarantee the quality of the resulting product.
This problem might be partially remedied if Shoeboy were to distribute both sperm and eggs over the internet. Since this is probably not feasable in the immediate future, Shoeboy might have to contract with - or even merge with - another company which specializes in egg production. Given Shoeboy's past performance, this doesn't seem likely.
Shoeboy is also quick to point out that his product is completely open source. "Since all future products based on my DNA source code will (by age 13 or so) feel a nearly uncontrollable urge to redistribute their own DNA source code, I am in compliance with the terms of the GPL - just like Linux."
Since only 1/2 (on average) of any resulting zygotes' DNA would be based on Shoeboy's code, it's impossible to say whether they would comply with the terms of the GPL. While some of them might be compelled to "redistribute their own DNA source code" by age 13 or so, experience suggests that many others - particulary those with redundancy in the so-called X chromosome portion of the code - might take far longer to experience this urge. Others might lack it entirely. While it can be argued that, without exception, all previous implementations of Shoeboy's code succeeded in redistributing themselves, it's important to remember that "past performance does not guarantee future results". The past is littered with failed implementations of open-source DNA code.
It's a clever (not to mention laugh-out-loud funny) idea, but given the problems inherent in meiotic reproduction, it is doubtful that internet distribution of gametes will be any better than doing it the old-fashioned way. Personally, I favor the mitotic approach, avoiding the use of gametes entirely. If some company (drox.com, perhaps?) found a way to eliminate the need for random-chance recombination of the DNA source code, the usefulness of future distributions could be more easily assured.
Read a little more closely. Their LinuxMac "product" sounds like Linux's kernel HFS support with a GUI tacked on. Wow, that's incredible. Drag and drop. /me starts gmc. Copy files to and from HFS volumes...
/dev/sdb7 /mnt/mac -t hfs /home/jhaas/propaganda/q3.txt /mnt/mac
mount
cp
WOW. Try harder next time, guys.
-- haaz.
The noise we all make about it is good... tell people about it, but don't blow their ears off.
Investors almost always do *some* research before sticking their money in a company.. they don't just say 'I like this stock symbol.. I'll invest'. That's what *daytraders* do.. and most of them lose money, and they don't significantly alter the market, nor do they provide much capital.
Why was redhat so successful? Well... linux seemed like a potential big thing (I can't argue with that) and redhat was fairly well respected (still is...). When investors asked their techies, or whoever, what about redhat... they would hear 'yeah.. redhat is kinda cool... '..... so it's a fairly good bet that if you were going to invest in the future of linux, redhat would be a start.
Now, things might be a bit different. I dare say that, being a Nevada corporation, without much in the way of disclosure laws, and without some big names on their board, they aren't going to be looking at very much capital during IPO.
Sure. But you can't short it unless someone has shares to lend you.. which is unlikely...
It wasn't supposed to be
either a troll
or a haiku.
I'm getting really pissed off with moderators
My friend tried to short LNUX the day it opened, and on paper he made a bunch of money. E*Trade emailed him and told him this was not permissible and his paper gain was void.
whether this is an e*trade issue or an SEC issue, I dunno, but I can't imagine the SEC would allow this sort of thing.