Slashdot Mirror


Red Hat Reports (tiny) Loss, Revenue Slip

Futurepower(tm) was one of the first to write with the news Red Hat reports loss, revenue slips, via Infoworld. Szulik ? is right in his statement that compared to what's going on in the overall technology segment, RH is doing a good job.

205 comments

  1. I'm surprised- by purduephotog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Software giant weathers well, Intel slips 15%.

    Guess I know where to invest my money *grins*

    Actually, looks more appropriate to upgrade my firewall. One linux product that tends to work well out of the box... tho I wish it was more secure by default. I don't think I've had any trouble installing it and running... unlike BeOS which failed 8 out of 10 times.

    1. Re:I'm surprised- by Menthos · · Score: 1
      tho I wish it was more secure by default

      What isn't secure about the default installation?

      --

      GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.

  2. Also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I doubt slashdot's censorship supporting authors would ever post it, but VALinux reported HUGE losses this quarter. Their stock is not below the $1.00 mark for the first time. If it stays this way for more than 60 days, they will be delisted from the NASDAQ.

  3. Mandrake reports... by joestar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...Mandrake Linux 8.1 Release Candidate with exceptional features . [off topic etc. I know but I just wanted people to know cos it's important]

  4. Things Look Bad For The Future by waldoj · · Score: 2

    Given the statement in this press release, things aren't looking good for next year, either:

    The company reported an adjusted net income of $600,000, or break even per share, for the first quarter of fiscal 2002, compared to an adjusted net loss of $3.7 million, or $0.02 per share, for the first quarter of fiscal 2001.

    Employing those psychic accountants must be very lucrative!

    -Waldo

    1. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by ZaMoose · · Score: 2

      Fiscal 2002 . Not the same as "real years". RedHat's Starts in June, apparently. (September - 3 months == June).

      --
      I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
    2. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But that press release came out on June 19. Their 2002 year starts in in march? That's stupid. Its like at the bank when they say "sorry your payment is late, since it's Monday." And you say "no its not its Friday." And they say "no, it's Monday" when it's obviously Friday, because it's not the weekend yet. it's alway some bullshit about it being after 2 P.M.

      I want Redhat to know that my payment is NOT late.

    3. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Their fiscal year ends in February, 2002, I believe. We are in their fiscal 2002.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    4. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by Teancom · · Score: 1
      ...for the first quarter of fiscal 2002...

      ...for the first quarter of fiscal 2001...

      Not to spoil a good joke (psychic accountants! Ha! Much funny!) but it's fairly obvious that their fiscal year started last quarter. For instance, I work at Micron, and our fiscal end-of-year just happened, and we are now officially in "2002". Now, we didn't do *nearly* as well as Redhat, and apart from a couple chicken-little engineers, nobody is talking about how we might as well close shop (not that you did).

      HAND!

    5. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by waldoj · · Score: 1

      That press release came out in June. Which means that their fiscal year for 2002 started in March of 2001. If that's accurate, their accountants are smoking so much crack that there's no way they'll ever break even.

      -Waldo

    6. Re:Things Look Bad For The Future by xonker · · Score: 1

      You have to bear in mind that business and financial practices bear little (if any) resemblance to reality or common sense. If you choose to participate in such things, an appreciation of the absurd goes a long way...

  5. VA Linux (LNX) by FortKnox · · Score: 2

    Look at VA's stock. All time low. Last time I checked at $0.92

    Things are looking bleak for Linux companies :-(

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    1. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by sys$manager · · Score: 1

      But what does VA do, now that they no longer make hardware? Also, how does RedHat make money? I've never given money to any "linux" company, but we run lots of Linux servers.

    2. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by tealover · · Score: 1, Funny

      Remember the Eric Raymond "I'm a millionaire" email he sent out after VA gave him some options? Does anyone know what those shares were worth when his options vested? I haven't seen the "I'm a thousandaire" email yet.

      Thanks.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    3. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by sys$manager · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      23-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 26,000
      LNUX Sold at $3.50/Share.
      Proceeds of $91,000.
      21-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 14,700
      LNUX Sold at $3.00/Share.
      Proceeds of $44,100.
      20-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 30,000
      LNUX Sold at $3.14/Share.
      Proceeds of $94,200.
      15-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 41,500
      LNUX Sold at $3.25/Share.
      Proceeds of $134,875.
      13-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 50,000
      LNUX Sold at $3.38/Share.
      Proceeds of $169,000.
      13-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      President, Director, Chief Executive Officer 400,000
      LNUX Proposed Sale (Form 144).
      Estimated proceeds of $1,600,000.
      12-Mar-01 AUGUSTIN, LARRY M
      Chief Executive Officer, Director 400,000
      LNUX Acquired Shares via Exercise of Options at $0.02/Share.
      Paper gain of $1,192,000 at a fair market value of $3.00/share on 12-Mar-01.

    4. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like Larry did pretty good for himself with this scam.

    5. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by frknfrk · · Score: 2

      how can a company with a site which hosts 30 million hits per month not be worth anything?

      -sam

      --
      The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
    6. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by FortKnox · · Score: 1

      How do you get income on 30 million hits? Marketing with banners (hardly any, maybe the costs of hosting), and selling the emails of all users for spammail (it'll be a cold day in hell before taco does that).

      Where's the income?

      --
      Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
    7. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by sys$manager · · Score: 1

      "Under its new operating model, which focuses its SourceForge application software business, VA Linux said it expects revenue in the first quarter of fiscal 2002 to fall within a $3 million to $4 million range, excluding August hardware shipments. Also expected during the first quarter is a net loss from operations of $10 million to $13 million, the company said."

      So instead of selling a tangible product, they're a dot.com. What the hell? Isn't this 2001? Aren't dot.coms dead?

    8. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by frknfrk · · Score: 2

      the point is there should be opportunity for other services. if 30 million hits are coming, that's 30 million opportunities to offer your services to somebody. the VA Linux umbrella supposedly has a ton of services, many of which are supposedly very needed by the very people who are generating those 30 million hits.

      i guess my point is that they have the opportunity to do something more.

      --
      The REAL sam_at_caveman_dot_org is user ID 13833.
    9. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by AssFace · · Score: 1

      so what did the slashodot crew get when they were bought out?

      what did it equate to at the time, and what does it now?

      and where are my pants?

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
    10. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if one is that masochistic to let oneself hit 30 million times for free then everything is possible.

    11. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, offer other services that are a drain on VA's resources? Last time I looked, you could use sourceforge (etc.) for free.

    12. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by 3333t00l · · Score: 1

      these are andover.net shares, multiply by .45 to convert into LNUX shares.

      From the ANDN Registration statement: (http://www.freeedgar.com/search/ViewFilings.asp?C IK=1093580&Directory=950135&Year=99&SECIndex=5494& Extension=.tst&PathFlag=0&TextFileSize=452369&SFTy pe=&SDFiled=&DateFiled=12/3/1999&SourcePage=Filing sResults&UseFrame=1&OEMSource=&FormType=S-1/A&Comp anyName=ANDOVER+NET+INC)

      Under the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement between BlockStackers, Inc. and Andover.Net, dated as of June 18, 1999, Andover.Net purchased those assets of BlockStackers relating to the Slashdot.org web site for 1.5 million in cash paid at closing and maximum future cash payments of $3.5 million payable over the next two years contingent on the continued employment of two key employees. Maximum future stock consideration of $7.0 million is payable over a period of two years following this offering. For the purposes of these issuances, the number of shares of common stock to be issued is determined using an assumed initial public offering price of $16.50 per share. Thus, the total consideration that will be paid is valued at $8.5 million and the maximum contingent consideration payable is $3.5 million. All consideration has been or will be paid to BlockStackers. The number of shares paid is contingent on the continued employment of two key employees and the achievement of performance milestones relating to traffic on the web site. - 121,212 shares issuable upon the closing of this offering; - 60,606 shares issuable seven months after the closing of this offering; - 40,404 shares issuable 12 months after the closing of this offering; - 80,808 shares issuable 12 months after the closing of this offering provided that the milestones in the agreement have been met; - 40,404 shares issuable 24 months after the closing of this offering; and - 80,808 shares issuable 24 months after the closing of this offering provided that the milestones in the agreement have been meet

    13. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      equity = assets - liability

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    14. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure about the "cold day in hell part." It could get pretty chilly down there if VA's creditors start picking over things in a bankruptcy proceeding.

    15. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by cruelworld · · Score: 2

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the stock at danger of being de-listed if they don't get it back over $1 in 6 months or something?

      If they delist, isn't that like chapter 11?

    16. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by sfe_software · · Score: 2

      So instead of selling a tangible product, they're a dot.com. What the hell? Isn't this 2001? Aren't dot.coms dead?

      Actually I believe they are a "dot net" (not to be confused with .NET). I don't think I've heard too many bad things about dot nets and dot orgs, only dot coms.

      Though I've always come to know VA as a hardware company, I guess they do own a few things they can make some money from. Personally I would have thought building and supporting Linux boxen would have been far more profitable than the SourceForge thing, but I guess I would have thought wrong...

      On another note, maybe I'll actually go buy a boxed RedHat distro one of these days (when 7.2 is released perhaps). I've been using RedHat for a long time, never once paid a dime for it. Besides, I'd like one of those tux stickers :)

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    17. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by -tji · · Score: 1

      Check him out in the Board listing on their WWW site http://www.valinux.com/about/board.php

      Quite the glowing bio.. he's been here since '98, and had some sort of well known usenet posting.

      He's also the only one who couldn't figure out where the camera was.

    18. Re:VA Linux (LNX) by AssFace · · Score: 1

      so they still have enough to buy beer.

      whew - that's nice. I was worried that a save-the-taco-fund would need to be started.

      --

      There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
  6. As Much as people hate redhat by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are giving a good name to Linux in a few ways. If we didnt have them, linux would still be here (even for the better some might say) but I am sure that it would take people some time to adjust. They need something to hold onto in their head as a sign of quality. Colors and shapes comprise good names, just like a logo that can be drawn in the sand is constant reminder of how it (a company name) sticks with us. Redhat might not be the best (or perhaps you think they are) but they are doing something with Gnu/Linux that might have taken years to do. Thank them for that.

    --


    "Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
    1. Re:As Much as people hate redhat by sys$manager · · Score: 1

      This is insightful? It isn't even coherent! RedHat hasn't brought Linux into the mainstream, Linux advocates working inside corporations have. Nice karma whoring though.

    2. Re:As Much as people hate redhat by doom · · Score: 2

      Well red hats are better than cutsey penguin's,
      that's for sure.

      What I'm really looking forward to though, is
      having a pronouncable name for "postgresql".
      We can say "the RedHat Database" now, and
      people will know what we mean...

      (Do we hate RedHat? I'm getting a little tired
      of releases as buggy as Microsoft products, but
      but I wouldn't say I hat them...)

    3. Re:As Much as people hate redhat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard to say "Post-gres-Q-L"?

  7. Re:VA Linux (LNUX) by FortKnox · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't surprising. Lemmie add Intel, AMD, and Transmeta into the mix. Looks like all tech stocks are hitting low. Not to mention that stocks dropped drastically after last tuesday.

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  8. Money issues by Wind_Walker · · Score: 1
    I don't object to Redhat making some money (or losing, in this case, but not for lack of trying), but the price for Redhat 7 is really hard to believe. It's anywhere from $65-$80 everywhere I look (in stores). I remember the first time I bought Redhat 5.2, it was a MacMillan Publications release and only cost $30. When will we see other Redhat 7 distros appearing for less cash in local software outlets?

    And whatever happened to Redhat's 'discount' package, that comes with only the bare bones Redhat6 disc and an installation guide?

    1. Re:Money issues by SocietyoftheFist · · Score: 1

      The base system has sticker of $39.95, I think you're looking at Deluxe Workstation

    2. Re:Money issues by quartz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here's a cheap one for you. And if I remember correctly from last time I was in a CompUSA store, 7.0 was even cheaper.

    3. Re:Money issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Some 3v1L kR4xx0Rz have w4r3z'd it for you. Get it for free here.

  9. Now ... by halftrack · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... if they could convince AMD not to call their future CPUs for AthlonXP rather AthlonRedHat.

    --
    Look a monkey!
    1. Re:Now ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      AMD is fucked anyway.

      Linux 2.4.9 compiles but doesn't run on a Thunderbird if you've configured your kernel for an Athlon CPU.

    2. Re:Now ... by j7953 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe AthlonRH might be a more realistic choice? At least AMD could claim it's not related to Red Hat but stands for Athlon Radiating Heat.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
    3. Re:Now ... by sharkey · · Score: 2

      Or Athlon Roasting Hotdogs.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  10. Can Anyone Explain Me... by robbyjo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just don't know why in last quarter's report Red Hat loss $400,000 (as I recalled) and says break even because the loss is less than 1c. Now they say loss $100,000 and then loss 2c per share. How's the math?

    Then, FYI, this $100,000 loss doesn't include one-time charges and/or costs which would total the loss to $55.3 million. Is there any "accounting tricks" applied to spiff up the reports or what?

    Your answer is appreciated. Thanks.

    --

    --
    Error 500: Internal sig error
    1. Re:Can Anyone Explain Me... by Paul+Steed · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to make money selling Linux. That's the accounting trick!

    2. Re:Can Anyone Explain Me... by GigsVT · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, not really. Most of those one time items were intangibles.

      See, when a company buys another company, the premium they pay to what the assets of the company are is called goodwill. This goodwill is considered an asset on the buying company's balance sheet. The goodwill gets "used up" over a few years, and gets expensed off, that is, deducted against income (amortizing).

      In other words, most of it wasn't "real" money. The only important one-time charges were the severance expenses, that was real tangible money that had to come from somewhere.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Can Anyone Explain Me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah, no wonder Red Hat is going under.

      I installed Red Hat 7.1 yesterday by ftp without paying a penny. What a bargain!

    4. Re:Can Anyone Explain Me... by A+Commentor · · Score: 2

      The article said that it was also 0 cents this quarter, the 2 cent loss was the year-ago quarter.

      As for 100,000 vs 55.3M loss, it's related to one-time charges and write-offs... i.e. serverance packages that won't re-occur (at least for those people already laid-off).

      --

      Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

  11. OS of the Future by IgD · · Score: 0

    Don't you guys think it is obvious that Linux is the operating system of the future? Linux has really only been mainstream for 1-2 years. Windows has been mainstream for nearly a decade. It's going to take another year or two for Linux to really cut into sales of Windows I think. Microsoft does not stand a chance. How can they compete against something that is better and FREE?
    It just like Netscape V. IE all over again except now Gates et al are on the receiving end.

    1. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can they compete against something that is better and FREE?

      Because it's not "better" for the vast majority of users. It's hard to maintain, and there are no apps to speak of. People use applications, not operating systems.

    2. Re:OS of the Future by flynt · · Score: 1

      Classic reductio ad absurdem here. Let's walk through it. We'll assume Linux is better and free. Therefore, due to the laws of economics, Linux should all but have obliterated all the competition at this point. However, this has not even come close to happening. Either Linux is not better, or it is not free. Linux is free, therefore it is not better. Care to reject that?

    3. Re:OS of the Future by FatherOfONe · · Score: 1

      While I don't agree that Microsoft is going down like Netscape; his point is valid. Most of the new applications being developed are NOT client server but web enabled. Linux will see continued growth in that market. I believe that since most of the new applications will be web enabled, the client becomes less and less of an issue.
      Obviously Microsoft knows this and will try very hard to wrap as many proprietary extensions around web development as possible.

      Lastly, in lean times people will start looking more and more at free software to get things done. This will also add to the Linux growth.

      I just wish that someone would develop a filesystem that doesn't just have "owner", "group" and "other". If you have ever worked with NetWare or NT, this sucks.
      OpenSource also needs a competitor to Exchange/Groupwise/Domino-Notes.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    4. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Care to reject that?

      The Linux looney would argue that there is a Microsoft conspiracy to keep Linux away from the mass populace. If only mean ol' Microsoft would allow hardware vendors to give users the "choice", then everyone would naturally pick Linux.

      Never mind that IBM tried this with OS/2, and everyone universally rejected it for Win 3.1 (3.1!!!). And it actually booted to OS/2, and people had to go out of their way to junk it. The reason naturally is that OS/2 was incompatible with too many hardware drivers, and too much software.

      People use applications, not operating systems.

    5. Re:OS of the Future by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

      There is no logic that marketing can't turn upside-down. :)

    6. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the new applications being developed are NOT client server but web enabled.

      Well, I think you're a little early to be talking about "most of the new applications", but its certainly possible we might see more cross-platform apps in the future. Ironically, it's Microsoft who is giving us these technologies with .NET (Java is, of course, a joke when it comes to applications, although it's not bad for embedded stuff).

    7. Re:OS of the Future by NonSequor · · Score: 2
      XFS has journalling and access control lists. The trouble is that standard utilities (tar et al) won't store ACLs. It is possible to back them up with xfsdump though.

      You can also get an iso containing a modified Redhat 7.1 installer that will create XFS partitions.

      I believe there are a couple of kernel patches that add support for ACLs.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    8. Re:OS of the Future by BigBir3d · · Score: 1, Informative

      The problem with OS/2, besides that it sucked compatability wise; Microsoft. M$ wrote most of it for IBM, than the deal went sour and IBM was stuck re-doing it, in typical "BIG BLUE" fashion (throw 1,000 programmers at it and hope...)

      M$ had done so many cheap write arounds for the code to work, IBM was stuck scratching their proverbial asses trying to figure it out, while watching Gates go from millionaire to billionaire. Unlike M$, IBM wanted it to work now, not do the M$ "ship it now, fix it later" style of programming.

      It is sad to see alot of parallels in the history of OS/2 to the current situation with Linux. M$ had no real competition at the time, so they could get away with it. Linux on the other hand has an entirely different situation, they are David, amd M$ is Goliath.

      Good Luck Linux,
      --chris

    9. Re:OS of the Future by drudd · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting quite a few of your assumptions there...

      Among them:
      1) better products naturally dominate the marketplace
      2) the timeframe over which products "obliterate" competition is less than the current age of Linux (or more acurately, the length of time Linux has fit the definition of "better" product).

      Somehow, I doubt you can support either of these assumptions...

      Doug

      --
      Venn ist das nurnstuck git und Slotermeyer? Ya! Beigerhund das oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
    10. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He does not lie -- IBM did try this, leaving the user's "first experience" staring at the uglific OS/2 2.x desktop with no indication of how to get to DOS. (dig through 5 folders to find the command prompt, type BOOT DOS, right-click on desktop, restart. Speaking of which, IBM obviously didn't do those surveys that find that 75% of users have no idea what the right mouse button is for.)

      What made it worse was that we were using Windows for Workgroups, and OS/2, the high-end corporate workstaion product shipped with NO networking support. That was an extra $150 or something.

    11. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows went from almost no users to "obliterating" the competition in a period of about 2 years, BTW. And it was 'better' in than the competition in many ways that mattered (compatibility, resources, applications) if not in the nuts-n-bolts.

    12. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better products naturally dominate the marketplace

      Of course they do. They only question is how "better" is defined. Windows destroys Linux in the place that it matters: Applications.

      the timeframe over which products "obliterate" competition is less than the current age of Linux

      So you tell us -- how long should it take? If Linux is so clearly superior, how long will it take for the populace to "wake up" and use Linux?

    13. Re:OS of the Future by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

      Windows benefits from a positive feedback loop: they have 95% market share, therefore 95% of the apps get written for it, therefore they keep 95% market share.

      Even you could understand this.

    14. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows benefits from a positive feedback loop: they have 95% market share, therefore 95% of the apps get written for it, therefore they keep 95% market share. Even you could understand this.

      This is true. However, what does that have to do with my post? All you've done is argued that Windows is superior where it counts: applications.

    15. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, pad're ... obviously, Linux is not FREE ! At my usual consultant rake of $1700/day for what I do ( very well thankyou ... no OS crappola ) and the 13 hours RH_6.0 required for a first install that makes the initial Linux cost = $2200.00 ...
      plus incidentals and ongoing o.o.p. downloads let's say doubles that expense. Linux is not just a bit, but VERY expensive. Takes me 5_min now, for an update, but I will NEVER make back that initial investment. And even $95.00 WinME kicks-its-azz --- Face it, Linux desktop provides value only for young, poor, babeless weenies. Nobody with a real_job can/should afford it.

    16. Re:OS of the Future by sheldon · · Score: 2

      I doubt you can support your assumptions by defining the word "better."

    17. Re:OS of the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm willing to award a $1700 rake for you to install WinMe for me, but who will deliver all those morning newspapers for you?

  12. Before getting carried away... by augustz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Before getting carried away:

    Red Hat's second-quarter net loss was $55.3 million, on revenues of $21 million.

    Granted, they've got PR speak down, and slashdot falls over itself reporting these "breakevens". But they've systematically excluded items in almost every quarter they have reported results, and the number slashdot reports are pretty bogus. Most other sites AT LEAST report generally accepted number (GAAP) along with the PR numbers which exclude all losses.

    So let's hope they do well, but please for the love of god lets stick to numbers that are not simply pulled from a hat. And despite what folks like to say about how this gives insight into their business, these numbers are by and large bogus.

    1. Re:Before getting carried away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      numbers that are not simply pulled from a hat

      Not even if it is a red hat?

    2. Re:Before getting carried away... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Excluding one time expenses is GAAP. Moderators, don't fall for this troll just because he used one correct accounting term.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Before getting carried away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the number's, whichever they are reporting, can't be that good since rob young, his wife, and a few of his trust funds are selling redhat stock like it was going out of style. it would appear obvious to me that a founder of a company, who once saw his stake in that company worth over $300 dollars a share, selling at $3 dollars a share, doesn't have a lot of confindence in that company's future. I know, I know, he's diversifying his portfolio. If that's the case, where is he putting his money that is so much more valuable than the company that he founded? His pocket? or his material possesions? It's not about free software, it never was, and never will be. It's about the money, and slashdot is a tool for the money.

      http://biz.yahoo.com/t/r/rhat.html

    4. Re:Before getting carried away... by tim_maroney · · Score: 2

      Still, I do not expect this large loss will make the slightest impression on all the people who keep telling me that "Red Hat makes tons of money selling open source." It happens here on /. and on other open source boards as well, and demonstrates a "reality distortion field" that would make Steve Jobs proud.

      Open source has not yet found a viable business model. The reason open source has seemed to move forward in the last few years is because investors have poured large amounts of money into it without getting anything in return.

      Tim

    5. Re:Before getting carried away... by Telek · · Score: 2

      yeah I noticed that too. Their rate of loss is 59% higher than that of 2nd quarter 2000. Their cash reserves are also drying up pretty quickly. Kinda sucks, but unless IBM gives another huge cash infusion I don't think that they have much time left.

      check it out for yourself.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    6. Re:Before getting carried away... by A+Commentor · · Score: 2

      A large chunk of that was

      to account for $33.8 million in costs related to acquisitions made in prior periods

      This is typically used to align the books with the 'book value' of any companies they bought. I.E if they paid $100M in stock for company X, yet company X only had $20M of assets on their books, the difference $100M-20M = $80M, must be written off get get all the books to balance, they are not out of any cash, just more outstanding shares of their stock.

      --

      Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com

    7. Re:Before getting carried away... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      They will eventually have to report the GAAP numbers. There was an article in the Washington Post dead tree edition a few Sundays back talking about some of this trickery. As you indicate, this is just PR. The official numbers will happen within a few weeks. A little group known as the SEC demands that the public eventually see those numbers.

      BTW, I agree with you. Things are not as rosy as the article or the slashdot 'editor' claim.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Before getting carried away... by miniver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Before you get too carried away...

      Red Hat's second-quarter net loss was $55.3 million, on revenues of $21 million.
      Granted, they've got PR speak down, and slashdot falls over itself reporting these "breakevens". But they've systematically excluded items in almost every quarter they have reported results, and the number slashdot reports are pretty bogus. Most other sites AT LEAST report generally accepted number (GAAP) along with the PR numbers which exclude all losses.

      Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the way accountants keep track of earnings for publicly traded companies. RedHat did the same thing that everyone from Microsoft and GM on down do: they reported their earnings and losses for the quarter, as well as any other earnings and losses that are required to be accounted for in the current quarter, even though they may have been accrued in previous quarters and years.

      To get a better picture, go to the SEC EDGAR database and search for Red Hat's latest 10-Q filing (the latest one I found was filed in July for the quarter ending May 31st, 2001). If you read through the 10-Q filing, you'll see that in any given quarter, half of Red Hat's expenses are from the write-down of investments (ie: the stock market has tubed in the last year) and the amortization of goodwill and intangibles (ie: artificial value of companies during a merger). This is Generally Accepted Accounting Practice (GAAP) -- Red Hat traded millions of shares away to aquire Cygnus and other companies, and instead of realizing all of the associated costs of those mergers in a single quarter, the costs are spread across several quarters.

      Look at the bottom line -- at the beginning of the quarter, Red Hat had $72,459,166 in the bank, and even if they lost $24 million, that still leaves them with $48 million in the bank, and these paper losses will be ending in another quarter or so, which will leave Red Hat breaking even. Pretty good for any tech company in the current economy.

      --
      We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
    9. Re:Before getting carried away... by ansible · · Score: 2

      Excluding one time expenses is GAAP.

      That is very true.

      However, being in business myself, I know that a loss is a loss is a loss. It doesn't matter what you call it, it doesn't change the fact that there's more money going out the door than coming in.

      Just because things look good on paper doesn't really mean that much. What really counts is how much money you have in the bank.

      So, at any rate, it's good that I swiched to Debian last year. :-)

    10. Re:Before getting carried away... by bryanbrunton · · Score: 1


      >>Their cash reserves are also drying up pretty quickly.

      Wrong.

      Companies with no cash reserves don't buy back shares like RedHat is doing now. How exactly would they buy the shares without cash?

      They increased their cash reserves by 5 million. From 294 to 299 million. RedHat has a large pot of cash that they are sitting on. This is primarily how their current stock price can be justified in light of decreased earnings and a somewhat lacking business plan.

    11. Re:Before getting carried away... by Telek · · Score: 2

      you'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but from how I read it, it states:

      Cash and cash equivalents $72,459,166 down from $109,989,741 a year ago. They started those quarters with $85,212,830 in 2001 and $248,429,962 in 2000.

      and Total current assets are $144,055,087 down from $179,681,174 a year ago.

      and posted a Net loss of $27,559,775 vs $17,422,183 a year ago. Thus a 59% increase in net loss. Of course, once you "adjust it" they're breaking even, but that's cheating.

      So unless I'm reading it wrong, that's how I see it.

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    12. Re:Before getting carried away... by James+Manning · · Score: 1

      IMHO, there's a ton of bargains on the market at the moment. As much as I love Bob Young and RH (just had a chat with Bob in the hall today), RH is not one of the extreme bargains that are out there. Combine "bargain rate" with "volatility" into your formula of choice and you'll get a nice selection of 5-10 companies (perhaps Dell) that would be solid portfolio choices. Bob probably believes RH is still a potential bargain and hence his lack of total sell-off (assuming he's not hitting SEC limits) and hence he's still holding onto large chunks.

      The economy is in the tank, and it is *totally* a buyer's market. I continue to drool over the choices I have to toss my cash into :)

    13. Re:Before getting carried away... by bryanbrunton · · Score: 0, Troll

      Perhaps, we just have termininology mixup.

      Investment analysis generally gives a larger meaning to the term "cash" than simply the dollars that a company has in the bank. This is because certain things like equities are easily transferable to dollars in the bank.

      The dollars (Cash and cash equivalents) that RedHat has in the bank at any point in time is relatively meaningless. You have to look broader at the stuff that is easily transferred back into dollars in the bank.

      That's why Szulik can claim here that RedHat has 300 million cash. Because if it wanted to it could somewhat quickly have those dollars in the bank. But dollars in the bank don't do much for you. RedHat earned 4 million in interest and other payments because it didn't foolishly have its assest in "cash and cash equivalents".

    14. Re:Before getting carried away... by Telek · · Score: 2

      What I was quoting was "cash and cash equivilents" which means cash in the bank and stuff that can be redily transferred into cash. Everything else is in stocks and assets and other things that cannot be readily transferred into cash. I know that he says that they have $300mil in cash, but I can't seem to find that information anywhere in reports. Do you know of any links to back that up?

      --

      If God gave us curiosity
    15. Re:Before getting carried away... by jaoswald · · Score: 1

      IANACPA. However, I do know that losses don't have to be "money going out the door." It could be money that went out the door last year to buy a company, and now the excess you paid over the target company's tangible assets (goodwill) is being amortized away. It could be depreciation of assets, including inventory becoming "worthless" (i.e. accounting principles forbid fantasizing about selling something more than a certain age. In software, that probably is fantasy, but in real industry, that could be a two-year-old widget, which you might be able to sell for 5% original retail, still more than 0.)

      All of these are important accounting principles, basically forcing a consistent, conservative approach to valuing assets, instead of allowing everyone to make up their own favorable way to account for what they own.

      However, none of these involve cash leaving the company in this quarter. You are confusing "cash flow" with "profit/loss".

      Still, I agree with the basic sentiment that profits are better than losses, and I'm still skeptical that RH will have any profitable business in the future.

    16. Re:Before getting carried away... by bryanbrunton · · Score: 1

      >>stocks and assets and other things that cannot be readily transferred into cash

      Why can't stocks be readily transferred into cash?
      Why can't investments in debt and equity securities be readily tranferred into cash?

      Do you notice the largish figures on the report listed under investments? That's where the 300 million cash figure comes from.

      Look, I know that its confusing accountant-speak to refer to these things as cash, but thats how it works.

      Microsoft has 30 billion in "cash". That 30 billion isn't in one big checking account. Look at Microsoft's 10K here. Notice this line on that document:

      Cash and equivalents $ 4,846

    17. Re:Before getting carried away... by back@slash · · Score: 1

      I don't know what's scarier the fact that someone who has made some intelligent posts in the past succumbs to a silly error like this or the fact that three moderators fell for it also. And people wonder why VC firms have to parachute people in to claim the CEO posistions within startups.

      Losses written down on accquisitions are not monetary losses that come out of your bank account. In the end all that really matters is how much you put in your bank account stays higher than what comes out. Otherwise you had better have some good partners to help you out. When JDS announced a 51 billion loss this past summer do you really think 51 billion came out of their bank account that quarter?? No company would survive that. The loss was mostly due to share devaluations due to their stock aquistion of SDL.

      I also see a reply here which explains it.

      Please moderate the post I have just replyed to accordingly. While it might be interesting, just not in the sense you might think at first, It is definately not insightful.

      --
      This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
    18. Re:Before getting carried away... by augustz · · Score: 2

      Right, so what they did is prop up their books in past years with artifically high numbers, and then rather being called on those numbers, they issue PR which basically sweeps that stuff under the carpet. Damn lameness filter made me take out a lot of other points...

    19. Re:Before getting carried away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should either reread his post or learn something about how accounting works before posting your ignorance again.

      HTH.

    20. Re:Before getting carried away... by Tony+Shepps · · Score: 2

      Well, while we are all geeks and not finance people, the people who ARE finance people have made Red Hat one of the stocks that moved UP over the last three days.

    21. Re:Before getting carried away... by patiwat · · Score: 1

      > I know that a loss is a loss is a loss.

      Wrong, it WAS a loss. Extraordinary losses will not be losses in the next quarter, and are therefore useless in valuing the company.

      - patiwat@-nospam-.mit.edu

    22. Re:Before getting carried away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told myself redhat was a buy a 4 bones a share. now im telling myself hold on for the long term and maybe get some of my money back. The odds of that happening are seem to be getting slimmer and slimmer. I figure my best chance is for the nasdaq to recover and hopefully redhat will ride a small wave back up above 4 so I can sell.

  13. Good news, but how good? by Harbinjer · · Score: 0

    This is good news!! It means that they are making some money! The question though, is how much of their business are 1 time deals, and how much is from companies and people that are continuing to purchase Red Hat support and services. Now that hardware has dried up a bit, how long will it take for Linux to reach a standstill in market share, and customers?

  14. Relink the Szlick by FortKnox · · Score: 1

    From article:
    ...Szulik is right in his statement...

    From Everything2:
    Nothing Found
    Sorry, but nothing matching "Szulik" was found.

    If you Log in you could create a "Szulik" node.

    Doh!

    --
    Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
  15. Everything's gonna be allright by Rope_a_Dope · · Score: 1
    In a cycle of economic downturn, where IT departments are waiting to determine where to spend their budgets, this is not a bleak forcast for Red Hat. Many IT managers have about a 2-3 year cycle on when they purchase new equipment, and after a large buying period prior to Y2K, it's not inconceivable that their new purchases will start happening this year or the next.

    This cycle, combined with the current economic downturn means a lot of technology providers are not spending large budgets, and new servers are not popping up. When the buy cycle returns, and IT managers look to purchase the systems that will give them the best bang for the buck, Red Hat will obviously be near the top of those systems.

    XP's release will also probably send many systems managers looking into solutions, and may also send RedHat sales upward. If the IT manager gets a new budget earmarked for XP, but decides to spend it more wisely, RedHat sales might see a boost. Then again, it may also take a dent out of RedHat's sales, we'll have to wait and see.

    I think this is pretty good news (considering the state of the economy) for RedHat.

  16. Remember by codeforprofit2 · · Score: 1

    This is a company that mainly lives on others work. If it isn't going that great for them, how are things going for those companies who actually has to make products themselfs and live on them?

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Were doing good until 9-11 by ackthpt · · Score: 2

    After that date, all bets are off, however... How might the aftermath harm/help Linux/Open Source? Seeing this story, I expect Microsoft's IIS is now a very serious liability. Also, MS plans to continue on schedule with XP rollout in NYC...

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  19. Red Hat's funny math by jmcnamera · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While Red Hat says they almost made a profit, its only by excluding other, huge expenses. 37.2 million was excluded, the net loss is 55.3 million. The number to look at is that their earnings went down 15%. This is bad news for Red Hat. Someone in another post said that the price of Red Hat has gone too high. I disagree, you buy one and make copies.

    --
    this is not a sig
    1. Re:Red Hat's funny math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Someone in another post said that the price of Red Hat has gone too high. I disagree, you buy one and make copies."

      There are plenty of corps with a one pc one license policy. I think they could make more by charging less.

    2. Re:Red Hat's funny math by vidarh · · Score: 2
      Most of their accounting loss is a result of writing down intagibles and goodwill. One of the reasons of this is that previously Redhat has aquired several companies. Whenever they aquire a company they have to account for the difference between the companies assets (cash, property, shareholdings, etc. etc.) and the price they buy the company for. Typically that is accounted as "goodwill" (on the assumption that part of the reason that you are buying the company is that it's customers will buy something from you again).

      Goodwill props up the assets side in a companys financials, and that is good. But it has to be written down over time. Sometimes a company will write it down as slowly as possible, in order for it not to affect their earnings. In this case Redhat has chosen (or been forced to - I don't know what rules are used in the US to determine when they have to write down goodwill) to write down a significant amount in one quarter.

      Yes, this is a loss. But it is not a loss of cash, but of abstract, intangible values.

      In fact, according to their financials, at the end of this quarter, Redhat had 299,9 million USD in cash. On February 28 they had 302.7 million USD cash. So in the last 6 months, their cash position has only been reduced by 2.8 million.

      And if you look at total assets, you will find that their current assets are estimated at 428.2 million USD (of which 82.4 million are goodwill and intagibles), vs. 505.3 million USD (with 147.4 million USD in goodwill and intangibles) on February 28.

      This means that in the last 6 months, they have written down 65 million. Excluding the write down of intangibles, their assets have only dropped 12.1 million USD

      The difference between that number and the reduction in cash comes from reduced outstanding invoices and prepaid expenses.

      In addition, their liabilities now are slightly lower than 6 months ago, meaning that the picture is more positive that it looks (about 2.2 million USD difference).

      In other words, Redhat is doing very well considering the economic climate... And also that they have cash to run for many years at their current cash burn before they actually have to start making money.

      Also note that they have accrued a significant loss in the past which can be used to reduce their taxes once they earn money.

      (Disclaimer: I own a few Redhat shares. And the above should not be taken as investment advice. Go do your own research. Yada, yada, yada)

  20. No Rob Malda by sys$manager · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    No Malda or Bates in that insider shareholder list.

    1. Re:No Rob Malda by 3333t00l · · Score: 1

      I believe that janet hoolian (secratary at Andover.net) had more shares than rob

  21. I'm happy for them ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But I don't care anymore, I bought alot of shares at the IPO and I sold them at their peak, cached my money and now I help by contibuting from time to time to Debian, the FSF, and other funds to get my tax releif. It's not like I can't affod it :) But I thank RedHat without them, I would still have to work :)

  22. Huh? by Wind_Walker · · Score: 1
    I'm sorry, but I just read the article in question, and this does not seem like a "Tiny" loss to me. According to the article (and you can read it yourself, provided it hasn't been slashdotted) RedHat had a net loss of $53 million. They reported a revenue of $21 million.

    Let those numbers sink in. That means that RedHat's revenue was less than half of their loss in the second quarter. And this bodes well for RedHat because...?

    Between this and the fact that RedHat's stock is at an all-time-low (just look at the charts over on Nasdaq) we have some SERIOUS troubles for Linux. I wonder if Linus has heard about this problem yet?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its a one time non recurring charge. which means that 50+ million loss will not be there in the next qtr and has been written off.

    2. Re:Huh? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2


      > Between this and the fact that RedHat's stock is at an all-time-low (just look at the charts over on Nasdaq [nasdaq.com]) we have some SERIOUS troubles for Linux. I wonder if Linus has heard about this problem yet?

      I wonder whether Linus thinks Red Hat's share price is a problem.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Huh? by KenCrandall · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you mean by:

      "Let those numbers sink in. That means that RedHat's revenue was less than half of their loss in the second quarter. And this bodes well for RedHat because...?"

      The article quoted above says that Red Hat met analysts expectations for the quarter, which usually means they were right-on in their guidance and predictions. In the current market, this shows good financial leadership in a company, and usually makes shareholders happy. (FYI - RHAT closed up today.) This is certainly a GOOD thing for Linux, as it shows that a skillfully-managed company is being successful in the commercial arena, and IMNHO, not "SERIOUS troubles for Linux" as you are purporting.

      Not to be picking nits, but I'm sorry -- I don't see anyone calling this a "tiny" loss.

      I just don't see any grounding for your statements.

      Ken Crandall

    4. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Huh? When a company is losing millions of dollars, just because analysts predicted how many they would lose doesn't mean that it's a good thing for the company. If Exodus predicts that they will either go out of business or be sold to another company in the next fiscal year, does that mean that they're doing great just because they see the writing on the wall?

      I don't see anyone calling this a "tiny" loss


      Say what? It's the freakin' title of this submission. "Red Hat Reports (tiny) Loss, Revenue Slip."

    5. Re:Huh? by 3333t00l · · Score: 1

      i think Linus is more concerned about TMTA

      (just look at the charts over on Nasdaq )

    6. Re:Huh? by KenCrandall · · Score: 1

      First of all, Red Hat is listed as breaking even in earnings per share. You are confusing accounting with finance. (FWIW: I am not an expert in either, but I am married to one, so I get chastised when I make these kind of mistakes :-) The forms filed with the SEC (10-Q, is it?) describes the accounting for the quarter, and this translates, through GAAP to an earnings-per-share, which is the Wall Street benchmark of company performance.

      In respect to Wall Street (or market) performance, it is ALWAYS a good thing for a company to know how well it is doing, regardless of how well that is. It is one of the de-facto Wall Street barometers of how well a company is run. A public company is beholden (no matter how much you agree with this) to its investors, and providing accurate financial guidance to its investors is one of the expected responsibilities. It inspires investor confidence, which is not only a good thing unto itself, but is also good, given the market conditions and Monday's crash due to last week's tragedy.

      To use your example, it would DEFINITELY be good if Exodus, or any other company for that matter, accurately predicts that it will run out of cash and have to close its doors. It allows the board to know when it is time to cut their losses, and not just run until (a) all cash is expended (b) there are lawsuits on undelivered goods and/or services (c) creditors galore, and (d) innumerable other sources of financial drain that would cause even further shareholder loss. Being a well-run company does nothing to mitigate that going out of business is bad, in which you are correct.

      Ken


      P.S. -- The "(Tiny)" I attributed to Hemos' editorializing of the title of the Infoworld article. It neither the title, nor a statement in the Infoworld article linked to , above. Additionally, words such as "tiny" are relative, and do not denote a set amount. Losing millions of dollars is, in fact, "tiny" to companies like Microsoft or IBM, but would kill someone like VA Linux.

    7. Re:Huh? by vidarh · · Score: 2

      Most of that is writing down goodwill and intangibles. It is not cash expenses. Which is important. If they'd lost 53 million cash in a quarter, they'd run out of money quickly. But as it is, they hardly dipped into their cash reserves this quarter.

  23. MS knows how to profit... by cdraus · · Score: 1

    Red Hat would make a much bigger profit if they implemented a licensing scheme similiar to MS-Linux (http://www.mslinux.org).

  24. Redhat sucks .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man I have never see an sec filling like that.......they blow...invest in microsoft they are the true operating system

    1. Re:Redhat sucks .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow the distro is bad
      they cannot seem to stay afloat
      how can a company that suppports a bogus system with a communiist license go public without the government stepping in...anyone know? anyone's cares

  25. Good Job? by szcx · · Score: 2

    Yeah, they're doing such a good job that the Young and Buckley are offloading shares as fast as they can.

    1. Re:Good Job? by cnkeller · · Score: 2

      You can make that claim of every company. It's simply a good idea to diversify as much as possible, even more so in this type of market.

      Look, Oracle execs are selling stock too? Should we panic over a company who has an 80% profit margin? Let's all tone down the sarcasm a bit, it's not pretty.

      --

      there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

    2. Re:Good Job? by cybrthng · · Score: 2

      With those stock sales that frequent, it is as if hey is paying peoples salary with that money..

      crazy

    3. Re:Good Job? by cybrthng · · Score: 2

      diversify on a weekly/daily basis? thats odd...

      oracle execs diversify and publicly announce which companies they're diversifieng in and what boards they're on as well..

      is this money being used to pay salaries or exchange for something? cant possibly be diversification.. not enough money to spread out, and it is expensive to sell less them 5,000 shares of stock under 5.00 a piece that many times..

  26. Redhat slightly recession proof? by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I think (at least to some degree) that Redhat can do better in a recession than many of its (non-OSS) competitors. Some things do better in a recession, because they represent efforts to save money. Car mechanics, for instance.

    It might take a while to kick in, but Redhat potentially can do well because OSS software is so much cheaper than much of the commercial software. There may be arguments that it takes more manpower to deploy, and it's not turn-key so it takes longer to bring to market -- many of these arguments might be valid (at least some of the time). But the value of cash vs. the value of time might be shifting -- cash has become more valuable. Leaner endevours would be well served to use OSS.

    OTOH, if you really want to save money, why pay money for the support and the box? Linux is pretty much free. Still, even if I don't particularly care for Redhat (the distribution), I wish them well and am optimistic about their fate.

    1. Re:Redhat slightly recession proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't call RedHat cheaper.
      Considering how expencive RedHat Linux is compared to what they develop themselves I think it's pathetic.

    2. Re:Redhat slightly recession proof? by Fastball · · Score: 1

      The real signs that show if a company can weather a recession or not are 1) at least 3% dividend yield and 2) have debt less than 20% of stockholders equity. Redhat isn't even close in these benchmarks. Redhat is like many other new, shiny tech companies. Merging and moving and evolving rapidly. In other words, you're more likely to get spanked by tech stocks like Redhat in a recession than you are with blue chip companies and specific industries tailored for "hard times."

    3. Re:Redhat slightly recession proof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever considered there could be a difference in support?

  27. At the risk of sounding stupid... by uigrad_2000 · · Score: 1

    Ok, I paid for a full version of Win98, and use it about once every 2 weeks (when I need to transfer pictures from my digi-cam) It cost $75.

    I use RedHat (my distro of choice) 20 times as much as Windows. Let's say it's worth $300 to me, and I want to donate $100 to those who have worked on the software.

    Who do I give the $100 to? FSF? RedHat? Do I just go and purchase $100 of Redhat distros at Sam's Club?

    There might be a good answer to this question, but it's not in my O'Reilly book, and I've never bothered to look into it. So, my $100 is still in my pocket, when it could be doing some good helping someone who's a better programmer than I.

    Why isn't there more press on donation procedures? I know some people would get upset at RedHat ads (for donations) and such, but why not? Especially when they're facing tough times (like now) a couple of "Have Pity" ads on slashdot would do a lot of good.

    There are a lot of people with corn cobs up there butts who won't donate, and would yell bloody murder about requesting donations for software that should be free, but such idiots would just wrong. They aren't being forced to donate. And that would be that.

    --
    Free unix account: freeshell.org
    1. Re:At the risk of sounding stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, I paid for a full version of Win98, and use it about once every 2 weeks (when I need to transfer pictures from my digi-cam) It cost $75.

      Man you are really stupid. If you spent five minutes you could get it for free.

    2. Re:At the risk of sounding stupid... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please deposit any contributions here:
      Swedish bank "SEB", account #5007-0016364

      Thank you.

    3. Re:At the risk of sounding stupid... by mickeyreznor · · Score: 2, Informative

      ask redhat if they accept donations, or if you buy distros, buy the distros directly from them. Retailers probably will pocket most of the money that you give them(they gotta make a profit too). So if you're concerned about 100% of the money you are spending going to red hat, just do one of the 2 above.

  28. I hope you Can live on an Open Source Base by Dog+and+Pony · · Score: 1

    I would really love it, and for a long time it has looked as if it is possible, by offering support, training and other stuff that is really valuable to "sell",and still keeping with the open source idea.

    But. I can't help but think that it is likely to be the same kind of trick we play on our own minds as it was with online advertising, e-business in general and the whole dot-com thingummy.

    Online advertising - I still say that could have worked to some extent if it wasn't so overhyped at the start, and if the stupid mofos would have stuck to banners that don't annoy anyone.

    E-business... well, the ones that succeed is 99% businesses that are well established offline first... with some remarkable exceptions of course. :) And slowly people starts to realize that you don't make money just because you are online. About time. You missed breakfast...

    Dot-com. Well. Um. No comment. Everybody believed in it. Whatever it was. Noone knew...

    Well, anyways - is commercial Open source a "hoax" too? Some parts will most definetely survive, I think. Companies that do open source because they need, or at least can use, the product themselves, for instance. That is beautiful.

    But taking a product and providing services and knowledge about it for money? Hmm... actually, that isn't so stupid. If cars were free, we'd still have mechanics for the non-technical dudes. I guess that the free car of today has too little marketshare, a bit suspect reputation, and has the steering wheel on the wrong side. A bit awkvard for most, in other words.

    This could change. I hope it does... :)

    1. Re:I hope you Can live on an Open Source Base by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would really love it, and for a long time it has looked as if it is possible, by offering support, training and other stuff that is really valuable to "sell",and still keeping with the open source idea.

      I have been in IT for quite some years now, but I have yet to see the business that would have survived on support for an operating system. Each and every somewhat experienced Unix admin is able to handle Linux without even a wee bit of training.

      Operating systems do not pay, software does and a lot of software out there is way beyond what OSS developers could produce for various reasons. Operating systems are not with what anyone could get anything done and tinkering with one is a nice hobby but nothing else. So Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD and you name it are going to survive, but expect Linux to become something delivered on the disk with your new machine from IBM, HP or some other company and the number of customers for which the cost of the operation system is not much of an issue. One can use the same version for years and most companies pay more for toilet paper.

    2. Re:I hope you Can live on an Open Source Base by cymen · · Score: 1

      I think it is possible to build a business supporting open source software but a number of things help.

      - Having open source programmers in house that you support.
      - Having a high percentage of proficient and motivated geeks.
      - Having a enough time and insight to build your business long term instead of short term.

      In my opinion the tech crash was due to too much too fast. It isn't possible to build a megacorporation (let alone a small consultancy) with just money. RedHat has the first two things in the list above. Now the question is just whether they'll have enough time. From this report it sounds like they could be doing a lot worse.

      Personally I would love an Open Source car. I'm not kidding - if we had a platform to custom build our own cars I'm sure people would come up with something much more interesting than what the handful of huge corporations churn out. But the car would be open source "free" - not have a beer free.

  29. Good news? by Zico · · Score: 2

    Seriously, all they're doing is playing book-keeping tricks to pull the wool over your eyes. Doesn't it seem fishy how for the last three quarters they come within $100,000 of breaking even each time? Come on. When you actually read the articles and look at the numbers, though, you see that they're losing from $30-$50 million each quarter and writing it off as one-time charge. Someone else will have to explain how they manage to apply these supposed "one-time" charges every single quarter. ;)


    In other words, if RedHat were to keep "making money" at the same rate that they have for the last three quarters, they would run out of money not all that long from now.

    1. Re:Good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just let me know if you ever take up a career as a stock analyst, so that I can be sure to avoid all your recommendations...

      Your fundamental analysis is flawed.

    2. Re:Good news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the RHAT stock price hovers near its all-time low, I think I'm a lot more inclined to believe his projections than those of any rah-rah Red Hat supporter.

    3. Re:Good news? by johnnyb · · Score: 2

      They had a charge of $33 million for 'amortization of goodwill', which basically means that they are spreading out the expense of buying Cygnus and other companies a year ago over several quarters. That $33 million-dollar loss was actually done last year, but they are spreading the loss over several quarters. Had they put the all of the costs of acquisition in that quarter's report, they would have reporte much, much fewer one-time costs. I am not sure about the other one-time costs, though, but I think it has to do with the layoffs that happened when they consolidated European offices.

  30. Doing well? by Alcimedes · · Score: 1
    If they're doing so well, what's up with this? 1,500 shares bought by insiders in the last year, 1.7 million sold.



    not exactly a killer vote of confidence.

    1. Re:Doing well? by Salsaman · · Score: 2
      Yes, but if you look here about 5 million Microsoft shares were sold in August alone.

      So by your logic, M$ must be doing about 30 times worse than Redhat.

    2. Re:Doing well? by vidarh · · Score: 2

      Within the last year, Nasdaq was trading at extremely inflated levels. That people choose to sell at those levels isn't exactly very surprising. When the economic climate starts improving again I bet you'll see more than enough insiders buying back shares they sold the last year, but for a fraction of the price.

  31. Re:Bill Gates beats Tux again! by NonSequor · · Score: 2

    Your rendition of Bill Gates is almost as bad as your rendition of the Windows logo.

    --
    My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
  32. Bad signal by cyberian.org · · Score: 1

    As RedHat might be considered by many people (and especially those not currently using Linux) as the flagship of the distributions this is really bad news.

    I am afraid that news like this makes it harder for businesses to adopt Linux. It makes a huge difference to know that your operating system vendor is still in business after 1,2,5 and 10 years.

    So, I just sincerely hope Redhat, SuSE and the others get their business going well and start making nice profits.

    -- jukal at cyberian.org

    1. Re:Bad signal by vidarh · · Score: 2

      Redhat have enough cash to sustain them for well beyond 10 years with their current cash burn, so I wouldn't worry to much.

  33. Re:Economy shortsighted. Linux long term. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no to sound like a jerk, but...

    Good luck feeding your kids on a paradigm.

    note, I will log as just as soon as /. stops requiring cookies.

  34. Not looking hard enough. by OS24Ever · · Score: 1

    I don't know where you're looking, the most I've seen the regular version is $39.95. Maybe you are seeing the Deluxe version that is like $79.95, and the 'Professional Server' version is $139.95...

    So, I think you're looking in the wrong places...

    --

    As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.

  35. The big RH problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...is that they're not a software company, but a services and support company. (If you can get their software free, legally, then they're de facto not a software company.) Add to that the fact that they employ and pay a lot of programmers, and they're in a very bad position--they have the cost of producing software, but they only get the revenue of S&S, which has to support the whole company.

    And, as others have pointed out, if you examine the reported numbers carefully, they're a lot less rosy looking than the headlines would have you believe. RH's ship will coast to a stop soon, once the financial momentum from their IPO drains off.

  36. Odd, isn't it.. by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 2



    Odd that Slashdot, a VA-owned website, will report on Red Hat's losses, but somehow neglect to inform their readers that VA Linux Systems stock has finally slipped into penny-stock territory as of yesterday, closing at a whopping $0.95/shr.

    But wait..that would mean that VA is fair and impartial when it comes to informing the Linux community..hmm.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Odd, isn't it.. by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Uh oh, man, prepare for a bitchslapping.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    2. Re:Odd, isn't it.. by Error27 · · Score: 2

      Actually, Bowie J. Poag is a well known VA hater. These are the kinds of posts that we have come to expect from him in the past couple years...

      If he didn't post we would worry that he was ill.

    3. Re:Odd, isn't it.. by TheAwfulTruth · · Score: 1

      It's still odd...

      The philosophy is sound reguardless of it's source.

      --
      Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
    4. Re:Odd, isn't it.. by timster · · Score: 2

      Why would it make the slightest bit of difference to me, an Average Slashdot Reader, what some suits are paying for imaginary pieces of some Linux company? I don't own any VA stock. If I wanted that kind of information, I'm sure I would know where to find it.

      --
      I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
  37. Oh NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We all know there are TENS, maybe HUNDREDS of people who compile the latest Linux kernel. AMD's totally FUCKED now. There's no chance it will work with future versions, and AMD is so off the beaten path - game over man, game over. If your stuff doesn't run Linux, you're cut off from ONE OR TWO PERCENT of the desktop market, and that is just devastating. They're in a tailspin now. Might as well head over there right now for the office furniture auction....

  38. Caldera vs. Red Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caldera and Red Hat pulled in almost the same amount of $$ last quarter, except Caldera lost $15 million less (net) than Red Hat.

    Hmmm...

    1. Re:Caldera vs. Red Hat by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

      im a RH user, hoever if RH tanks im going to Mandrake

      Caldera is evil

      --
      * Carthago Delenda Est *
  39. Insecure by Default by rsimmons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Good to see that a crufty evil distro like RedHat is losing money.

  40. some juicy quotes for you: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Some random Market Watch TV program:

    [...] Red Hat is trading close mark were institutional investors were originally able to position themselves [...]

    Parapharase from that guy at Sun:

    [...] of course the market crashed; companies were being traded at over 60 times the actual worth. What the fuck did people think was going to happen? [...]

    Some random guy on an NY subway:

    [...] if you lost money in the tech crash, you deserved to lose it because you were either too greedy to cash-in or too stupid for not having invested sooner. Timing is everything and if you can't figure out when the fantasy has begun and when it's about to end, the you probably shouldn't be trusted with anything more than the allowance daddy gives you. [...]

  41. Red Hat Cowards ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's clear they must stop giving their stuff away for free. They should stop free downloads immediately and sell exclusively. But of course brainwashed by their Open Source Software / Free Software manipulating gurus, they have forgotten how to add and substract. How can a company sell the same stuff for $ 0.00 on the one hand and for $ 3,000.00 at the other ?

    How about to find a nice, golden middle and then invest a bit more effort in "perfect services".

  42. Red Hat is terrible at marketing. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I feel really uncomfortable when people wonder whether open source software can have a profitable business model.

    My company makes plenty of money by supporting the computer operations of businesses. My company provides the software at cost, without profit. The cost of the software is small compared to the support costs for training, hardware and software glitches, and specialized programs.

    Open source software is more reliable, but support is still needed.

    Red Hat, and other companies that provide support for open source software, are unbelieveably terrible at marketing. They just have no clue. That's part of the reason they have trouble making money.

    If Microsoft were as bad as Red Hat at marketing, Microsoft would still be trying to sell Microsoft Basic. What's worse, Red Hat is better than most of the others at marketing.

    When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.

    If you have a project involving GNU/free software, and need help with communicating to your prospective users, I may be able to help, as a volunteer. Send me email. Even when software is free, there is still a need for marketing communication.


    Want to understand the situation in the middle east? Read What Should be the Response to Violence? . Most important lesson? Understanding the corruption in the secret agencies of the U.S. government. They have a conflict of interest; they are supposed to help prevent trouble, but they get more money if there is more trouble.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
    1. Re:Red Hat is terrible at marketing. by John+Murdoch · · Score: 2
      If Microsoft were as bad as Red Hat at marketing, Microsoft would still be trying to sell Microsoft Basic....

      They still do:
      Visual Basic

    2. Re:Red Hat is terrible at marketing. by Kynde · · Score: 1

      When I look at most open source projects, I can't even understand the home page! Even the home pages are written with the idea that you work on the project, so you already know everything.

      Well, as an apparent suit you couldn't have nailed it better. Most of the open source projects do not need marketing, this sounds a tad naive, but they're out there for the love of it all without money playing any role at all. _That_ is why I feel so much safer in resorting to GNU licenced stuff than M$ware which would just lead me to MSN, Passport and .NET for their love of money...

      Besides RedHat's not down, as people have stated here, these are just reflections of the costs from their earlier acquisitions being spread across several fiscal periods.

      --
      1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
  43. Totally OT by smaugy · · Score: 1

    Microsoft.com infected with That Worm!

    http://www.microsoft.com/frontpage

    (From the Incidents mailing list)

  44. y0 d00dz, 1 f0und 7h15 31337 w4r3z 0f r3dh47 l1nux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  45. One time expenses are GAAP? Please quote a source. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excluding one time expenses is GAAP.

    I suppose that you could define your own kind of accounting document and say that the definition of certain terms used in that document are as defined in GAAP, but I would be very interested if you could quote a reference for how excluding these one time charges from the calculation of profit and loss in an income statement or any other document defined by GAAP is part of US Generally Accepted And Practiced accounting standards for 2001 or any recent year.

    Since you made your statement rather definitely that excluding one time expenses is GAAP, and since you even went so far as to ask people not to moderate the parent article up, and since it is easier to prove a positive than a negative, can you please quote a reference for this? Why wouldn't such exclusions also be part of the non-restated numbers? Are the non-restated profit/loss number not conformant to GAAP?

  46. RH is doing a bad job. by qadmon · · Score: 1

    I have purchased various RH releases three times in the past. Each time I found the same problems.
    Lousy bug database. Lousy support. Problems reported keep getting dupped out. Unless you pay the bug db doesn't work very well for you. It works but reallllly slow and doesn't show the hits very well.

    Their servers are not usuable to download with , again unless you pay.

    I just bought the product but the bad service turned me off. The lack of resolutions to failures I was having didn't help either.

    I thought they would do better but they forgot their beginnings in the name of greed.

  47. Re:VA Linux (LNUX) by vanguard · · Score: 2, Informative

    Being delisted means that they are not traded on the larger stock exchanges anymore. It's a huge knock on the company's prestige but it's not at all like chapter 11. They company will still be in business and it will be traded on the "pink sheets". There are markets filled with companies like VA Linux on those exchanges.

    There are a number of things that must happen to get delisted. Some of them include trading below $5 for an extended length of time, having a market cap under $50 million, etc. (I don't pretend to have them memorized. I'm just fimiliar with them because I worked for a failing company.)

    Anyway, even with all the methods of staying listed it seems to me that VA Linux is in danger, just like you pointed out.

    --
    That which does not kill me only makes me whinier
  48. Bye Bye Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to switch to MacOS X.

  49. Stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember Red Hat issuing better than expected profit exstimates a while ago, and their stock went down at the mention of better profits. Their stock value doesn't seem to have a connection with Red Hat, but with the industries' conidtion unfortunatly. It could be that most people that own parts of Red Hat don't really know what Red Hat is.

  50. Re:yay by mami · · Score: 1

    Well, as long as Red Hat is surrounded with that kind of friendly salespersons you seem to be, even software which is open and doesn't cost a penny can't make a buck.

    Time will tell who is deluged here by what.

    Plonk

  51. Not really bad by RandomPeon · · Score: 2

    Compared to the other server-grade OS (win2k) this is more than reasonable - 2k server runs $800 off the shelf, I think. (never bought it that way) You have additional licensing fees on top of that. And you get some pretty good support from RH if you pay.

    You can get the distro images for free from their ftp site if you have the bandwith. So the price isn't that bad.

  52. Nice bit of FUD there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make people think that microsoft was infected. Of course it's AKAMAI that's infected. MS has merely made the mistake of trusing anything to a third party.

  53. Releases by Micah · · Score: 2

    Well, last quarter when they earned $600,000, they released Red Hat 7.1, which may have helped their sales numbers. There was no distro release this quarter.

    However, 7.2 should come out shortly, and it will almost certainly drive their numbers up again.

    Not that distros is all they sell, but it does help and could easily be the difference between quarters.

  54. Ask Yahoo... by MissMyNewton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    (nm)

    --

    ---

    Information wants...you to shut your pie hole.

  55. I have issues... by rinkjustice · · Score: 1
    As polished as Redhat 7.1 is, it still needs alot of work. For instance, kernel recompiling is nearly impossible under a workstation-class installation without errors, and the much-touted Redhat Network is (IMHO) anti-intuitive. There is also no 1-800 number you can call for service or technical advice, only an email address (which is completely useless when you have a munged operating system).

    Note to Redhat: You got the branding downpat, now work on product and service issues.


    Again, the Redhat distribution is excellent (my personal fave) but it's far from perfect. When I punk down $70 CDN for software, I have high expectations.

  56. RedHat should just buy VA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... get the the linux.com domain and the LNX symbol and move on ...

  57. I wish I had a loss by Ratbert42 · · Score: 1

    I wish my company had a tiny loss so I didn't have to pay taxes...

  58. I'm glad to pay for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, I could download any RedHat release for free, but I'm happy to pay for it.

    Not only does the $50 I send to RedHat buy me 4 CDs of code, but also (mostly) prompt updates to that release for the foreseeable future. That money also goes to pay the salaries of people who contribute to the features and/or fixes of critical code (e.g. GCC and glibc).

    I consider the annual $50 I send to RedHat (I update once a year) to be a very good investment.

  59. glaring omission by cabbey · · Score: 2

    Normally a story like that would have made at least passing mention to the layoffs RH is taking, if for no other reason than to make the institutional investors happy (because they'd see them as "belt tightening" or some such). But this one makes no mention of them. The closest it comes is saying they "restructured [their] operations".

    Could it be that the reporter doesn't really know that much about the company? Or possibly they don't want to draw any parallels with the others in the dot bomb crowd for fear of tainting RH's staggering $3.11 share price? Or maybe then someone would ask which areas did they cut (to make sure it was fat and not mussle that was being trimed) and then they'd have to explain that some of it was part of the very group that they had just mentioned was responsible for "[a] significant portion of that revenue"?

  60. 7.2 ? by destiney · · Score: 1

    I hope they pull out and start making money again...

    But in the meantime, where the hell is 7.2? The Roswell beta has been out for so long, kde 2.2.1 actually has rpms built for it. I'm guessing Ximian will probably follow suite too if they haven't plans already.

  61. Not practical by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    Linux is great.

    Spending seven hours trying again and again to get RPM 4.0 to compile (for example) is not.

    Sometimes it would be nice to just be able to type "install" and have it work, right now, instead of spending hours rewriting makefiles and searching for obscure 9K libraries that are NEVER included with programs that are useless without them.

    Just a thought.

    1. Re:Not practical by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      ...only to find out after seven hours of recompiling that RPM 4.0 doesn't work anyway...

  62. Re:VA Linux (LNUX) by sheldon · · Score: 2

    I asked this in another thread several days ago.

    Someone pointed out that NASDAQ has relaxed these rules quite a bit, because otherwise they would have no stocks to trade at all.

  63. Revenue projections (personal input) by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    I will look favourably upon handhelds laptops etc that are branded Redhat. BTW I will be buying some RedHat stock and buying (not d'ling) a copy of whichever RedHat 8.* "boxed set" that comes with:

    * kernel 2.4.12
    * solid ext3/XFS/reiserfs fs support
    * XFree 4.2 (looking forward to better DPS/Xdgs capability ... heheh)
    * Apache 2.0
    * Gnome 2.0
    * KDE 3.0
    * glibc 2.4 (improved C/ObjC/C++ dll.so loading speed with maybe "wired" memory locations so apps load faster and do less "mapping" of memory)
    * gcc 3.1 (able to compile kernel *and* userland please and ditto load)
    * Out of the box USB and Firewire support easy enough to use for a *dog*!! Yes a DOG!

    Just another datapoint for your marketing dept :-P

    thank you for your attention ;-)

    1. Re:Revenue projections (personal input) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wow nice selection of incremental improvements I say jolly good! To the mix I would add
      1. sendmail 8.12 ... set up to run as a user
      2. bind 9 latest
      3. and ... the one and ONLY:

        (drum roll) MOZILLA 1.0
      ONE POINT OH BABY!
  64. Re:It's all over folks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really?

    So you mean that free, open source operating system that is available to everyone... just suddenly 'isnt'..

    Forgot - your a 13 year old wannabe windows troll...

  65. Marketing just means communicating with users. by Futurepower(tm) · · Score: 2


    Marketing in this case just means communicating with prospective users. It's sad, but open source projects are often not used because other people have no easy way of understanding them.

    Sure, I could go through the source code. But that takes time, and, obviously, I can do that only with a few projects.

    The term "marketing" gets a bad name because there is so much dishonest marketing. Honest communicating with prospective users is needed in any project, however.

    --
    Bush's education improvements were
  66. Discount package? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Download it for free then.

    But everyone and his grandma knows that these Linux companies are all near bankrupcy. They are doing a good and very worthy job for the community by their involvement in Free Software, and it would be disheartening to see Red Hat, a company which has contributed so much toward the cause of Linux, go down. If you are willing and able, buy any of their offerings or just make a donation, just so they can avoid going under.

  67. Distros are a little like clothes. by westfieldscientific · · Score: 1

    Like many Linux users, I tried out a few distros before finding one that fit best for me, and felt most comfortable.

    One of the attractions of working outside a software monopoly is that different developer communities and distro companies address separate groups of users with broadly differing priorities.

    Are you a desktop user looking for ease of installation? Check out Mandrake if you haven't already. Are ya deeply into kernel research and looking for explicit control over every aspect of your platform? Sounds like you would find Slackware right up your alley. For someone like me with a lot of crossplatform experience, and a lot of diskspace, and server and developmental ambitions as well as desktop requirements, Suse is an excellent fit.

    The only operating system I would unhesitatingly not recommend to anyone is Windoze, because it's no damn good, and it's developers are marketing it by methods that are not only ethically repugnant but unlawful.

    I would recommend Redhat, at the top of the list, in fact, to a corporation with a number of users in a LAN environment where an estasblished support contract with the distro company is a major operational consideration, as well as an important marketing point. I wouldn't be surprised that one of the reasons they're in reasonably good shape is that Redhat have positioned themselves to be a very attractive choice to users who fit that role.

    Due to reasons nothing to do with Linux, it's pretty excruciating to attempt to get excited about serious work of any description at the moment, but, OTOH, while I'm composing this comment, there are thousands of companies running M$ products who are having their day to day operations ripped apart by Nimda. A move to Redhat would be something I would suggest they consider.

    --
    give me a /home where the buffalo roam