Slashdot Mirror
MandrakeSoft Going Public In France July 30
LiteForce writes: "MandrakeSoft are going public on July 30th on the European Stock Exchange. U.S. residents are not currently eligible to take part (only French residents are permitted). You can read the scoop on MandrakeSoft's site here." This is the IPO (then in progress) mentioned here shortly ago, but now they have the go-ahead; there's also an exchange on Mandrake's discussion forum. Congratulations over there!
Anyone other than me a little confused at the regulations that require this webpage not to be distributed or viewed in the US? If France can put a tiny disclaimer on a webpage that demands that noone in the US read the remainder of the site, and that somehow fullfils some legal responsibility, why can't Yahoo do exactly the same with their Nazi oriented auctions and whatever else France deems worthy of filing an international lawsuit over? Stupid frogs.
When IPOs go to the nouveau marche or second marche, for which you have more conditions to fulfill, and where most mid and small caps go, anyone can subscribe.
Anyone know what the legalise is? Appearently Canadians, Americans, Austrillians, and a few other cannot invest in this.
Now I can understand their IPO might not be legal in those countries, and I can understand that they might have decided not to allocate pre-IPO stock to anyone from those countries. I'm fairly sure however that once they IPO there is nothing to prevent people from those countries from investing in the stock if they want to.
Still, it is fairly easy to agree that you are not a US citician and get the information, such as it is. (not much)
So is there a french law in effect here?
We got the statue in 1886, which if math still works, was well before two wars.
:)
So either our help in the wars was a thank you for it, or they still owe us
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
If they really did intend that only French residents should read the information, as the legalese states, do you really think they'd bother putting up a copy in English?
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Well, after they go public you'll be able to find out what their financial status is, instead of using rumors. My impression was that they were trying to get profitable quickly. Now I think I know why.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Well, to many of us it appearently doesn't matter anyway, so humor is, perhaps, the best approach.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Now go away, or I will rm -rf / you a second time.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
True, but Gen. Pershing, upon arriving in France to help them out in the War to End All Wars, declared something along the lines of, 'Lafayette, we have come to repay our debt!' I can't remember the exact phrasing, but the gist was that he was expressing his gratitude to Lafayette and the French for their help in the American Revolution.
I always make a point of differentiating between the French of the 1770s and the French of the 1930s when making retreat&surrender jokes. There is a French officer, Baron DeKalb, buried in the churchyard of the church I went to as a kid. He was killed at the Battle of Camden (where Cornwalis was headquartered for most of the war), and the main drag where US1 goes through town, is named DeKalb street. One of the main town parks is Lafayette Square.
Some Americans know our history.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Pardon my historical failings, but weren't you guys already fighting the Brits when the (American) war of 1812 broke out? I thought the whole war started over the British impressing American sailors into their navy to fight Napolean and the French. France is defeated in 1814, before the war in the New World is over, with Napolean exiled to Elba. And the war ended in 1815, roughly contemporaneously with the return of Napolean and his subsequent defeat at Waterloo. I'm not denying that there may have been French help in the war (I don't know of it, but its possible), but it would certainly have been more as a part of your own pre-existing war.
Protectionism was rampant throughout the Western world in the 19th century, and the American South was opposed to it, to the point where South Carolina drew up articles of nullification, nullifying two federal tarrif acts, in the 1840s prompting President Jackson to draw up articles of force authorizing the use of the US Army to prevent South Carolina from ceceding from the Union. This is 15 years before the start of the civil war. After the civil war the political power of the south is of course almost nil, and the protectionism by the industrialists of the north goes unchallenged for most of the rest of the century.
Much of my fact checking and timeline checking was done using The History Channel's website, with the remainder being filled in from my high school and college history courses over a decade ago, so there may be mistakes and distortions here.
if ($it != $onething) {$it = $another;}
Yes - the French helped the colonists - quite a bit actually. Not because they believed in freedom or that there should be no king - since it was king Louis XVI offering the help - but simply because the king hated the British... his grandfather having lost the Seven Years War and most of their foreign possessions he was pissed off. By helping the colonists he was having his army fight a proxy war -- trying to indirectly get back at those who had beaten them. And it gets worse -- if it weren't for the vengfulness a French king, the Americans may not have won their freedom and inspired the French citizens to oust that very same king (and execute him). Funny how things turn out.
Don't whine about how this guarantees the destruction of Mandrakesoft.
BUY SOME MANDRAKESOFT STOCK!!
Get your own voice in the company and be heard. The company goes the way the stockholders say, and if the stockholders say "go for the long term," then they'll go for the long term.
The problem is with the stock holders and their new "more more more now now now" approach. If you think you'd be better, then buy your way into mandrakesoft BEFORE they do.
Not everyone who would like to has that option. I don't understand why this is. Why would even an,at best, socialist democracy-like country such as France want to inhibit the growth of their companies? Or perhaps they are trying to protect them from a relentless US market... Or perhaps Mandrake made this decision all by themselves? Don't know...
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
After all, softie probably has a copyright on the word "soft".
U.S. residents are not currently eligible to take part (only French residents are permitted).
that is odd, although i am not doubting it, but i got an email from Mandrakesoft asking me to fill out an html form for my personal information as i was a "Community Member/Contributor" (i am a credited linux kernel contributor).
i assumed this was for IPO (or other stock) access, but the CREDITS file clearly lists me as a US resident -- so, if the stock is French-only, why did they bother? i questioned originally why i received the notice because i assumed the stock would be in a french market and thus off-limits to me.
perhaps there are some other benefits? did anyone else receive the email? i was not planning taking advantage of the offer, but it was interesting nonetheless.
-- Robert
I think a lot of the bitterness arises from how quickly France fell to Germany; the maginot line was specifically designed to resist any sort of German attack, and the French army at the time was considered more than a match for Germany, yet they still crumbled in a few hours. Of course the Brits didn't exactly cover themselves with glory in the early part of the war, either.
--
Actually, I read somewhere that French tanks of the time were superior to the German ones, though admittedly the German tactics were pretty effective against an enemy used to trench warfare.
--
> I'm not denying that there may have been French
:-) ?
> help in the war (I don't know of it, but its
> possible)
Does "marquis de Lafayette" sound familiar to you
Actually the French had quite modern weapons and could have used modern tactics too: De Gaulle, among others, had advocated them, but had not been taken seriously.
The Maginot line made more sense than it is thought today. Many people think that it was designed to stop the Germans, which is not the case: it was designed to make sure that the Germans would have to go around (via the North and a more difficult natural environment), so that the French would know where to wait for them. Indeed, they did go around, but not exactly where expected, and the French did not stop them anyway.
To me, the key mistake in French's strategy has been to send large, mediocre, non-professional troops, while the Germans had sent small, elite, highly professional units. Sending professional units was the right strategy because neither the German nor the French populace were motivated and willing to fight: the memories of WWI (read: by far the most horrible butchery in the history of the world) were fresh.
On a side note, this kind of situation is typical of a fight between a democratic country and a despotic country; the first battles, as Tocqueville predicted, are always lost by the democratic country. And then the democratic country can win if the conflict lasts. But, well, because the memories of WWI were too fresh, almost nobody in France wanted the conflict to last: peace was all what mattered, whatever the cost.
The elements of the Versailles treaty which specifically originated from the French were the huge amounts of reparations. Otherwise, you're right, the rest of the treaty was the work of the allies. It is taught in French schools that the Versailles treaty was considered as an excessively harsh "diktat" by the Germans, and this, in part, fueled German frustration and Hitler's rise. That is correct, but I really think that the Versailles treaty was just a medium among others for Hitler's rise, which would have happened anyway. The point on which I disagreed with the poster above was not the fact that the Versailles treaty fueled, in the long run, Hitler's rise, but that, more specifically, the amount of reparations did: the impact of the reparations was really strong no later than 10 years before Hitler seized power. It is reasonable to consider that the two things are only very loosely connected.
Otherwise, on the respective responsibilities for WWI... you're right of course, that all the belligerents have a significant share of responsibility. Still, the Austrian empire and Russia are more responsible than others. For years, there had been numerous Balkan crises in which the Austrian empire was involved, and the Austrian empire (and to, a lesser extent, the Ottoman empire and Russia) was for a large part responsible for the constant instabilities in this area.
When the Austrian empire declared war on Serbia, this crisis looked no different than the previous ones. But this is where Russia plays a key role: in the name of "Slavic solidarity" with Serbia, it declared war to the Austrian Empire without consulting its British and French allies. Then, because of the two alliance systems which had been put in place, the generalized war becomes unavoidable: Germany has to declare war to Russia, and in turn France and Britain have to declare war to Germany.
So, to put it short: the Austrian Empire was the main responsible for the constant regional instability, and Russia pulled the trigger that transformed this instability into WWI.
On your aside #2: I disagree that the Versailles treaty (which specified the amount of German reparations) is what led Hitler to power. It's a myth popular among francophobic, but it's just a myth.
Granted, the Versailles treaty is for a large part responsible for the collapse of the German economy and the hyperinflation of the early 20s. But these problems were basically solved in 1923-1924. Hitler came to power ten years later, and would have come to power anyway, with or without a Versailles treaty. Germany had been on an "experimental" mood for 130 years (i.e. since Fichte's speeches on the German nation) on how far it could push the idea of "one people, one nation" (and later "one people, one race, one nation"), and HAD TO, at some point, try an extreme experience.
The French behavior in 1919 is indeed shameful and revenge-inspired; Germany was not the real responsible for WWI; the Austrian empire and Russia were. But the Austrian empire had been destroyed, and the Communist Russia of 1918 was not the Tsarist Russia of 1914; Germany was the only one left, and somebody had to pay... The French behavior in the 30s, after Hitler seized power is also pathetic. Not to mention the absolute incompetence of its military leadership in 1940. But, still, the French cannot be considered responsible for the election of Hitler. The Germans were deeply antisemitic, even more than the rest of Europe (France included), obsessed with their vision of "one nation, one people, one race, one culture" and were doomed to put Hitler's vision in practice one way or another.
Otherwise, I do think that the USSR would have crushed nazi Germany even without the USA. But that's exactly the reason why I'm even more grateful to Americans to have invaded Normandy: at the end of the day, the US did not really save my country from Hitler, but it saved my country from Stalin. Hitler would not have lasted for long anyway, but the USSR did. Had France been part of the Soviet block, its "decline" and sufferings would have been much, much worse than what it endured during WWII.
Only residents of France, eh?
Hank Scorpio (getting ready to target the big laser): "By the way, Homer, what's your least favorite country, Italy or France?"
Homer: "France."
Scorpio: "Hah hah. Nobody ever says Italy."
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
When you look at the balance sheet it looks pretty even to me. I think the Normandy invasion and freeing the whole country should balance one big statue and a century or two of protectionism. They don't call it the longest day for nothing. Especially considering that we could have skipped the entire invasion and just waited until we had enough nukes and B36s to turn Germany into a waste land.
And if that doesn't balance things then trying to help France reclaim its empire in southeast asia certainly does.
So why don't we just call it even and get on with finding new reasons to hate each other? Honestly, I've never understood why we Americans love the British and hate the French it should be the other way around. (See what I said about Americans and rationality.)
StoneWolf
Please read
For legal reasons, the information contained in this site is exclusively aimed at, on the one hand, interested persons residing in France and, on the other hand, at interested non-US, Japanese, Australian and Canadian based institutional investors, nor at any institutional investors head quartered in any of the territories, possessions, protectorates under these countries' jurisdiction. If you do not reside in France, or if you are a "US Person" (as defined under Regulation S of the Securities Act 1933 of the USA, as modified) wherever you reside, you should not access this site's content. This Web site as well as all information contained therein must not be published nor distributed in the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan, nor distributed to any "US Person".
Thank you for your understanding.
Nobox: Only simple products.
... like earning money thanks to programmers who give their code to the public because they believe in that?
... like backstabbing people who just do something for the community?
... like selling something that is supposed to be free?
V
The temptation was there and the will wasn't strong. So I looked (everyone say a quick prayer for the soul of MSBob) and I saw it all bare naked:
688,480 shares @ 6.2 euro/share.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
you mother was a red hat and your father smelled of debian
Ha! After the disaster with the Maginot Line, do you really think I'll use their distribution for my firewall!?
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
So I can't buy in on this IPO on the Euro Stock Exchange eh? Well good, I don't have any monopoly money left anyway...
And I fart in your general direction!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
Going public, to be at the mercy of idiot investors... Something's odd here.
Screw 3...
2)They fired all their American staff, a couple months back...
I'm sure there's a connection here, but I'm just too thick to see it.
On the other hand, I had no problem paying for the boxed distro as long as I felt the money was actually going to the programmers and organization supporting them. I had even pondered buying a few shares for the same reason. Now, I'm more ambivalent. I -- get this: -- feel somewhat singled out because of my nationality.
Maybe it's time to move along to Debian after all...
This is not great news.
Although some folks might (and just might) be able to collect on their options, for the rest of us this is bad news.
Why?
1. Loss of control
This business is currently run by a close-knit team. This is sure to change radically when the bottom line becomes short-term profitability, and when the long-term vision is dropped.
2. Technology Dilution
Technology moves quickly. But in order to keep shareholders happy, it will make sense not to compete head-to-head with the bigger guns such as RedHat.
In addition, partnerships will become more important. These days, partnerships are all about leveraging each other's monopolies. This is a naturally closed world.
So this isn't good stuff folks. SUre, it's great fun for the 17 people who'll be able to retire, but it isn't necessarily good for the industry or the users.