Slashdot Mirror
Great Bridge Out; Caldera in Trouble
tim_maroney writes: "CNET's news.com gives us a pair of open source disaster movies today. Great Bridge, an open source database maker which refused a bid from Red Hat earlier this year, will lay off 38 of 41 employees and close its doors. Caldera, a seller of Linux and UNIX versions, announced layoffs, plummeting revenues, and a reverse stock split intended to allow it to be relisted. Not a happy day for fans of open source business models."
Alternatively this could be seen as a good indicator that companies involvement in open source has to be all or nothing. Look at all the Linux companies around; how come Caldera's doing worst out of everybody, and they're the most-proprietary ones?
On a different note, what happens to SCO Unix once Caldera dies?
T-shirt sales can't pay developer's salaries?!?
</sarcasm>
You don't make money on stuff you give away for free. Has anyone figured that out yet? You can make money on SERVICES for people who accept a free gift from you. You used to be able to make some money on hardware attached to free software.
What part of $0 doesn't anyone understand?
You're supposed to be entertaining me for free, remember?!?
"Open Source Business Models"
Not flamebait, it's a joke.
..but I think open-source software companies have a place, just not in a world with closed-source software companies. Of course, for those that mix the two there might be a way to make it work, but developers have to eat too.
I wonder if O'Reilly (www.ora.com) had a software arm, how well it would do.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
Who's ever bothered to try Caldera?
VA Linux is also going through tough times. I don't suspect that they'll last much longer with the kind of mass they have. It must be expensive to support ALL of OSDN plus try to run a business.
Its too bad they are hurting so badly, they had some cool Unix stuff at Linuxworld.
/linux and operates out of there. The Unix kernel implements the Linux syscalls itself, so under high loads it ends up performing alot better than native Linux, or at least, thats what their graphs showed.
At their floor area, they had one of the lead programmers of their Unix project there to give us a demonstration of their modified Unix kernel.
Basically, they added Linux syscall support to their Unix kernel. Whenever a Linux binary is loaded, it is automatically chrooted to
The thing that is the worst about all of these companies hurting financially is that some genuinely cool tech is lost when they go bust.
Look at Caldera's third quarter results on Businesswire here. They're blaming it on the aquistion of
Tarantella. Also here is the official press release on the third quarter results.
for Taco to take his rightful place beinhd the counter and start serving up fries.
VA is next Taco, and you go with it. You and all of your psuedointellectual, hypocrite (censoring) bastard friends are going to have to get a real job and quit playing computer all day.
When are you going to get fitted for the paper hat?
These guys are victums of the "dot-com revolution". If they had quality products, and quality sales staff they would still be around.
-teknopurge
http://techienews.utropicmedia.com help us beta!!
Website Hosting
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Has anyone else noticed that *ALL* business models are affected, not just the open source??? The O/S model is really just starting out, consider that when you compare them to hp or compaq or whoever. You'll see that they are holding their own. Which is amazing considering how radical the O/S model is compared to the closed source model (not so much caldera, their kinda like a leech). The WHOLE ECONOMY is in a "downturn" not just this "crazy" market..... geezz... /. has become the MTV of the geek world....
Open Source is not a business model. You can tell, because Open Source includes no realistic methods of making a profit. The goal of business is profit. Open Source cannot profit. Therefore, Open Source is not a business model.
What OS is, is a software development model that has been overhyped and overused. It is not a particularly good software development model, and it owes it's success not to a proven record of stable software, but to one or two well-written pieces of code and a lot of misplaced self-righteousness about "community".
Open Source development has proven time and time again, even in it's most successsful project, that it cannot provide sound design. The design stage of a major piece of software is the most crucial, and should not be neglected. In Open Source, it is not only neglected, it is almost completely ignored, so everyone can get to the coding. Just look at the linux kernel!
Unlike serious software development models, such as the boehm spiral model, open source does not provide a methodology for deisgn, programming, testing and debugging. In fact, testing in the Open Source model is done by releasing your code and waiting for it to break for lots of people. This is another reason why Open Source is not a business model. No serious business model includes the willingness to release incomplete products.
Open Source is a fairy story. Open Source is a naive dream of a few aging nerds. Open Source is a failing software development method. Open Source is not a business model.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
Not a happy day for fans of open source business models
Well, that's because there isn't much of a business model behind open source. It is a fascinating grass-roots movement but the timing for it as a sound business strategy is definitely off right now.
Open source will continue to flourish in the realms of academia and those who are not after material wealth but start up ventures like the above will continue to bleed.
Sorry.
--
$ chown -R us:us yourbase
Now that it's been mentioned on Slashdot, at least 3 of my friends will be out of work.
Great Bridge just never really existed. Just as the company was formed the bottom fell out of the tech market. Add to that the virtual commodity status developing in the low-end database maket. In a way it was a company without a soul. Successfull Linux startups seem to grow from a core of true believers. Most of the startups we see flopping out now never really had that. Companies like RedHat, KDE and VA will continue because of these people. Pofits are great, making money is great, but in the end the people behind these companies will continue doing what they are doing because they love what they do.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
don't have "business models". They just burn through other people's cash until they run out.
shouldn't that be "Linux Sux0rz?"
Will they just sit around and keep getting paid due to some accounting glitch, or what?
(although, I'm guessing they'll work for the parent company...)
Say hello to zMac.
What's mySQL AB doing right that others are missing? I may be mistaken here, but it would appear that mySQL (and some others) have thus far weathered our current economical storms fairly well.
Anyone have any idea what's inherently different about mySQL's business model? Or is it simply that they've got the advantage of public opinion already on their side?
Not a happy day for moronic business decisions is more like it. To refuse an offer from redhat in the climate we had 6 months ago, and could expect for some years to come, was stupid. For Caldera to shit on Open Source, which was their only gravy train was equally stupid. Let them both rest in peace.
Fucking slackbait.
Jet engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney learned long ago: sell your engines at a loss. The real money is in service.
At the time, IBM happened to be piloting System R (precursor to DB2) at Pratt & Whitney. And they learned there: Virtually give away the software, and make money on your services. And that's why IBM global services is such a powerful consulting force today. Global Services is the real profit arm of IBM.
But IBM ain't dumb. Of course, IBM global services prefers IBM products, but they'll support Solaris and Linux and VB apps too.
And that's the rub. Most Open Source-centric companies don't have deep pockets, but only support a narrow field of Open Source software.
The fact is guys, it's hard to support 50 new employees on a brand new, growing marketplace. It would be wiser to support existing commercial products while pushing your own [open source] agenda. Heck, that's the successful IBM GS model (sans the Open Source bit).
Grow up guys, get off your high horse and step into the real world. You can't start a company hoping that all your customers will knock on your door supporting your agenda. But you can can fight for your utopian dream by FIRST supporting your customers, and only SECONDLY by showing your customers why your ideals are best for THEM.
should form with the best representative developers from each distro.
Yes, a linux monopoly, while preserving open source philosophy and various linux flavors.
-advantages: fanatically dedicated, growing market for free software
-encourages cross-fertilization of ideas between distros
-unified, centralized tech support
-less duplicated efforts in development and support
-coherent business model can be developed when there are fewer competing models of Linux
-larger company with pooled capital (if there is any) viewed more favorably by market
Stop trying to compete with microsoft! There are constituencies which cannot and will not use Bill's software for their computing needs. These people will continue to use linux and ancillary services and the less overhead involved the better for a company dealing with a finite market.
Goat sex free since 2001
I never liked Caldera, and don't really care that they are gone. They were half-hearted about Free Software / Open Source and I could never understand why they stayed around.
Great Bridge on the other hand is probably a real loss. They stood for the Service & Support business model. I shed a tear.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Go figure. Everyone wants Open source/Free stuff and now the whole world financial ecomony is suffering. Telcos offering cheap DSL causing ISPs to close doors, Open source promises of the freer land but end up closing doors and leaving customers in the dark, companies offering free stuff for people and expect the people to click their banners for "alternate" source of income...
I say, to hell with freebies and time to charge a decent price for everything. Atleast, the financial market might recover from all the freebie offerings out there.
*Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
"Open source business model" is an oxymoron, people.
so they're laying off 38 of 41 staff and closing the doors? someday, open source archaeologists will reopen those doors and find their three skeletons surrounded by mountain dew cans . . .
go get it
Well I certainly hope this doesn't mean that PostgreSQL is in any danger. It's a great piece of code.
Anyone know how many, if any, of the development team were employed by Great Bridge?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I guess the 3 remaining employees will work 'behind closed doors'? hmm... wonder what they're up to?
This isn't quite accurate. I believe Open Source models can work in a few business scenarios (not in the current give away software and make it up on services one though) interestingly all of them involve making sure your company is not the sole company bearing the weight of development.
On the other hand, the current practice of paying developers to work on a product that you either do not sell or sell for peanuts then hoping to make it up in services, which require additional costs, means that your services will have to be over priced to make up (guess that's why the RedHat DB is $3,000) for the fact that you gave away the software that you spent money developing.
Then "switch" to the Red Hat Database, after all it is PostgreSQL 7.1...
I'm going to make 2 assertions:
1 - In order to get paid for something you have to be able to withhold whatever is that's being paid for. You can't say, "I'll give this to you for $100 or for $0 and expect many people to pay you.
2 - Businesses require money to survive. Duh...
This makes Open Source Business Model seem a little stupid. I know that there are companies doing well out there in the Open Source arena but they are not selling software! This is where the distrobution companies seem to get trapped. They have to put together a great distribution which is expensive but they really have to sell services which are expensive. Most of them suck at the service part ie. tech support, update services, etc which is the only place they can really make money. Caldera thought they got the idea when they changed their licensing but they are trying to sell something that anybody can get for free or so it seems.
The bottom line is all important to a company. I suspect that all of the distros will die except one or two within the next 18 months. The few remaining will either have some great support or update service that will drive the business or they will be supported by the likes of IBM in the pursuit of hardware sales (never free like beer). Debian of course is mostly imune to all of this which is the beauty of it really.
To the best of my knowledge, Caldera's business model isn't really an "Open Source" model in the sense that, e.g., Red Hat's is. Red Hat makes money by giving away software and selling services. Caldera tries to make money by giving away free software (Linux) and selling proprietary stuff along with it.
Remember that Caldera CEO Ransom Love publicly said that he agrees with Craig Mundie's statement that "Open Source is bad for business". That's because even though they give away Linux, at the end of the day they still make their money by selling proprietery software, just like Microsoft.
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Does anyone remember when this Microsoft investigation started? There were two probes conducted by the DoJ and the FTC. The FTC voted unanimously that Microsoft was completely innocent of all accusations. The DoJ, however, was instructed by President Clinton to continue the lawsuit. So is anyone bothered by the fact that the politically independant FTC found Microsoft innocent but the Democratic-influenced DoJ decided to continue the investigation anyway?
Package: tuxracer
Priority: optional
Section: games
Installed-Size: 980
Maintainer: Oliver M. Bolzer
Architecture: i386
Version: 0.61-4
Depends: tuxracer-data (>= 0.61-1), libc6 (>= 2.2.3-1), libgl1, libsdl-mixer1.2
(>=1.2.0), libsdl1.2, libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, tcl8.3 (>= 8.3.2), xlibs (>> 4.0.3)
Filename: pool/main/t/tuxracer/tuxracer_0.61-4_i386.deb
Size: 503874
MD5sum: 82e5f8885e158b3dfaad7f2273f600b3
Description: 3D racing game featuring Tux, the Linux penguin
Tux Racer is a simple OpenGL-based racing game featuring Tux, the
Linux Penguin. The object of the game is to slide down a snow- and
ice-covered mountain as quickly as possible, avoiding the trees and rocks
that will slow you down.
I'm really not surprised that Caldera went out of business. I remember that I first learned linux using a Caldera distribution. I liked the distro, but installing new software was a pain because the libraries weren't in the standard places. Once I toured Caldera's office and I remember the tour guide saying something to the effect of "I know we have a lot of library problems, hehehehe" like it was no big deal. Any company with that attitude was doomed to go under. After I heard that, I switched to another distro.
This has nothing to do with open source. Open source can make money, but you can't make money buy selling support and not selling your product.
Let's look at PostgreSQL.
PostgreSQL was free. How can that make any money. I've done a lot of research into PostgresSQL and to be a postgres DBA you'd have to be a pretty advanced computer user. And as one I take pride in the fact that I don't need support. Postgres DBA's are not the type to call for help. This goes for most things. Of course Red hat could make money because everyone needs an OS, even my mom.
Postgres is a great product and is worth money. It should really just limit the number of transactions or connections in a given time frame for the free version. If your a not for proffit you can apply for a free license. Otherwise you got to pay 500 or a 1000 per processor. Even that would be way cheaper then MS SQL or Oracle and they could actually make money.
Companies like the stability and everthing else that comes with opensource. They don't mind paying money either. They do mind when a company they depend on goes out of business, and microsoft ain't going anywhere. With open source shops dropping like flies is it any wonder that companies are shying away a little.
Of course someone is going to say what about all those guys that submit patches. Well just track them and give them a small amount per code. Maybe even set up a small contract per each part of the system. I mean if you submit a large piece of code for an important part you should make more then a simple gui operation.
Oh hell, how freaky would that be? Like incest me thinks...
I do not think anything I have written constitutes hypocrisy. You may have some silly and self-serving ideas about how commercial software is made. I can see that these are most likely based on hearsay from the likewise inexperienced geek community.
My experience of commercial software development is that it is done according to certain proven methods, which generally result in stable, working software, that the target market can use.
I do not think it hypocritical to point out that the opposite is true of Open Source projects. You simply cannot do decent software design over a network yet. Teleconferencing is bringing us closer to that possibility, but it will be years before it is ready, and many Open Source developers are dirt poor from giving all their code away for free and investing in companies that used the Open Source "model". Hence they cannot afford broadband.
You can either listen to my experience, and assess the truth of my words from an unbiased perspective, or you can continue following the slashdot herd, because it's the only contact you have with the software world, therefore it's all you know. If you take the time to see thhat what I say is true, you'll thank me for it. If you don't, you'll regret it in a few years, when you do eventually wake up to yourself.
Petty namecalling is no way to make a serious point. Please think harder next time you decide to call someone a hypocrite.
Denial isn't just a river in Italy
I am not sure how "Open" Great Bridge was/is - something is telling me that they weren't Free (aka GPL).
If they were, no one would or should care - because the software could continue on - which is the ONE thing that makes the GPL truely shine: no more worries about losing support on a product (at least if you can continue to roll-it on your own).
Looking at their dev site (www.greatbridge.org) - it seems like they didn't do the GPL thing...
Anybody know more?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Not a happy day for fans of open source business models
What? Caldera buying SCO was the biggest bone head move of all time - they bought the least-likely-to-survive Unix on the planet when faced against Linux. I understand some of the motivation was for their distributors, sales channels and support/tech but really, SCO was a pile of bricks. Bad Move.
On top of it all, Caldera, under the lead of Ransom Love, has got to be the least amiable of the Linux Companies - he has said some *very* stupid things and really dosnt *get* what GNU/Linux will do to the software world... frankly, im glad to see the "Caldera Company" go. On the other hand, i do feel some pain for their employees - best of luck to the *people* involved.
Have you ever browsed through news stories over the past year and heard about dot-bomb.com laying off 50, 100, 200, 500 people and wondered to yourself "how in the world did they employ that many to begin with???" There are many examples of potential successes that were hampered by overspending and poor planning. I have no idea if /. is making any money, but I'll bet that if they hadn't been bought, that the minimal staff could have done quite well. Giving away software and selling service can work fine if you don't staff up before having customers.
I run http://www.freesql.org:27960 to give database newbies a place to play for free, I do it on a shoestring. Obviously if I hired staff I couln't survive.
I hate to say it but perhaps what the tech world needs is a few more MBA's
SuperID
Microsoft took three years to get IE to the level it's at now. They spent over 100 million (as per some old stories, don't have anything to backthis up with). How did they ever expect to get a stable client base in such a short time.
It takes 5 years to get a business started. Establish a reputation. Establish a client base. It's not easy, the only people who claim it's easy are those who are looking for VC funding. It requires hard work, marketing, money, and most of all satifying your clients.
So let's learn from this and buget, plan, and learn from these failures because one day in the not so distant futur we will have successfull Open Source Service providers.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Looks like Red Hat does it again. "Join us with these abusive terms, or we will crush you".
And, alas, the Great Bridge is crushed.
There is no such thing as an "open source business model". Open source does not make money, support does (sometimes). The only reason RedHat is making any money is because some time ago they took advantage of their hype-inflated stockprice to buy a profitable company (Cygnus).
From what I saw at the expo Caldera had a really kick ass product. They're webmin tool is way kewl too. They need to seriously lobby for money, I think it is well worth the effort to keep them around
Just an everyday guy....nothing special
So, because you and a bunch of other guys with strong and obviously uninformed opinions doesn't like Caldera for some totally contrieved reason, they should go? Is it Caldera that sued Sklyarov? Is Caldera the one who has monopoly power over desktops or browsers? Is Caldera one of the companies that lobbied for the DMCA?
And why is that you pleople consistently forget all the stuff Caldera engineers have, indeed, contributed to the OSS community?
I think it would be fair if someone from the competition (RedHat, SuSe) set the record straight on this issue, because they know very well how much did Caldera engineers release under the GPL, and is now included both in the Linux kernel and in the userland.
Sigged!
If Linux wants to make money, I recommend they follow a model that works...AOL!
Now before you laugh, consider it. Wouldn't it be nice for the basic user to have all that free software just installed and updated on their system once it comes out, appearing as a shiny little KDE icon, just as easy as an AOL update? Offering options of what they can download?
All you'd need to do is to make a distro with a daemon that connects to a "Linux service provider" to get updates once they connect to the net, then manages the installs for the user through idiot proof wizards. They'd never have to touch a command prompt, It would all be placed on their desktop automatically.
The best part is, you could CHARGE for the service, and start spamming the world with Linux CDs that offer the "first two months" free. Now THERE'S a business model!!! ; )
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Remember the old adage "give away the razor and sell the blades?" It works great for hardware, and it seems to make sense for software.
But common practice in the Open Source world is different. Here, they give away the razor, flame anyone who sells blades, and wonder why no one's paying them for the privilege of being a barber.
Okay, rant off...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm not naive enough to think that IBM's in open source for the good of the community. On the contrary, IBM simply wants to make life easier for themselves; it takes a much smaller team of people to adapt open-source software to a mainframe than to write entirely new software. Thereby saving IBM time and money, thereby making them a market leader.
Ok, lessee here, an OS database company that few people have heard of and a company that many of us have heard of but have been taking a very self-destructive path over the past couple of years (if you don't know what I'm talking about, do a search for Caldera in the
How, exactly, does this spell bad times for open source business models?
I'd submit the fact that most of the companies that have been fucked over the past year or so were not actually open source companies.
This has everything to do with bad management and worse decisions. Even before the downturn, only 1 in 10 new companies survived their first year.
The linux "business" is not really a great one in my opinion. I love linux, but I just don't think it will ever be a really amazing "for pay" product by itself. Now selling IBM-PC clones with Linux on them, or just giving the customer an option between Windows and Linux is a really good idea I think.. you can make money that way off the hardware for sure. I know someone is going to bring up the subject "PC clones! How about a wristwatch!". Sure.. wristwatches too.. toasters, televisions... whatever works. :)
Caldera, you might remember, was funded by the great Ray Noorda, founder of Novell. The plan was to use Linux and, later on, what was left of DR-DOS, to crush Noorda's great white whale, Microsoft. They got a legal settlement on DOS, but it didn't do them any good.
Caldera employs Jamie Cameron, the lead developer of Webmin (http://www.webmin.com); though it now seems to be "sponsored" by MSCLinux (http://www.msclinux.com/) ever heard of them?
Were that I say, pancakes?
"Not a good day for Open Source Business Models"
Let's start to distinguish open source business models.
What doesn't work: a OS few hackers start-up a company with a vague plan to write great OS software and then "somehow" convert this software this into a revenue stream. Many folks claim they will "support software", but software support is a *tough business* that requires mucho consulting experience and back-office experience, not great hacker's chops.
What does work : the most successful Linux company today: IBM. They know how to consult and suppport, it has always been their strength. These aren't hackers teaching themselves the support business, these guys could teach anyone about support.
IBM says they are spending 1 billion dollars on Linux. Why? Because *they* can make money supporting Linux. They can understand the source code and therefore offer better support. They can change it if they need to (Linux on a mainframe, Linux on e-server, whatever.)
One profitable OS business model is to add open source to an already existing and profitable computer support business. I am not sure if there is any other.
Note the similarity to e-commerce: many surviving e-commerce sites are owned by older catalogue or brick-and-mortar stores. Why -- because these are the folks who understand *retail*.
Everyone knows real software companies use coffee cups for promotion.
Xix.
--
"My boss built an RDBMS company and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
You know, with all these horrible, commercialized Fragmented Linux Distro Companies going out of business, it's now that I thank God we don't use any of them in any corporate environment. Imaging R00tHat, oops, I mean RedHate.. er.. RedHacked.. omfg, RedHat! (Must be from look at their coding skillz that I got all these typos from).
As I was saying... Imaging using something as crappy and amateur'ish as RedHat, SuSe, Caldera, etc.. (we won't even talk about Caldera'a new licensing model, *cough* like M$ *cough* licening their linux distro, ROFL! What a F'N JOKE!) anyways... now say the company goes down under like 99% of all other Linux companies with the *restrictions* of GNU/GPL. What would happen to those companies using say RH, and now that they're gone? Oh damn! I can see it now:
Oh Damn! We can't upgrade anymore, we're stuck on RH 35.2. Damn, after all these years, what were we thinking? We should have gone with FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD or Slackware... Debian, pffft... Projeny... Commercial garbage too. Now we're screwed from yet another 'commercialized' fragmented Linux distro crap that defeats the whole original purpose of Linux...
Oh kewl! I can download a 'DEMO' of RedHat, and Suse/Caldera? Turbo Linux, hell no! They want it all to themselves!
Caldera didn't get it.
1 /1 925241
:-)"
Microsoft and their anti-open flunkies posting here don't get it either.
These companies are the future for very clear reasons.
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/2
As far as the business problems these companies are having are concerned, have you seen the NASDAQ index lately? EVERYBODY is getting hammered, not just Open Source Business.
Just my two bits.
"from an open source developer that's doing quite well, thank you
So who would be your OS dream team?
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Would you believe he almost won the presidency?
Bob Abooey to you all!
Nice to see you're back, old sport. We were wondering what became of you.
-sting3r and the goatse crew
As long as Linux is the haven of geeks and hackers who LIKE sorting out hard problems by themselves Linux support will be a hard business to sell. That doesn't mean you can't, you just have to be very good at selling support (IBM, or maybe Red Hat).
That doesn't mean it will ALWAYS be a hard businbess to sell - Linux support will get easier to sell the easier Linux is to use. That's because the easier Linux is to use, the more idiot Linux users you'll have to sell to.
In a couple of years, after all the more minor players have been choked, as Linux starts to grow a little, support will start becoming a growing industry, not a dying one.
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
It is not clear if VALinux or even RedHat will survive the carnage that is going on Wall St. and in the US economy. It is only arguable that Caldera made mistake buying SCO, because doing business is taking risks and so buying SCO was not so much mistake but it turned out that it happened during the economy's downfall. And downfall it is, for some companies it is a free fall. Even stronger firms are laying off people left and right. If this continues RedHat's stock value will plummet further (it is ~$3.08 today), if it goes under $1.00, what is happening to Caldera right now may happen to RH: decrease in shareholders confidence, delisting from Nasdaq, making desperate reverse split measures, etc. On the other hand SuSE was already close to getting insolvent and without the support of IBM and Intel it'd do just that. That was just few days ago in the news.
Similar situation exists for companies such as Turbolinux or Linuxcare. While Turbo keeps announcing new releases for IBM's mainframes it also keeps releasing employees from its payroll, the last such move took place quietly in last July. While their new CEO gets some visibility in local TV, their tech. support and software engineering staff are decimated, not to mention professional services, which don't exist. Yet, CEOs of fledging companies keep playing though to the end and when asked how are they doing they deny that situation is bad, so they quitely lay off more dedicated workers.
At the same time we just had LinuxWorld in S. Fr. where several companies were not even visible due to financial constrains. What does that all tell you? IBM keeps pushing Linux and keeps advertising Linux for mainframes, but if Linux companies can't survive their whole strategy may also fail. Big Blue, in my opinion, should put some of their dollars directly supporting those Linux conpanies that have software developement agreements with them: SuSE, Turbolinux, RedHat, Caldera - in that order. SuSE and Turbo have already released products for all IBM's mainframes, however, those dollars were paid for their developement and not for other expenses, such as tech. support training and education. I believe it'd be wise for IBM and Intel to go beyond advertising stunts and train Linux technical support from Linux develepement software companies to support their hardware for Linux implementations and support. When there's no tech. support big companies will not commit to implementing Linux even if it is more cost effective. That way, even if Linux companies fail, tech. support could be retained as their own work force. Then, at least some of Linux people would stop worring about their future, not to mention that IBM's/Intel's own interests would have been served better.
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
However OSDN, the "unprofitable websites" are indeed profitable, as they are managed by a small, but very skilled, staff of people.
And, yes, I know this for a fact. I used to work at OSDN and I am still friends with the bloody lot of them.
Before you bash VA, do some research. They're not so bad.
I have half a mind of taking IBM to court for false advertizing. How many Open Source developers have even seen 1 red cent of IBM's 1Billion dollars?. How many Open Source projects are being sponsored by IBM? - 0/Zero/Zilch/Nada
All the Linux companies COMBINED haven't invested 1Billion, here's IBM who doesn't have 1 Linux GURU on their payroll, doesn't have their own Linux distro, who doesn't sell Linux on all their desktops - spending 1Billion? - HAHA.
Geez, do you even know what 1Billion is? - I can buy Redhat, Caldera, SuSE, TurboLinux, Mandrake, Ximian and still have money leftover to buy 1 kilo of coke and snort it up with a $1000 bill.
1 Billion, my ass!
It's about time some of you made friends with this badboy Rock of Gibraltar.
Ten years later, it's still going strong.
We fully believe in open source and in business built on it (ENTIRELY open source). So far it has worked outnicely.
Our model differs from the one of Great Bridge. We maintain control of the database kernel so that we can sell commercial licences to those numerous companies who need a non-GPL licence. We also have a strong and widely known trademark. MySQL AB offers support done by the core developers. This allows us to offer a total product and service package that is in line with the open source / free software thinking and also makes sound business sense.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
The whole "make money off services" line seems more and more like a lame excuse as time goes by. I'm just about convinced that it is simply the best response someone could come up with when challenged to show how anyone can make money off something they give away.
Imagine something like this....
Gnubert: "Free software is the way to go!"
$uit: "Free? What do you mean by that?"
Gnubert: "I mean free, we give it away and anyone can use it for whatever they want while improving it themselves"
$uit: Mumbles to himself something about Haight Ashbury and LSD. "Uhm.. Well how do you expect anyone to make money doing this? After all, we are running a business here. We'd all like to get paid and ultimately turn a profit, so just how do you suggest we do this?"
Gnubert:"Uhmm.......well....hmmm...um.. I know! We can provide services to our customers that we charge for! We give away the software and then provide support contracts and other services that we can use to make money!"
$uit: "Well if the software is supposed to be so good, why does anyone need support from us? Also, whats to stop other companies from competing with us? Not to mention the fact that providing services costs money, do you really expect us to be able to make enough money from services to offset the loss created by developing the software itself?"
Gnubert: "That's just it, we don't have to pay to develop it. Hackers will work for free because they believe in the Truth of Free Software, amen. Now.. if you'll just invest some money in our new company, FreeRiderProblem.com, we can get busy making new software to give away. We'll make the evil rat bastards at MickeySoft wish they'd stuck to selling basic interpreters! They shall pay!!!!!!!!!"
$uit: "I don't care about that, I just want to make some money here, got it?"
Gnubert: "But you don't understand, MickeySoft is out to steal your soul! At this very instant the company has people working to figure out how to enslave you! They want to own and control everything. Their leader eats the brains of children and bathes in their urine! WE must stop......own us all....monopoly......kill....."
$uit: Quietly slips away as quickly as he can....
........Sound familiar?
Ideologies only work in the minds of those who follow them. In the real world facts and natural laws dictate what goes on. We can seek to discover those laws and use them to our advantage, or we can try to force our ideologies into the picture like someone trying to force the wrong piece into a jigsaw puzzle.
Which are you going to do?
Lee Reynolds
(Go ahead, mod me down because you don't agree with me.)
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I went to the local LUG meeting and this guy from Caldera was the guest speaker. He kept talking about how great open source was and how it was great we all worked as a team. Open source this, open source that. Then he demo'd his product, Volution, and when it had trouble someone just said, "oh no problem, with open source we can fix it." He kinda looked away a bit and quietly whispered, "Uh.. it's not open source."
Tough luck for Caldera man, I hate to see companies in trouble and people out of work, but they used the open source name in vain and now they're paying for it.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
Oh well, the proven methods may work well, provided that:
- The requirements are derived actually by user needs and not by marketing policies oriented to maximize the flow of cash extracted from user pockets
- The software is designed by real engineers and not by buzzword-compliant bootlickers
- The budget of the project fits the actual software requirements and not some half-assed estimate of the management
- No PHB assigns absurd timelines
- The QA department understands that these 'proven methods' are just guidelines and allows development to apply them with a 'grain of salt'
- developers have the so-mentioned 'grain of salt' and understands the need to follow standards
- Testers are not used as scapegoats for missing the deadline, only because they find show-stopping bugs the day before of the release
All in all, software development is still a craft, where the quality of involved people is much more important than the quality of the production process. This is why software developed by loosely assembled (but technically valid) people can compete with software developed by mega-corporations.Ciao
----
FB
I dont want to flame mySQL, but after having used it for over a year under high loads all I got to say is that Postgres is a lot more stable compared to mySQL. mySQL is a great DB to start with but not something you'd want to use for serious stuff.
Surely we will see some more consolidation and only the strongest will survive ...
On the other hand, RH would be prevented to perform _some_ of the dirtiest M$oft triks by the open-source nature of his platform.
Therefore, customers will have more say in which company will survive ( but money will still play a big role in it ).
Ciao
----
FB
Greatbridge did the following wrong:
1. They went to Norfolk, VA, a good low cost area for programmers, and then rented HIGH COST space in middle of downtown when there was much cheaper spaces around.
2. They kept hiring MANAGERS. They seemed to thrive on managers and not the Marketeers and Techs needed.
3. They LIED to thier employees. They told there would be upward movement, development work, and frankly there was none.
4. They spent serious money on an advertising firm. This firm seemed to not do as well as the money spent on it (Bad Choice).
5. They IGNORED obvious revenue streams (Consulting, direct jobs) for a long time in favor of thier "retainer" fee-based system. When they came to realize this was a mistake, it was too late.
6. They paid too much to thier employee's (WHAT? yes.. I am stating that). 5 year programmers in Norfolk and the area dont get 65k starting. It is a sad state around here that we dont, but its the case.
7. They were going 700,000 dollars (approx) in the hole every month with the cost of overhead.
8. The Venture Capitalist (owner of Landmark Communications) had earmarked 25 million for the startup. The board could not become profitable within spending that amount, so it was pulled at a cost of 18 million.
I would like to say this. I am very sorry to the German Developer who left his country (and family) to come over here and join the failure. To put a human face on it, it is really sad.
Greatbridge had a great idea, but managers who hired more managers who begat more managers. It is no wonder it failed.
All this information can be found if you had followed the company.
Right now there are far too many Linux companies producing their own desktop. In the beginning this was great. Many companies rushing to provide you with the best operating system and the best products. Now, we have them. They're starting to emerge at the head of the OS pack. Time for the ones that fell behind to fall off and join the rest of the crowd. We must now put our efforts in the best few so that Linux can now emerge as a viable alternative to MS. Too many choices will leave the everyday consumer confused and lost.
The is a text book business cycle example for a product, and one day there will be only one major linux OS with maybe a few left over funded by companies or in the private sector. In the GPL market where things are free, this is only inevitable. The leader of the market will survive through selling packages to businesses and selling the CD's to personal users. I will always buy a CD, I know I can burn my own, but I like to support the Linux company of my choice. That company will survive. Others will fall. Linux will then become viable because other companies will sell commercial software dedicated to linux. One in my mind is VMWare. They make a great product and allows a user to run windows in an emulator inside of Linux. Another step in helping the average user migrate over to linux. Basically the electronic version of the mother's nipple, slowly weaning the user off of Microsoft and onto Linux. More companies like this will emerge, and we will all tell our grandchildren that we helped start it all.
Linuxrunner
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
...not trying to be belabour the point here but...
Since WHEN is Linux (regardless of distro) a Corporate Enterprise? Companies like Caldera, Corel, et al, all came about in the technology "good times". Is is any wonder that they wanted to try and capitalize on the Open Source revolution? They took the Linux they thought they could use to make a buck and added their own goodies. The unfortunate thing was - their goodies weren't any compelling reason to BUY their product. We, as a community, could just as easily get Free or Open equivalents of their so-called goodies elsewhere.
Now that "times are bad(TM)", Caldera is getting beaten up by the Corporate Shareholders who're wondering why their product isn't selling; isn't selling while Linux is gaining an ever-stronger hold in the industry. Now why do you expect THAT to be so???
Linux on the desktop is still new, still quirky, and still burdened with the legacy of X. Linux on the server, however, is everything Microsoft wanted to be and more. Distros like Caldera and Corel have little to brag about for their server product...much to brag about their graphical desktops and productivity apps. Since when is a productivity app supposed to mean diddly-squat on your server?
Okay, I'm done...finished...kaput...I'm going to go look at the blinking lights on my ATM switch and sigh about the "good old days(TM)".
-PONA-
+that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
The other problem with the support business model is that there are thousands of developers skilled in these open-source tools (like me) who beat down doors and find clients who need work done. So the money a client spends on implementation and support goes to an independent developer or small company rather than the company funding the development.
That's great for small-time developers like me, but not so great for the company investing the time and money in funding the development of the tools.
... but everyone who's ever worked for what should have been a badass company that failed for reasons not necessarily related to their product knows the rant without my going over it.
There is a ton of talent coming out of the ranks of Great Bridge, and I am sure that we will hear their names associated with OS solutions in times to come.
To all of them, I say good luck - it was a fun ride.
-= jb =-
The day comes and goes, and the world does not end.
What's amazing is what often happens next. If the cult is not a suicide cult, its members nearly always regroup and reset the deadline for a later date. (The Jehovah's Witnesses did this twice before they deciding to abandon the idea of a fixed "doomsday." They now preach, in much more vague terms, that a doomsday is coming but do not attempt to specify the date; in fact, they even deleted all references to specific dates from their writings and their logo.)
Faith so completely triumphs over reality and common sense that the failure of the first prediction does not hurt the cultists' faith in the next one.
What does all of this have to do with the above examples? Plenty. It appears that many people -- including VA Linux's Larry Augustin, Caldera's Ransom Love, and Cygnus/Red Hat's Michael Tiemann -- all are so blinded by the rhetoric of the GPL that they fail to recognize that it does not allow a viable business strategy. (In fact, it was never intended to; it was created by Richard Stallman with the express intent of preventing software businesses from being viable.) So long as these people pass one doomsday after another, without realizing that they must re-evaluate the beliefs they hold in light of new evidence, they will likely fail themselves. There is a possible balance between releasing source code, stimulating collaborative effort, and making money -- but it does not lie at the extremes dictated by the GPL or the FSF. It lies, rather, in the enlightened self interest of a more moderate, fair, and pragmatic licensing regime such as that adopted by the Apache Project and the collaboratively developed BSDs. While the GPL is bankrupting Caldera, the BSD license created the Internet and is ensuring the long term survival of Apple. There is a lesson here that the "faithful," if they are willing to wake up, can learn.
--Brett Glass
Has it payed out any dividends?
Anyway why buy services from someone who has to cover the cost of developing free software by charging you more.
Much cheaper to buy services from someone with no such overheads.
Gez they can even provide a burn of the RH CD image for $5 as part of the service.
Because of our capitalistic society, any open source project would have no model that would allow a profitable business. Capitalism will in itself collapse in time, but the very nature (a good one in that) of Linux was born out of necessity. The power is still with the people; users, programmers, hackers, crackers, and anyone else I may forgotten to mention. We must just keep fighting, and innovating to stay alive. The teeth of capitalism is nipping at our heels.
"Back the f@#$ up!" - Onyx