More On Linuxcare Business Shuffle

syrah_shiraz writes: "This article from G2 News gives very in-depth information on why Fernand Sarrat left Linuxcare and future prospects for Linuxcare and its plans to IPO. Definitely the first interview I've seen with Fernand Sarrat since he officially resigned. Apparently the problems weren't really financial after all--the article alludes to a number of different reasons for his departure. (Even 'sexual indiscretion'?) " Check out our original story on this.

Comments

bibles?

[redmist]

"He said on a ?stack of bibles? that?s the ?arrangement? he and the board came to."
I'd rather he swear on Programming Perl.

.{redmist}.
-------------------------------------------------

Develop and then support open source

[tmu]

I know lot's of people are nervous about Linuxcare. The have a mixed reputation of employing open source in their own shop and have often seemed more hype than substance. I, for one, question the business model of being able to provide high quality support services for Linux, Apache, PHP, Perl, etc. without actively participating in the development of the technologies.

Other people clearly do, too (including at Linuxcare). That's why Redhat employs kernel developers. That's why Linuxcare have hired Andrew Tridgell and Rasmus Lerdorf and other developers of open source projects.

They have a fantastic idea for how to do this stuff (execution is a different story): hire good developers, project managers, trainers and techical writers; get them to produce new products using open source technologies; give the products away (open source, remember?); sell support. This model is a good one and can work, but in order to work, Linuxcare needs the credibility of several high-profile, really useful open source projects. I have heard about one or two failed projects so far, but haven't seen anything concrete yet.

I wish them well but It's wait-and-see for now.

Re:This is going to take a leap of faith by the VC

[Bruce Perens]

I was thinking of Art Tyde and Dave Sifry, but I hear there are some additional people there, with whom I have not become acquainted, who have the Linux background and management experience necessary. It won't be easy for them, but I think it's the only way to get the company to actually work.

Would we not really want a Windows person in charge of a company that makes a Windows product? Linux has so different a paradigm in the way we do business that it's important, I suppose that is less of an issue for Windows, but I am a big fan of getting a manager who is clued in technically, as well as having the business and human skills necessary to be a good manager.

Thanks

Bruce

This is going to take a leap of faith by the VCs.

[Bruce Perens]

Ignore the smoke and mirrors.

We're seeing a lot of smoke and mirrors, aren't we?

The problem is that they needed management with reputations to match their tremendous funding. Because of the "let's be huge right away" mentality, the people who actually knew how to run a Linux business weren't allowed to do so. They probably didn't even trust themselves to do so, and that blinded them to the fact that the usual way of doing IT business just isn't going to work for Linux. The people who know how most likely won't be allowed to run the company now. And the business is going to fail, I have no doubt, if that's what happens.

The only chance is a real leap of faith by the VCs, and I fear they are too large for that. Put the Linux people in charge.

Thanks

Bruce