VA Linux Now VA Software

g2g was among the people who noticed that Slashdot & OSDNs parent, VA Linux Systems has changed its name to VA Software. vasoftware.com is the new domain as I guess they are focusing on SourceForge and OSDN. On the upside, I guess newspapers will stop calling the company 'Linux' all the time.

Comments

Knowing our tech-savvy media

[radiashun]

they'll probably start calling it "software" now :-/

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media

[Anonymous Coward]

No, when you look at the pattern, somehow they strip off the first word and the last word. Now they'll call it " "!

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media

[Sloppy]

Really. Don't they know it's GNU/software?

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media

[betis70]

Anyone else have alarm bells go off whenever you hear the word "savvy"?

I read letters to the editor that say "I'm tech/investment/kitchen-savvy, but I can't use a cd-rom/distinguish between mutual funds/grill chicken". *shiver*

VA...

[cyclist1200]

...who?

They're still around?

Re:VA...

[MISVicePrezOh]

Ahh, VA Linux, VA Who, once upon a time I worked for them. Lots of people were told to leave. So I left for greener pastures. Now a rename. Such a shame, my VA Linux 420 is such a great machine. All I need now is a 1220.

This reminds me

[erikdalen]

Somehow this reminds me of NeXT computers changing name to NeXT Software (and then was bought out by apple).

But I suppose the new name better reflects their business.

Re:This reminds me

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, baby! Running a Sparc 4 with OpenStep 4.2 on a 9.1GB 10,000RPM LVD drive. And it is a NetInfo client of my 1988 Cube with 400dpi NeXT laser printer. Optical drive converted to slot loading CDROM, and 18Gb of storage.

Good to get the chance to get the word out that NeXT wrote the future which everyone else is slowly trying to grow into. MS has never come close with their sub-consumer-grade gaming OSes. Seamless OO client/server.

Re:This reminds me

[tbone1]

Well, from one perspective, NeXT bought Apple for -$450,000,000.

YMMV

Re:This reminds me

[g2g]

This reminds me of a quote I received today:

We trained hard - but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and what a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

Petronius
77 BC

Just like my employer...

++Clarity?

[jmoriarty]

So now the newspapers will call your company "Software"?

well of course

[ethereal]

...because it's really Red Hat == Linux, right? :)

kinda old news

[Blob Pet]

There was a slashdot story on this a while ago, but I guess this new post is on the official press release.

Re:kinda old news

[Col. Klink (retired)]

The old story was about VA proposing the name change. They still needed shareholder approval, which they only recently got.

Maybe good

[morbid]

This will maybe help in the corporate world where some people still regard anything to do with "Linux" as being ammateurish and worthy of contempt. Hopefully they'll start making a bit of cash, and we'll still be able to use sourceforge for free.

I predict...

[don_carnage]

...that the /. crowd will begin to predict the demise of VALinux^H^H^H^H^HSoftware. The oracle has spoken...

Re:I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

Now we just need some nancy troll to start spamming with the 'Linux is Dying' cut and paste job a handful of times in each Linux related article and all will be well with the world.

VA Linux wanted to be called LINUX

[jake_telco]

VA Linux was riding the wave.

Why take the NASDAQ symbol LNUX if you don't want to be known as Linux?

Re:VA Linux wanted to be called LINUX

[the_2nd_coming]

why do you think they had a record breaking IPO? because Linux was hot and people (who were not in the know) thought, "hey, Linux is the next big thing.....LNUX! woah they got an IPO!!!!!"

Huh?

[ArtDent]

From the press release:

VA Linux Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: LNUX) announced at its annual meeting today that shareholders voted to change the Company's name to "VA Software Corporation."

Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?

Re:Huh?

[Accelerated Joe]

Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?

I think it's in the plans, but it isn't for definite, yet.

Re:Huh?

[aozilla]

Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?

They're not planning on it, but the next ticker symbol for this company will be LNUXQ (followed quickly by LNUXQ.OB).

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?

Why bother? They'll be delisted by April '02.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they do it before they get delisted by NASDAQ!

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Recheck the stock (using a chart < 1year). It bottomed out (under a dollar) and has started to rise again. It isn't over quite yet.

TechTV

[lupetto]

I heard this on TechTV yesterday. You would think slashdot would have posted this before since they're owned by VA. Is VA going to change it's stock symbol as well? SFTW?

Re:TechTV

[bigjocker]

I would think something more like SWTF (So WTF:)

May be a chance for open source

[DOsinga]

This is the next step after the stockmarket crash of Linux shares. System integrators will no longer be *Linux* system integrators. VA will concentrate on software, not specifically on Linux software.
On the upside, it might make people see Open Source as something not necessarily Linux, but as a serious way of developing software. Open Source is more then Linux.

But will they ...

[dunham]

change the ticker symbol from LNUX to VSFT?

Watch out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-oh, starting to sound like "Atipa." The moment they dropped the Linux name for something like "solutions," they were bought out by some Windows-box-making company, and do that now.

Err, something like that. I'm sure Dave will rip me on this, but so be it ...

Re:Watch out!

[Anonymous Coward]

wouldn't it be wierd if microsoft bought VA and by extention slashdot then fired everbody and put thier drones in charge. ugh!

Re:Watch out!

[Anonymous Coward]

VA won't be that lucky. Microsoft tends to buy companies that have potential to make them money.

Re:Watch out!

[Anonymous Coward]

...or are a threat in some possible way. I guess that means they're safe.

SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[FortKnox]

I guess they are focusing on SourceForge and OSDN.

Yeah, I got that idea from Roblimo's note to kuro5hin about why it was being dropped by OSDN.

One question: How does Katz fit into the whole OSDN/Sourceforge idea? Keep in mind that Kuro5hin wasn't a part of the OSDN/Sourceforge idea...


(No need to reply with "Just take him off your reading list", I am curious of the answer Taco/Roblimo will give. Aren't you?).

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[gmhowell]

Don't feel like finding the link, but blocking stories by JK is not sufficient. I think it was WRT movie reviews or something. Couldn't tell you for sure, because I don't block him (some stuff is good, and the blurb on the front page tells me whether or not I want to read the article).

But to your broader question... I'm not sure that he does fit in. Not very well at any rate. I don't know his financial arrangements, but I imagine that he actually does make money for VA. I mean, there's at least one extra ad view for each person who posts "What is this Jon Katz garbage?!" and another ad view for "Just go to preferences and block articles by JK" and another for the people who go to preferences and block it...

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[gmhowell]

Shoot, forgot to respond to your last sentence: Taco/Roblimo will never/have never given timely, straight up answers to any question asked about slashdot.

With your userID, I don't know if you were reading before the slashcode was released. Took forever. When everyone bitched about it, CT's answer was "every time someone asked for the source, I pushed it back a day". That is a striking example of his maturity.

This board isn't run by good people. It's run by petty tyrants. The success is a result of the readers/posters (even the FP'ers, trolls, etc.). It was/is largely in the right place at the right time, and attracted the right people. It has grown beyond the PTB, and they are having trouble coming to grips with that.

(Go ahead, mod me down. I've got karma to burn.)

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[forgottengentleman]

I don't think this place was made for the people who ended up making it popular. He worked hard to get where he is, and if anyone thinks he owes them for his success, he pays it back every day.

Plus, he doesn't have to release his source, GPL or no. There's a place for immature people like deRaadt and others.

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Squirrel Killer]

I don't know if you were reading before the slashcode was released. Took forever. When everyone bitched about it, CT's answer was "every time someone asked for the source, I pushed it back a day". That is a striking example of his maturity.

No... it's a striking example of how whiny people can get when they're getting something for free. Look, it started off as Taco's code, with which he can do anything he wanted to with it. He didn't have open it up to anybody.

I never bought the arguments that because /. was so intertwined with the open source movement that /code had to be open source too. Sure it would have been logically inconsistent, but then when are people ever logically consistent.

It would have been a different thing had Taco been talking up how open /. was and then never released anything. But even during all the whining that I remember, there was always an ancient tarball of the /code sitting around. Whenever I saw or read Taco talking about /. or /code, he always said "Yeah, it's open, but we haven't released a version for quite a while. I'll release it when its ready for public consumption." (or words to that effect) He was almost always apologetic that the source hadn't been updated. But you know what? It was his code and it was his right to do whatever the hell he wanted to do with it. How would you like it if everyone demanded to read your version of the Great American Novel even though the rough draft was only half done? (I know, I know...I'm an Amerio-centric pig...whatever.)

This board is not run by petty tyrants. It's run by good people who are sick and tired of being flamed for every minor mistake. Its success has come in spite of the FP'ers who add absolutely nothing to the discussion (although I admit some of the trolls are pretty funny.)

-sk

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[zerocool^]

slashdot isn't your be-all end-all of news sources, is it? One could argue that all news sources are run by incompetant assholes with an agenda, and one would probably be right. I enjoy reading, not for the flame wars, but for the content, such as it is.

~z

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Accelerated Joe]

With your userID, I don't know if you were reading before the slashcode was released.

What about MY 'leet user id? I don't remember *not* having access to some (albeit archaic) version of slash.

I can't believe I started using a different id later just because my user name is so stupid!

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the trolls. They are modding people down for saying honest, decent things.

The bad part is that the trolls now have enough karma to moderate discussions in ways that please them.

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it did make the editors look like a bunch of hypocrites for praising "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and open source while damning Microsoft for its closed source practices. It's hard to remember now, but the editors used to be quite vocal in their admiration of ESR and his ideas, although they weren't too fanatical about it.

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[sllort]

This board isn't run by good people. It's run by petty tyrants. The success is a result of the readers/posters (even the FP'ers, trolls, etc.). - ghomwell

It would have been a different thing had Taco been talking up how open /. was and then never released anything. - Squirrel Killer

Honestly, I think the Truth lies in between these two statements. As a professional software developer, I know that just a few people (Marketing) whining about feature requests can add up to massive heartburn. Take a good swath of the Internet's geek population and turn them into your "Marketing Department", you're going to have to put up a lot of walls between yourself and your users. Slashdot isn't K5, it has at least twenty times the userbase. Has K5 been more responsive to user feature requests? Yes, but again, it's a different scale.

Is Slashdot the result of it's administrators or it's users? Well, yes. Look at Slashdot's leading story submitter and you'll find someone who has contributed a lot to Slashdot. But also take a look at Slash 2.2, and you'll find a near rewrite of slash, with a lot of new faces. The new Troll profiling and banning code implemented by Jamie McCarthy is a lot more sophisticated than anything any weblog has implemented before, with multi-level tracking by IP address, IP subnet, user account, hidden form gatekeepers (a form of "ICE"), and hidden user flags that silently alter /.'s behavior per-user.

Is Slashdot ruled by petty dictators? Sure, read my sig. Read this. But also keep in mind that Slash has a dedicated community of really persistent jerks, so a "tyrannical" stance is reasonably justified. This userbase is quite possibly the most critical group of people on the planet.

Rob never had to GPL Slash or open the code up to user inspection, but he did it, and it's been the cause of a lot of heartburn for him. And he's stuck by his guns. Rob's user bio used to say "I have secret powers" for a long time. If you ran /., wouldn't you get a little bit of a power trip too?

Honestly I think all this speculation about VA whatever is out-of-band here. I think /. can survive - will survive - with or without VA. You can like the model or hate it but it has worked and will continue to work.

Now if I could only be a user.

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Christopher Craig]

Shoot, forgot to respond to your last sentence: Taco/Roblimo will never/have never given timely, straight up answers to any question asked about slashdot.

I can't speak for Roblimo, but Rob Malda (CmdrTaco) has always replied to my questions concerning slashdot. He even discussed what he was thinking of including in customization when user ids were put in. I admit, it's been a while since I've asked him anything (like before /. was sold to Andover kind of a while), but I can testify that the statement "Taco [has] never given timely, straight up answers to any question asked about slashdot" is incorrect.

Re:SF & OSDN ?= Katz?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, boys. Burn those mod points...

To have had money when they IPO'd

[Sabalon]

I remember when they IPO'd. I got a letter saying I could have bought some shares at around $10per. That day it opened at around $33, and maxed at around $319, closing at around $270. Now it's at a hundredth of that.

Given that was an off the wall IPO and one of the first Linux IPO's, but still...

Brain fart.

Re:To have had money when they IPO'd

[spitzak]

The offer was for about $30 per share, but if you got one of these you could buy that while the stock was selling for over $300 per share. There was a limit of 160 shares (at least on the one I got) so you were not going to become filthy rich overnight with this, I also suspect there was no way to sell it soon enough to multiply your investment by 10, as anybody with any sense would expect, it immediately dropped to a more logical level of about $120 per share. (PS I of course waited too long and sold it for about $55 per share and thus made very little).

I also think there was something funny going on that caused the stock to inflate so fast. Aren't there some accusations that the brokerage manipulating this and several other stocks?

Re:To have had money when they IPO'd

[Sabalon]

I could have sworn that it opened for $30 but the letter was for $10. Well...that makes me sleep a little better :) Yeah..I wouldn't have been able to retire overnight, but even if I could have sold it in a day or two, it would have still been more than I started with :)

thnx for the info

This just makes customers nervous

[soloport]

Well, they sold hardware, initially. They were associated with Linux, initially. Now neither directly applies.

When larger companies do this it creates quite a hit in the financials. Most even suffer enough losses to fall off the face of the earth. Markets like to interface with companies that are well-defined, to begin with.

I miss their hardware lineup -- really thought it was a GoodThing(TM). I'd say we're going to lose another good friend, in the long run :(

Re:This just makes customers nervous

[jazman_777]

Well, they sold hardware, initially. They were associated with Linux, initially. Now neither directly applies.

McDonald's originally was a Taxidermist, and they're doing just fine.

Re:This just makes customers nervous

[chromatic]

"was"? Try the chicken sometime. That's a company with a consistent core competency. :)

Re:This just makes customers nervous

[Anonymous Coward]

they're also not based in Virginia.

Obligatory comment

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be "VA GNU/Software"

thank god

[gnudutch]

Now they'll quit giving Linux a bad rap.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[gmhowell]

Umm, what stock chart are you looking at?

Looking up LNUX shows that it has a moderate downslope, then being relatively flat since the beginning of September, with a recent moderate rise.

This is not totally unlike the Dow Jones Ind. Avg., which is recovering quite nicely from the Sept. 11th events, and is even making up ground lost since the recession started and the dot-bomb era.

Now, I am not sure that VA is going to do well. But the stock market doesn't agree. At this time, the stock is up ~3%

Question

[ManualCrank Angst]

Why not "VA Linux Software"? That would make the ticker symbol make sense, leave the buzzword in there AND be true. Unless they are planning to create/sell software that is not for Linux...?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Your link is wrong. It should point to slash not www. Of course, you're too big a cock smoker to realize the difference.

So what for /., OSDN, etc

[derek_m]

Sourceforge.net obviously fits into their new renamed company as a large scale advert for what can be done with their SourceForge "product" - but how does their collection of websites fit into their new non-Linux strategy?

/., NewsForge, Linux.com, freshmeat (and the rest) all look as if theyll be of no interest to the "new" VA - so what happens next?

Given the current state of web advertising I cant imagine that anyone would want to buy them, so VA will probably be stuck with them for a while to come whether they like it or not.

Anyone want to buy /.? Going real cheap :)

At least...

[Bazman]

... its not changed to VA GNU/Linux.

Baz

Click dem links

[imrdkl]

In spite of the endless reasons to bash and flame VA, I'll click a reasonable number of links per day to keep /. viable. I know this has been said before, but its a bastion of something, anyways.

SourceForge the product..

[Anonymous Coward]

is closed source? Is there something I'm missing? I thought SourceForge = SourceForge.org, yet vasoftware.com has a product called SourceForge 3.0.

that's a little close to....

[bje2]

M$FT

Re:that's a little close to....

[gazbo]

No, I think there is some NASDAQ rule that states 13yr old weenies are not allowes to get pathetic symbols.

Re:that's a little close to....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dollars are only cool if you have some.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[toupsie]

Was looking at it from start to now. So far it has only lost $200+ per share. Also try comparing it to the NASDAQ, S&P and DOW over the last two years. Pretty pathetic.

If I were Linus I would have sued VA for tarnishing the Linux name. :)

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

well from IPO, its down 99.5%, now that is a failure.

No tiny gray fonts, please!

[digitect]

Ah, yes. Another hardcoded font size in a press release.

Question: Why is it that press releases, documents that we are sure companies want everybody to read, continue to hard code web page font sizes to about 6pt, in a light shade of gray?

Answer: Management and marketing types write press releases with MS Word and are too busy playing golf to simply open the URL in their browser to verify that the web monkey did his job. They are not concerned enough about their company to follow through on the basics.

I have to say, RedHat (an unabashed Linux company, I might add) is a pleasant exception to this rule. Check out one of their press releases.

Perhaps attention to "details" such as font sizes in HTML-format press releases also give us an idea of a company's ability to follow through with the technical aspects of its core business functions as well.

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[hillct]

I guess in a time where anything with the name Linux attached has gone down in flames, it's a good move, but you have to wonder at what point will the company change it's name back? (because they probably will when the Linux desktop marketshare picks up reaches some level that makes it more commercially viable). PR is like that. Jump on any mane that works for as long as it works then run like hell when the name itself doesn't drive customers any longer. This is why old companies had it right: 'General Electric' for example made appliances, but now they also do Insurance and Investment Products. DO you see them changing their name? Of course, by that reasoning VA Software would still be VA Systems (which it was before VA Linux).

--CTH

This is old

[snoozerdss]

This was posted about two months ago on slashdot.

Re:This is old

[tomknight]

Ye gods, are you really that thick? The article you refer to states that they will change their name, and now we're being told they have changed their name. Yes, there is a difference.

Tom.

Considering its dismal performance

[aozilla]

the media probably won't be mentioning its name at all any more.

Re:Considering its dismal performance

[gowen]

How can you suggest VA Software won't be in the news:

"And in other news ... once promising local dotcom startup VA Software (formerly VA Linux, formerly Dodgy Dave's Custom Servers) has filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy. Now heres Fred with the sport.."

Re:Their new stocker symbol...

[toupsie]

Did I really type "stocker symbol"? Damn dyslexia, lack of sleep and no coffee blows.

WooHoo.

[VA Software]

I'm alive.

SFOE?

[zerOnIne]

I've said it before, but i still don't think this bodes well for sourceforge... with the 'open edition' still very much vaporware, the company's new philosophy doesn't reflect opensource ideals at all... and i know that when (if) SFOE gets released, it's going to have major holes poked in it where the non-free code was taken out... unless of course you want to pay VA lots and lots of money for a service/software contract...

if you want to help the free sourceforge effort, lend a hand with Debian-SF... let's really get this codebase cranking! 2.5 installs great on woody, 2.6 (the last ever public snapshot) on its way...

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[gmhowell]

Any rational person could tell you that the IPO was totally incorrect. Most of the dot-bomb IPO's were incorrect. Following traditional and time tested valuation policies, the market failed and is now correct.

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw. The rats are leaping off the Linux ship.

It's all downhill from here, folks. Linux is tainted in the market. And it has a third world image at this point. It's sad, because it was such a cool hobby before all the suits crowded in and the zealots decided to use it as a club to beat on Microsoft with.

Huh?

[42forty-two42]

I thought they already posted this?

Just wondering that myself

[ackthpt]

I guess newspapers will stop calling the company 'Linux' all the time.

Just imagine the confusion of having a ticker symbol of LNUX if you don't identify that anywhere in your company name. As LNUX is up to 2.84, this morning, I'd say they're safe from the NASDAQ axe, which accidentally chopped off Sedona the other day.

VA Software SourceForge now AI Hotspot

[Mentifex]

No matter what the name of the parent company, you can mod the SourceForge parent company 'way up for being the ne plus ultra main AI research focal point for environment Earth and parsecs around.

As of today Fri.7.DEC.2001 there are 382 Open Source AI projects living in infamy on SourceForge, where you may click on Software Map and pass down through Scientific/Engineering to explore the Artificial Intelligence category.

The critical mass of AI ingenuity there is racing into the future towards the Technological Singularity. Already the Mentifex Artificial Mind in MSIE JavaScript and in Forth for robots has been ported into Visual Basic as Mind.VB and into Java as Mind.JAVA AI. The future of humankind and of robotkind is in the worthy hands of VA Software/SourceForge.

Re:VA Software SourceForge now AI Hotspot

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite possibly the LAMEST man on the planet, Murray. Can Mentifex kick your ass for me?

Well

[MSBob]

Why not call yourselves Software,Hardware and Information Technology? The new ticker will be adequate with the company's performance too.

Sigh

[jd]

Why not just save everyone the time and effort, and call themselves VA*?

If people changed their name, each time they started doing somethign different, you'd never keep track. Companies are no different. The name, per se, really doesn't matter. It's the -identity- that counts. And that is something VA* is rapidly losing.

The only time I've seen name-changes be profitable is when the company desperately needs to ditch the old identity. (eg: Windscale's name-change to Selafield was purely for PR reasons, cos Windscale had an image so utterly carp that Satan himself would have looked on with envy.)

A good example of a company losing out is Lucent. Bell Labs made a REAL blunder on this one. Nobody knew who they were. No identity had been created. And yet, they were trying to play right alongside the REALLY big players. It was a disaster.

VA* should go back to VA Research, because that's a name that was (and is) known. It's established. It gained credibility. Not the company, the identity. Companies (and people) don't gain credibility with others, by and large. It's the image that does. That's why trademarks (literally, the mark that identifies the origin, for trade) are so important. Because THAT is where the money lies.

(You could build two absolutely identical computers, for example. But if one of them had a sticker labelling it as the product of a trusted company, and the other didn't, it wouldn't matter that the person building them, and even the parts, were the same. People buy the label, not the product. The product is simply the thing that the label is stuck onto.)

Re:Sigh

[nebby]

What are you talking about? Lucent was very successful up until about a year and a half ago. The reason they have gone into the shitter right now is not because of lack of identity but because of horrible management (7 web servers to every employee!) and some finanical misreporting.

www.vasoftware.biz

[boeddha]

Looks like they were too late for .biz registration ;)

Nope

[CaptainZapp]

The oracle has spoken...

Nah, oracle is busy supplying the US government with free (cough) software for the national ID card database.

Not A Valid Question

[waldoj]

One question: How does Katz fit into the whole OSDN/Sourceforge idea? Keep in mind that Kuro5hin wasn't a part of the OSDN/Sourceforge idea...

Katz doesn't fit in, in that he's too small of a piece in the puzzle. This would be like asking "How does John Smith, who works in the marketing department at HP, fit into the HP/Compaq merger?" It's just not a valid question.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Not A Valid Question

[ebh]

Sure it is. The answer is "layoff fodder". :(

ObTopic: Katz is probably a "contributing something-or-other" as opposed to a direct employee, so their relationship should be flexible enough to deal with VA's changes.

~~Wayback machine~~

[wiredog]

Remember when guys with the user names "CmdrTaco", "Hemos", and "CowboyNeal" used to post comments here? I wonder whatever happened to those guys? You never hear from them anymore.

I hope Rusty gets kuro5hin back up. Bet he'll be more anal about backups after this. One of the things I like about k5 is that it reminds me of what /. was a few years ago.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Spoons]

Looking up LNUX [yahoo.com] shows that it has a moderate downslope, then being relatively flat since the beginning of September, with a recent moderate rise.

This is not totally unlike the Dow Jones Ind. Avg. [yahoo.com], which is recovering quite nicely from the Sept. 11th events, and is even making up ground lost since the recession started and the dot-bomb era.

What are you talking about? The scale of the "moderate downslope" are no where near the DJIA. Take a look at the same chart against the DJIA. You can say what you want about VA Linu^H^H^H^H Software, but please don't claim their stock hasn't been volatile.

Just curious..

[mindstrm]

but why is this news? I mean, I know I sound like a troll..
It's been coming for months; anyone can go find this out for themselves. Stockholders will already be notified..
How on earth is VA changing it's name slightly a newsworthy article?
Seriously... slashdot has been going downhill.. the number of quality articles has been going down, down down....

It's not even funny. The editors don't edit.. the titles are often sensationalist and misleading. They are often full of grammatical errors, as well as syntactical ones.

Sure, I might make mistakes.. but I'm not the editor..

C'mon guys. Let's get back to posting nerd news that MATTERS, and having some intelligent discussion.

Re:Just curious..

[GrammarPhone]

C'mon guys. Let's get back to posting nerd news that MATTERS, and having some intelligent discussion.

Yeah! Let's get back to 1998!

hypocricy and self mutilation

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always detested the Microsoft ideology of only providing support for THEIR crap. While it sure would be helpful for ME to choose what I want to do, and for MS to play nicely with others... not to mention that they obviously can not go on the merrit of quality, and must resort to guerilla marketing and shutting out others.

Then I read the comments about VALinux... errr, whatever. I don't care if it is a 'linux' company personally. I want a SOFTWARE company. Linux, being the superior choice in most matters would be therefore the logical choice, but what still remains is the very SAME tactics in the 'linux' community. Geez, why don't you all have a nice little picket party and shoot yourselves in the foot why don't you? Please shut the hell up people and stop chipping away at Linux, you are not part of the solution but are VERY much the problem. So... please don't 'help' Linux anymore

Way OT, but

[Rude Turnip]

Hey, I registered for the Cotton Quiz and every time I log in, it just takes me back to their home page. wtf?

CO2 vs Oxygen

[tenor]

If the planet is increasing its CO2 to the point where plants can thrive (which they can't yet, they need water for that), then you could seed plants on Mars, and then wait a couple hundred years for the plants to take over. Once the plants take over, there will be sufficient O2 in the air (plant waste byproduct) for humans.

I don't know if Mars's gravity is strong enough to actually keep the atmosphere from leaking, but hey, it's a start. Since oxygen is a heavier molecule than carbon, it might increase the surface pressure as well.

I am not an environmental scientist, so take all that with a grain of salt. I do, however, read a lot of science fiction, which as we all know is an acceptable substitute for actual learning.

Re:CO2 vs Oxygen

[Anonymous Coward]

uh, I think you are posting this under the wrong story

In other news...

[Marcus Brody]

To reflect their mammoth, monopolistic postion, Microsoft have changed their name to just "Soft".

To reflect the fact they do not, have never and will never sell apples, Apple computers have changes their name to "Mac"

To reflect the fact that they are now more of a computer manufacturior rather than a machine manufacturer, and that they also operate at both a personal and business level, International Business Machines (IBM) have changed their name to International Computers & Stuff (ICS).

To reflect the fact that they are not mandrakes, do not look like mandrakes, and - despite the fact they are french - rarely even eat mandrakes, Mandrake Software are changin their name to "ThatFrenchDistro".

and so on....

To reflect the fact that I am not really Denholm Elliot in Indian Jones and the last crusade, I will now be changing my name by Deed Poll to "Depressed Cupboard Cheescake", to better represent my psychological state.

Thankyou, and.... Goodnight

Re:In other news...

[Depressed Cupboard C]

OK... i went through with it. However, the bastards truncated my name. You must all now refer to me as "Depressed Cupboard Cheesecake", or DCC if you like.

Re:In other news...

[sebol]

VA linux -> VA software (from computer to software )

but for software to hardware...
Microsoft --> Microhard

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Weezul]

No, the market is not necissarily correct now. I bought into the market hard core post Sept. 21st bottom, but I do think the valuations are still out of wack. Bonds are 5%, the S&P 500's P/E is 27, and most of the stocks I've looked at have 1.5% yield, so stocks need 3.5% growth to tie bonds and I'm not shure the P/Es can support it.

LNUX it's self looks over valued at $2. There should be turn around plays with fractional price/cash ratios. LNUX needs reverse splits to give room to fall without being delisted.

Buffet thinks we will see 6% or 7% outa stocks for the next 10 years and he knows what he's talking about, but +1.5% above bonds is not enough for fixed income people to justify holding stocks IMHO.

similar to dropping ".com" from Company Names

[dgb2n]

After the failure of so many .com companies, the last thing a company wanted in its name was .com . It became synonymous with a poorly thought out business model and imminent bankruptcy.

I'm afraid that this will be a similar trend. The Wall Street love affair with Linux is over. No longer can a company put Linux in its name and demand large sums of venture capital. VA wants to decouple itself from what it perceives as a sinking ship, the "Linux trend".

Notice that I decouple this from the technical merits of the operating system. To argue that Linux-based business models have proven difficult to establish profits is not the same thing as to undermine the Linux operating system.

I love the operating system but don't think many of the current "Linux companies" have viable business models. I favor the IBM approach. They are embracing Linux under their established IT services business.

Re:similar to dropping ".com" from Company Names

[spitzak]

Did any other companines (not counting little things that don't issue stock) put the word "Linux" in their names? I can't think of any but there must be some more examples?

Uh oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they don't make Slashdot change their name to "C:\".

Linux Company?

[Lazaru5]

Hell, I remember when it _wasn't_.

VA Research was a fine name. 'VA Linux' just inflated the IPO rush.

Does anyone else think....?

[moonboy]

Does anyone else think they should give up the LNUX ticker symbol and the Linux.com domain? Not that they should have to necessarily, but it might be a good idea, especially considering they have kind of gotten out of the "Linux business". Obviously they are still involved with Open Source software, but that is a much larger set than the subset that is "Linux".

Just my 2 cents.

Eric Raymond x Proprietary Sourceforge ? Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how Eric Raymong is listed as one of the members of the board of directors (being also the president of the open-source initiative).

Why, you ask ?

Because VA Software delivers a closed source application as its main product ? :)

http://vasoftware.com/about/board.php

Interesting huh.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[jkavanau]

just check here http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LNUX&d=c&k=c1&a=v&p=s &t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l where you can see past two years, as some people have pointed out, it has dropped from a 200 dollar high. VA is bleeding cash right now, with no signs of it ever having profitability, the hardware was the only thing they were even making a decent profit on.

Kuro5hin

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree is a lot better than Slashdot though much more unreliable in terms of service. But rusty has mentioned that her wants more people to pay for it. Well I'd pay only if it was up 99% of time rather than the current piss poor level which it has been for the past few months.

I spent so much time on that site and there are no "adequate" subsitutes. Adequacy is so slow and full of trolls and Slashdot is pretty crappoy these days.

More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[DG]

Here's another interesting graph:

Compare LNUX vs RHAT

And yet another:

LNUX vs MSFT

VA Linux is perhaps an under-performer, but the general trends can be seen in all the graphs.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Zico]

VA Linux is perhaps an under-performer, but the general trends can be seen in all the graphs.

Um, during the lifetime of the LNUX vs. MSFT chart that you chose, a quick eyeballing shows MSFT to have gone up about 25% and LNUX has gone down about 55%. What's the particular trend that you're referring to?

Unless, of course, you mean that the trend itself is that MSFT is on an upward path and LNUX is on a downward path, which does seem to be what the future holds. I just thought you were referring to something else.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Nater]

Even more interesting is this graph: RHAT vs. MSFT.

Food for financial thought. By the way, RHAT is trading about triple what it was on Sept 10. I wish I'd put money down.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Or this one.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's something to take a good hard look at: the banner ad at the top of this page.

It's the only real source of VA's revenue.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Nater]

Or this.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[spitzak]

Hell, if you are going to do that, try this one.

Gee, it's too bad I can't adjust the starting and ending day more precisely, maybe that is a feature we need. At least the other posters (both pro and anti- rhat/linux) brought up these charts at the default settings.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[toupsie]

I wouldn't know, my Squid setup kills any http reference to a directory named '/banner/'.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Nater]

I would say yours is the most meaningful, because it starts with MSFT and RHAT both at a low and compares where they've gone since. All the others have MSFT and RHAT at different moments in their respective histories and don't make a very good comparison.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[spitzak]

No, actually all the graphs I saw started at the same time. The difference is the graph I had shows only the last few days, where RHAT does quite well compared to MSFT. By picking other ranges you can find one where MSFT does very well compared to RHAT. In fact if Yahoo let you arbitraily pick the start and end date of the graph it should be possible to search for the range which maximizes (RHATin*MSFTout)/(MSFTin*RHATout) and get something that looks really good for RHAT! (or if you are a MSFT defender, reverse the search and "prove" just the opposite). Lying with statistics is easy and fun.

Re:More graphs - compare vs RHAT and MSFT

[Nater]

You're changing the "1 month", "2 month", "3 month", "1 year", etc thing, right? That changes the start date. The end date is always the current date.

By selecting 3 months, you're looking at a comparison since Sept 8. That's pretty close to the day the planes hit, which we could reasonably call a low point for most stocks. It was certainly a low for RHAT.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The scale of the "moderate downslope" are no where near the DJIA. Take a look at the same chart against the DJIA. You can say what you want about VA Linu^H^H^H^H Software, but please don't claim their stock hasn't been volatile.

A fairer comparison might be against the tech-heavy NASDAQ. Look here to see how LNUX compares to their industry. It's not good, even in comparison, but it's been a rough ride for everyone.

VA Research :)

[timothy]

Yes, I thought this was a beter name, personally :)

I can see a Linux-only company adding it to their name (though the examples I can think of are dangerous -- LinuxGruven? LinuxCare?), VA Research I think was a cooler name. VA Systems would be a nice generalized, plausable-deniability name, too ;) (After all, what can't be defined in some sense as "a system"?)

On that note though, I think "VA Software" is better than "VA Linux" as a company name. Nobody asked me about the name change, though ;)

Cheers,

timothy

better, not beter

[timothy]

"beter" is something else, too advanced for the scope of today's conversation. My bad.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[gmhowell]

Actually, my only holdings are about $500 in a couple of 401k accounts. (Having just reviewed the annual report, holdings in tech companies are rather low, and holdings in linux companies are nonexistant.)

Read my other post. The stock was totally and incredibly overvalued at $200+.

You sound like an angry man who bought some of those same stocks when they were overvalued, and are now pissed that you didn't get out earlier.

Re:Clueless moderators...

[gmhowell]

I don't agree with the evaluation that the parent to your post made. But there is no way in hell it should be flamebait. It's part of a discussion.

Re:Speaking of Katz...

[Jburkholder]

That page is pretty funny, I saw it earlier today linked off bluesnews. My favorite part was where they claimed "Lunix" was an illegal hacker operating system written by Torvalds (or some variation), who was working for the Soviet Union.

Takes time

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but I think its take some more paperwork to change a ticker symbol

anyone else thinks of Newsforge slashboxes here?

[BACbKA]

With this new added focus on sourceforge/newsforge, don't you think it's a good idea to ask CowboyNeal for the Newsforge slashboxes? Nondefault, just for those who want them. Those who voted "Open Source Related" on the recent poll about what kind of news is welcome here (like me) might appreciate this.

They stream out 2 feeds there, newsforge and newsvac. And, BTW, when one uses Newsforge, the Slashdot feed is there to add...

(Yes, my article rejected by Slashdot was posted on NewsVac...)

company name

[Anonymous Coward]

from VA Research
to VA Linux
to VA Software
any guesses on the next name
?
VA Wireless
VA Windows :-)
???

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[toupsie]

I am not angry. I would never invest my money in a company that is selling a free product. I also don't invest in any business in the Internet industry. Though I do have a substantial (for me at least) investment in Apple which has always been good for me.

I didnt see your other post before I replied -- might have been before you wrote it. I have just seen so much astroturfing lately to save stupid business plans.

If I show anger, it is because I have watched too many people get burned in the market trying to tie their CPU/Software activism into profits. When it fails, I think it hurts the movement.

You twat

[Anonymous Coward]

'My son is a hacker' was f*cking joke. Jesus geeks are so fsking literal. The authors are the guys who used to troll this site so sucessgfully in the past...

Re:You twat

[Jburkholder]

I *said* it was funny, I understand it was a joke.

Go soak your head or something.

Re:You twat

[Anonymous Coward]

I fucking hate those jesus geeks.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[jake_telco]

Of course share price and hocket sticks may not reflect the actual assets and cash burn rate that will lead to bankruptcy.

Hey moderators

[haggar]

this post was about 1000 more truthful than the parent, that was obviously just hyping LNUX.

If you think that by modding down people who say the truth, you can conceal that VA had a TERRIBLE performance so far, then you are more stupid than you seem. Same goes for moderating up this little hypster.

Now go on and mod me down, but don't think that people are so stupid as to not check the full graph of LNUX. And that graph is revealing a lot, a lot of painful truth, that VA Linux Systems or whatever it's called, is a piece of shit and should be avoided like weaponized anthrax.

Re:Hey moderators

[toupsie]

I went through the posts and looked the moderation on this article. It appears that Slashdot is being Moderation Astroturfed by the management of VA Software. Any thread that feels that LNUX stock is a poor performer, disagrees with VA's business plan or considers the name change another bad idea have been moderated to Troll and Flamebait. Illustrated greatly by the thread discussing the 99% drop in price being labeled as Flamebait -- as if facts are flames.

I am sure in a couple of months this article will be referenced by many when VA finally does go belly up. Its sad to see Slashdot sell out so much to their corporate master in the hopes that they actually might be able to ride out their options.

Re:Hey moderators

[spitzak]

Do you actually think the investors in VA are unaware that the stock lost 99% of it's value, and that moderating SlashDot is going to hide this fact from them?

Face it, everybody here is aware that the stock dropped like a rock and is worthless. I think it is interesting that it is not dropping right now (not that I would recommend anybody buy it, either), since I (and I bet you) would assumme it is still dropping. Why can't people point out facts that contradict the assummed wisdom?

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[tekmate]

Rats are not leaping the clueless are leaping. Linux has made great strides in the last couple of years and it will make even greater strides in the next few. The suits will catch on or be run over world domination is assured. How can we lose we have the coolest mascot:-)

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[haggar]

How about looking up LNUX instead? Hmmmm.. all of a sudden, LNUX doesn't look that hot anymore. OK, let's make the same comparison and see if it makes you feel so comfortable. Looks like a shit stock to me...

Good job at engineering with the scale, though. The sad thing is, some people with mod points actually bought your stuff!

their hardware now collectible?

[frankmu]

i got one of their 1u servers at their firesale, and am happy that it says linux on it. heh, it's alot more useful than buying the stock at the peak. now only if i had some va research stuff too...

maybe someone can setup a web site about former linux companies and their tee shirts.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good karmawhore.
Too bad LNUX's chart is in such an aggravated downtrend in it's 2 years of existence, that not even Viagra can lift it.

The Three Biggest Threats to VA

[lwagner]

Really, the largest three threats to VA are:
a.) getting delisted,
b.) having a profitable business model, and
c.) being able to overcome their leveraging.

a.) Getting delisted would mean that any new issues of stock wouldn't find a market on NASDAQ though it would prob be an OTC Penny Stock (e.g., found on the "Pink Sheets"). They would have a harder time finding underwriters for new issues of stock or, if they elect a best efforts underwriting, willing investors to buy the stock.

b.) A successful businessplan. All of us have seen a lot of stupid companies die from not having a solid way to make money. We have all seen raving open-source lunatics turn into begrudged closed-source adherents (not supporters) when the paychecks stopped. You need to make money and have reasonable margins. I haven't seen many open-source plans that scale beyond a small, thrifty business... and VA is neither. I'm not convinced that Red Hat is much better because (as we have seen in /. before) they are quite good at cooking the books.

c.) VA is highly leveraged, meaning they have a lot of creditors. A real challenge is going to be paying off the creditors and still maintaining enough of a profit margin to keep their heads above water. If you don't start a business with profit, it becomes an order of magnitude higher to gain one later. As an example, ask any small business owner who has had to take out a loan and try to make a profit in the short term while incurring serious debt. You can't reinvest as much into the business which is absolutely crucial when you are trying to start up.

Re:The Three Biggest Threats to VA

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed a few risks... Mainly just these...

RISK FACTORS

RISKS RELATED TO COMPETITION WITHIN OUR INDUSTRY

BECAUSE THE MARKET FOR OUR PRODUCTS IS NEW, WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER EXISTING AND

POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS WILL LICENSE OUR PRODUCTS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITY FOR US TO
ACHIEVE PROFITABILITY. The market for collaborative software development (CSD) is new and rapidly evolving. Our future growth and financial performance will
depend on broad market acceptance of our CSD platform. The number of software developers using our commercial CSD products is still relatively small. We expect that
we will continue to need intensive marketing and sales efforts to educate prospective clients about the uses and benefits of our products. Various factors could inhibit the
growth of the market and market acceptance of our CSD platform. In particular, potential customers may be unwilling to make the significant capital investment needed to
license our products and retrain their software developers to develop software using our CSD platform. Many of our customers have licensed only small quantities of our
products, and these or new customers may decide not to broadly implement or license additional copies of our products. We cannot be certain that a viable market for our
products will emerge, or if it does emerge, that it will be sustainable. If a sustainable viable market of our products fails to emerge, this would significantly adversely affect
our business and operating results.

WE ARE CONCENTRATING OUR EFFORTS SOLELY ON THE SALES OF OUR SOURCEFORGE

PRODUCTS, SO IF THESE PRODUCTS DO NOT ACHIEVE MARKET ACCEPTANCE WE ARE LIKELY TO
EXPERIENCE LARGER OPERATING LOSSES. We are directing nearly all of our product development efforts to the on-going development of the SourceForge CSD
platform. The failure to achieve widespread market acceptance of SourceForge on a timely basis would adversely affect our business and operating results. The success
of our SourceForge CSD platform is difficult to predict because CSD represents a new area of business for the computer software industry. There can be no assurance
that we will be successful in marketing, upgrading and supporting our SourceForge products. Our failure to do so could adversely affect our business and operating results.

IF WE DO NOT DEVELOP AND ENHANCE SOURCEFORGE TO KEEP PACE WITH TECHNOLOGICAL,
MARKET, AND INDUSTRY CHANGES, OUR REVENUES MAY DECLINE. Rapid technological advances, changes in customer requirements, and frequent new
product introductions and enhancements characterize the software development industry. We must respond rapidly to developments related to hardware platforms,
operating systems, and software development tools. These developments will require us to make substantial product-development investments. If we fail to anticipate or
respond adequately to technology developments, industry standards, or practices and customer requirements, or if we experience any significant delays in product
development, introduction, or integration, our products may become obsolete or unmarketable, our ability to compete may be impaired, and our revenues may decline. We
believe our continued success will become increasingly dependent on our ability to:

- support multiple platforms, including Linux, commercial UNIX and Microsoft Windows;

- use the latest technologies to continue to support Web-based CSD; and

- continually support the rapidly changing standards, tools and technologies used in software development.

IF WE DO NOT EFFECTIVELY COMPETE WITH NEW AND EXISTING COMPETITORS, OUR REVENUES
AND OPERATING MARGINS WILL DECLINE. We believe that the newly emerging CSD market is fragmented, subject to rapid change and highly sensitive to new
product introductions and marketing efforts by industry participants. Competition in related markets is intense. If our products gain market acceptance, we expect the
competition to rapidly intensify as new competitors enter the CSD market. Our potential competitors include entrenched companies in closely related markets who may
choose to enter and focus on the CSD market. Although we do not believe that we presently have an entrenched competitor, we expect competition to intensify in the
future if the market for CSD platforms continues to expand. Many of these potential competitors are much larger than we are and may have significantly more resources
and more experience. Our potential competitors include providers of software and related services as well as providers of hosted application services. Our potential
competitors vary in size, scope of services offered and platforms supported. Many of our competitors have longer operating histories and greater financial, technical, sales
and marketing resources than we do. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors or that competitive
pressures will not result in price reductions, reduced operating margins and loss of market share, any one of which could seriously harm our business.

Because individual product sales often lead to a broader customer relationship, our products must be able to successfully compete with and complement numerous
competitors' current and potential offerings. Moreover, we may be forced to compete with our strategic partners, and potential strategic partners, and this may adversely
impact our relationship with an individual partner or a number of partners.

IF WE FAIL TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN LARGER CORPORATE AND ENTERPRISE-LEVEL
CUSTOMERS, OUR REVENUES WILL DECLINE SUBSTANTIALLY. We have focused our sales and marketing efforts upon larger corporate and enterprise-level
customers. This strategy may fail to generate sufficient revenue to offset the substantial demands that this strategy will place on our business, in particular the longer sales
cycles, higher levels of service and support and volume pricing and terms that larger corporate and enterprise accounts often demand. In addition, these larger customers
generally have significant internal financial and personnel resources. As a result, rather than license SourceForge, our target customers may develop CSD platforms
internally, including ad hoc integrations of CSD platforms based on open source code. A failure to successfully obtain revenues from large corporate or enterprise-level
customers will materially and adversely affect our operations.

IF WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE HIGH-QUALITY CUSTOMER SUPPORT AND SERVICES, WE WILL
NOT MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR CUSTOMERS. For our business to succeed, we must effectively market and provide customer support for our SourceForge
products. If we do not develop our customer support organization to meet the needs or expectations of customers, we face an increased risk that customers will purchase
CSD software from other providers or forgo deployment of CSD platforms entirely which would materially and adversely affect our operations.

INCREASED UTILIZATION AND COSTS OF OUR TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES MAY ADVERSELY
AFFECT OUR FINANCIAL RESULTS. Like many companies in the software industry, technical support costs will likely comprise a significant portion of our operating
costs and expenses. Over the short term, we may be unable to respond to fluctuations in customer demand for support services. We also may be unable to modify the
format of our support services to compete with changes in support services provided by competitors. Further, customer demand for these services could cause increases
in the costs of providing such services and adversely affect our operating results.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR FINANCIAL RESULTS

IT IS DIFFICULT TO EVALUATE OUR BUSINESS BECAUSE WE HAVE A LIMITED HISTORY
OPERATING AS A PROVIDER OF OUR CSD PLATFORM. We have a relatively brief operating history as a provider of our commercial CSD platform. As a result, our
historical financial information is of limited value in projecting future operating results. On June 27, 2001, we exited our hardware business. Subsequent to our fiscal year
end of July 28, 2001 we made the strategic decision to exit the professional services and Linux software engineering services fields to focus solely on SourceForge. These
changes required us to

adjust our business processes and make a number of significant personnel changes, including changes and additions to our engineering and management teams. Therefore,
in evaluating our business you must consider the risks and difficulties frequently encountered by early stage companies in new and rapidly evolving markets, including
those discussed within these "Risk Factors" and in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations."

IF WE FAIL TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR AND MINIMIZE OUR USE OF EXISTING CASH AND

CREDIT FACILITIES, WE MAY NEED SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO FUND CONTINUED
OPERATIONS IN FISCAL 2003. Since becoming a public company, we have experienced negative cash flow from operations and expect to experience negative cash
flow from operations for at least the foreseeable future. Unless we monitor and minimize the level of use of our existing cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments and
credit facilities, we may require substantial additional capital to fund continued operations into fiscal 2003. We believe that our existing cash balances and credit facilities
will be adequate to fund our operations for the next twelve (12) months, although there can be no assurances in this regard. We may require additional funding within this
time frame, and there can be no assurances that this additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all. It is possible that we may require
additional financing within this period, particularly if the general economic downturn continues to negatively affect revenues, or if we elect to acquire complementary
businesses or technologies. The factors described in this paragraph, and other factors that may arise subsequently, will affect our future capital requirements and the
adequacy of our available funds. As a result, we may be required to raise additional funds through public financing facilities, strategic relationships or other arrangements.
Any additional equity financing may be dilutive to our stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants on our operations and financial condition.
Our inability to raise capital when needed could seriously harm our business.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A LIMITED OPERATING HISTORY WITH OUR NEW SOURCEFORGE PRODUCT, WE

MAY NOT ACCURATELY FORECAST OUR SALES AND REVENUES, WHICH WILL CAUSE QUARTERLY

FLUCTUATIONS IN OUR NET REVENUES AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND MAY RESULT IN
VOLATILITY IN OUR STOCK PRICE. Our ability to accurately forecast our quarterly sales and revenue is made difficult by our limited operating history with our new
business direction and the general economic downturn. In addition, most of our operating costs are fixed and based on our revenue expectations. Therefore, if we have a
shortfall in revenues, we may be unable to reduce our expenses quickly enough to avoid lower quarterly operating results.

During fiscal 1999, we hired 138 employees, moved into significantly larger facilities and substantially increased our operating expenses. Throughout fiscal 2000, we
continued to add a significant number of new employees. In early fiscal 2001, we again relocated to larger facilities. In February, June and August 2001, we substantially
reduced our workforce such that as of September 30, 2001 we had 209 employees, down from 551 employees as of January 31, 2001. Nevertheless, despite these
reductions in our workforce, our business may fail to grow rapidly enough to offset our operating expenses. As a result, our quarterly operating results could fluctuate, and
such fluctuation could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Our quarterly net revenues and results of operations may vary significantly in the future due
to a number of additional factors, many of which are outside of our control. The primary factors that may cause our quarterly net revenues and results of operations to
fluctuate include the following:

- economic conditions generally and in the specific industries in which our customers operate;

- demand for and market acceptance of our software and services;

- reductions in the sales price of our software or software offered by our competitors;

- our ability to develop, introduce and market new versions of our software and product enhancements that meet customer requirements in a timely manner.

Accordingly, you should not rely on the results of any past periods as an indication of our future performance. It is likely that in some future periods, our operating results
may be below expectations of public market analysts or investors. If this occurs, the price of our common stock may drop.

FAILURE TO MAINTAIN OR INCREASE OUR GROSS MARGIN WILL HARM OUR RESULTS OF
OPERATIONS. Our gross margin may be adversely affected by decreases in the average selling prices of our software or increased costs of providing service and
customer support. If we are unable to offset a decrease in the average selling prices of our existing products by developing and introducing products and services with
higher margins or by reducing our product and development costs, our gross margin will suffer.

For more information related to our costs associated with software development and our gross margin, see "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Conditions and Results of Operations Results of Operations."

We from time to time make internal estimates as to future operating results, which are used for various purposes, including establishing reserves and spending levels and
allocations. Should our operating results fall short of our internal estimates, or the other bases for our reserves adversely change, our gross margin will suffer as we
increase reserves or take other appropriate actions.

SIGNIFICANT UNANTICIPATED FLUCTUATIONS IN OUR QUARTERLY REVENUES AND OPERATING

RESULTS MAY CAUSE US NOT TO MEET SECURITIES ANALYSTS' OR INVESTORS' EXPECTATIONS
AND MAY RESULT IN A DECLINE IN THE PRICES OF OUR COMMON STOCK. Our net revenues and operating results are difficult to predict and may fluctuate
significantly from quarter to quarter. If our revenues, operating results, earnings, or future projections are below the levels expected by securities analysts, the price of our
common stock is likely to decline.

Factors that may cause quarterly fluctuations in our operating results include, but are not limited to:

- the discretionary nature of our customers' purchase and budget cycles;

- difficulty predicting the size and timing of customer orders;

- long sales cycles;

- seasonal variations in operating results;

- introduction or enhancement of our products or our competitors' products;

- changes in our pricing policies or the pricing policies of our competitors;

- an increase in our operating costs;

- whether we are able to expand our sales and marketing programs;

- the mix of our products and services sold;

- the level of sales incentives for our direct sales force;

- the mix of our domestic and international sales;

- unfavorable economic conditions in the technology industry;

- decreased spending on technology due to adverse economic conditions;

- fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;

- changes in accounting pronouncements applicable to us;

- the timing of announcements and releases of new or enhanced versions of our products and product upgrades;

- the introduction of competitive products by existing or new competitors;

- end-of-period buying patterns of foreign and domestic software markets; and

- the market's transition between new releases of operating systems.

In addition to the foregoing factors, the risk of quarterly fluctuations is increased by the fact that many enterprise customers negotiate site licenses near the end of each
quarter. In part, this is because enterprise customers are able, or believe that they are able, to negotiate lower prices and more favorable terms at that time. Our reliance on
a large portion of revenue occurring at the end of the

quarter and the increase in the dollar value of transactions that occur at the end of a quarter can result in increased uncertainty relating to quarterly revenues. Due to
end-of-period variances, forecasts may not be achieved, either because expected sales do not occur or because they occur at lower prices or on terms that are less
favorable to us. In addition, these factors increase the chances that our results could diverge from the expectations of investors and analysts.

In addition, the timing of our product revenues is difficult to predict because our sales cycles vary substantially from customer to customer. We base our operating
expenses on our expectations regarding future revenue levels. As a result, if total revenues for a particular quarter are below our expectations, we could not
proportionately reduce operating expenses for that quarter. Therefore, a revenue shortfall would have a disproportionate effect on our operating results for that quarter. In
addition, because our service revenues are largely correlated with our license revenues, a decline in license revenues could also cause a decline in our service revenues in
the same quarter or subsequent quarters.

WE HAVE A HISTORY OF LOSSES AND EXPECT TO CONTINUE TO INCUR NET LOSSES FOR THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE. We incurred a loss of $54.9 million for our fiscal first quarter ended October 27, 2001, primarily due to the general economic slowdown and our
restructuring, and we had an accumulated deficit of $689.8 million as of October 27, 2001. We expect to continue to incur significant product development, sales and
marketing and administrative expenses. In addition, we are investing considerable resources in our Internet operations. We do not expect to generate sufficient revenues
to achieve profitability and, therefore, we expect to continue to incur net losses for at least the foreseeable future. If we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to
sustain it. Failure to become and remain profitable may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock and our ability to raise capital and continue
operations.

FUTURE GUIDELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING SOFTWARE REVENUE RECOGNITION
COULD HAVE A MATERIAL IMPACT ON OUR BUSINESS. In October 1997, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants ("AICPA") issued Statement
of Position ("SOP") No. 97-2, "Software Revenue Recognition" which superceded SOP No. 91-1. SOP No. 97-2, as amended by SOP No. 98-4 and SOP No. 98-9,
provides guidance on applying generally accepted accounting principles for software revenue recognition transactions. In December 1999, the SEC issued SAB No. 101,
"Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements," which provides further revenue recognition guidance. We adopted SAB No. 101, as amended, in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2001 as required. The adoption of SAB No. 101 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The
accounting profession continues to review certain provisions of SOP No. 97-2 and SAB No. 101 with the objective of providing additional guidance on implementing its
provisions. Depending upon the outcome of these reviews and the issuance of implementation guidelines and interpretations, we may be required to change our revenue
recognition policies and business practices and such changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial position.

RISKS RELATED TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

WE ARE VULNERABLE TO CLAIMS THAT OUR PRODUCTS INFRINGE THIRD-PARTY INTELLECTUAL

PROPERTY RIGHTS. ANY RESULTING CLAIMS AGAINST US COULD BE COSTLY TO DEFEND OR
SUBJECT US TO SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES. We expect that our software products will increasingly be subject to infringement claims as the number of products and
competitors in our industry segment grows and the functionality of products in different industry segments overlaps. In addition, we may receive patent infringement claims
as companies increasingly seek to patent their software. Our developers may fail to perform patent searches and may therefore unwittingly infringe third-party patent
rights. We cannot prevent current or future patent holders or other owners of intellectual property from suing us and others seeking monetary damages or an injunction
against shipment of our software offerings. A patent holder may deny us a license or force us to pay royalties. In either event, our operating results could be seriously
harmed. In addition, employees hired from competitors might utilize proprietary and trade secret information from their former employers without our knowledge, even
though our employment agreements and policies clearly prohibit such practices.

Any litigation regarding our intellectual property, with or without merit, could be costly and time consuming to defend, divert the attention of our management and key
personnel from our business operations and cause product shipment delays. Claims of intellectual property infringement may require us to enter into royalty and licensing
agreements that may not be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all. In addition, parties making claims against us may be able to obtain injunctive or other equitable
relief that could effectively block our ability to sell our products in the United States and abroad and could result in an award of substantial damages against us. Defense of
any lawsuit or failure to obtain any required license could delay shipment of our products and increase our costs. If a successful claim is made against us and we fail to
develop or license a substitute technology, our business, results of operations, financial condition or cash flows could be immediately and materially adversely affected.

IF WE FAIL TO ADEQUATELY PROTECT OUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, COMPETITORS

MAY USE OUR TECHNOLOGY AND TRADEMARKS, WHICH COULD WEAKEN OUR COMPETITIVE
POSITION, REDUCE OUR REVENUES, AND INCREASE OUR COSTS. We rely on a combination of copyright, trademark, patent, and trade-secret laws, employee
and third-party nondisclosure agreements, and other arrangements to protect our proprietary rights. Despite these precautions, it may be possible for unauthorized third
parties to copy our products or obtain and use information that we regard as proprietary to create products that compete against ours. Some license provisions protecting
against unauthorized use, copying, transfer, and disclosure of our licensed programs may be unenforceable under the laws of certain jurisdictions and foreign countries.

In addition, the laws of some countries do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as do the laws of the United States. To the extent that we increase our
international activities, our exposure to unauthorized copying and use of our products and proprietary information will increase.

Our collection of trademarks is important to our business. The protective steps we take or have taken may be inadequate to deter misappropriation of our trademark rights.
We have filed applications for registration of some of our trademarks in the United States and internationally. Effective trademark protection may not be available in every
country in which we offer or intend to offer our products and services. Failure to protect our trademark rights adequately could damage our brand identity and impair our
ability to compete effectively. Furthermore, defending or enforcing our trademark rights could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources.

The scope of United States patent protection in the software industry is not well defined and will evolve as the United States Patent and Trademark Office grants additional
patents. Because patent applications in the United States are not publicly disclosed until the patent is issued, applications may have been filed that would relate to our
products.

Our success depends significantly upon our proprietary technology. Despite our efforts to protect our proprietary technology, it may be possible for unauthorized third
parties to copy certain portions of our products or to reverse engineer or otherwise obtain and use our proprietary information. We do not have any software patents, and
existing copyright laws afford only limited protection. In addition, we cannot be certain that others will not develop substantially equivalent or superseding proprietary
technology, or that equivalent products will not be marketed in competition with our products, thereby substantially reducing the value of our proprietary rights. We cannot
assure you that we will develop proprietary products or technologies that are patentable, that any patent, if issued, would provide us with any competitive advantages or
would not be challenged by third parties, or that the patents of others will not adversely affect our ability to do business. Litigation may be necessary to protect our
proprietary technology. This litigation may be time-consuming and expensive.

PROMOTIONAL PRODUCT VERSIONS MAY ADVERSELY IMPACT OUR ACTUAL PRODUCT SALES. Our marketing strategy relies in part on making elements
of our technology available for no charge or at a very low price. This strategy is designed to expose our products to a broader customer base than to our historical
customer base and to encourage potential customers to purchase an upgrade or other full priced products from us.

We may not be able to introduce enhancements to our full-price products or versions of our products with intermediate functionality at a rate necessary to adequately
differentiate them from the promotional versions, which could reduce sales of our products.

WE MAY BE SUBJECT TO CLAIMS AS A RESULT OF INFORMATION PUBLISHED ON, POSTED ON
OR ACCESSIBLE FROM OUR INTERNET SITES. We may be subject to claims of defamation, negligence, copyright or trademark infringement (including contributory
infringement) or other claims relating to the information contained on our Internet sites, whether written by third parties or us. These types of claims have been brought
against online services in the past and can be costly to defend regardless of the merit of the lawsuit. Although recent federal legislation protects online services from some
claims when third parties write the material, this protection is limited. Furthermore, the law in this area remains in flux and varies from state to state. We receive
notification from time to time of potential claims, but have not been named as a party to litigation involving such claims. While no formal complaints have been filed against
us to date, our business could be seriously harmed if one were asserted.

OTHER RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS

FUTURE REVENUE GROWTH DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO HIRE AND RETAIN QUALIFIED
PERSONNEL. During late fiscal 2001 and early fiscal 2002, we hired a significant number of software development, sales and marketing personnel. Competition for these
individuals is intense, and we may not be able to attract, assimilate or retain highly qualified personnel. Our future success and ability to grow our revenue also depend upon
the continued service of our executive officers and other key engineering, sales,

marketing and support personnel. Competition for qualified personnel in our industry and in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as the other geographic markets in which
we recruit, is intense and characterized by increasing salaries, which may increase our operating expenses or hinder our ability to recruit qualified candidates.

IF WE ARE UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE SYSTEMS, PROCEDURES AND CONTROLS, WE

MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY OFFER OUR SERVICES AND GROW OUR SOFTWARE
BUSINESS. Our ability to successfully offer our services and grow our software business requires an effective planning and management process. Over the past two and
a half years, we have implemented or updated our operations and financial systems, procedures and controls, including the implementation of an enterprise resource
planning system. Our systems will continue to require additional modifications and improvements to respond to current and future changes in our business. Our key
personnel have limited experience managing this type of fluctuation in operations. If we cannot grow our software business, and manage that growth effectively, or if we
fail to timely implement appropriate internal systems, procedures, controls and necessary modifications and improvements to these systems, our business will suffer.

Linux is changing it's name to Software?

[soybean]

What the hell is Linus thinking?

SHHH! [n/t]

[theantix]

I said no damn text!

VA whatever

[WillSeattle]

I've got a box that says VA Research, I've got a box that says VA Linux. Same company.

So now it's VA Software. Only difference is now I can buy a box from someone else.

It's a shame, cause those are nice boxes. But that's all they are - boxes.

The good news is VA is still around, which in this industry is something to cheer about. Just like my now being able to order Mandrake 8.1 with The Sims in a bundle, and cut the legs out from under Microsoft.

-

I looked...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but I didn't see his nick at all. I saw yours, though and man, he's got you guys on the run.

Ticker should be

[WillSeattle]

change the ticker symbol from LNUX to VSFT?

No, they'll change it to VINV - VA Is Not VA.

Now that would be appropriate.

[got one VA Research box and one VA Linux box at home]

Re:Ticker should be

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this symbol taken yet?

DEAD

adequacy full of trolls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever do you mean? I have a feeling that you don't "get adequacy", but you raise an interesting question, one I've been thinking about for a while now. Since adequacy is a troll site, are you a troll if you play along and taunt the poor bastards that don't get it, or are you a troll if you take them seriously and post indignant responses?

Re:adequacy full of trolls?

[Nater]

And I've been wondering... will enough heads explode while boggling that very question to just make it stop entirely?

Pity poor Linux Hardware Solutions.

[sammy baby]

Remember way back when VA (then called VA Research) snapped up Linux Hardware Solutions? They were acquired at the same time as "Enlightenment Solutions." Afterwards, they changed their name to "VA Linux Systems," probably because nobody knew what the hell "VA Research" meant.

A few months later, they announced their IPO. Folks there must have felt drunk when they saw their stock valuation vault to - well, it was the biggest first-day pop in history, let's just put it that way. Even Eric Raymond piped up about the windfall (salient points for the busy: "Wow. Thanks, Linux hackers. I'm buying a new gun. Charities can go fuck themselves.")

All this was only two years ago. How time flies. I'm looking at my comparatively antediluvean userID and feeling all nostaligic.

Incidentally - VA's stock has been doing not-so-badly since November. Interesting.

Re:Pity poor Linux Hardware Solutions.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, their stock is still in the shitter. A two week graph with a y-range of 1-2 isn't exactly a testimonial to their financial viability. I'd be more concerned with the fact that they're losing an incredible $10 per share.

Interesting.

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got a rowboat with your name on it buddy. Now get the heck off the ship before I throw you off. The rest of us couldn't care less if Linux obtains world domination. In fact, I really hope it doesn't because then it'd be no better than what we're fighting now. What I want to see is the right tool used for the right job. I don't pound screws in with a sledgehammer and I don't use Windows for my server needs.

Tee hee

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've been saying it all along. You are one of the only smart ones there. Too bad you don't use your powers for good.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the people who got in on the IPO, sold it to idiots at $300 a share and got out the next day. That was great. People made tens of thousands of dollars on this scheme. hehe. Thanks VA Research! Err.. VA Linux... err.. well VA Software!

BTW

[ManualCrank Angst]

My "suggestions" post from last night wasn't entirely in jest. Except for a single passing reference (which, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he missed) I haven't made a single fiancee/bambi post today. Aren't you proud of me?

so true-

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the only intelligent remark I've read on slashdot today.

LNUX

[GenetixSW]

Does anyone know what will happen to their stock symbol on Nasdaq? In cases like this, do companies ever change their symbol, or is it common practice to never change a symbol for convenience' sake. I'm curious. Anyone have an answer to this?

snooze

[Anonymous Coward]

Still doesn't really make it news.

Quit your bitching.

[Anonymous Coward]

We all get banned from time to time. Metamoderation is a joke and nothing here works like it could if someone with a pulse and a brain were behind it.

Re:LNUX - ticker symbol has not changed

[Animats]

Our automated tracking system for failing companies shows that the company has filed a name change with NASDAQ, hasn't changed its ticker symbol, and hasn't made any SEC filings under the new name yet.

A company can request a change of stock symbol, but it's rarely done. More common is what happens in bankruptcy. When a NASDAQ-listed company goes into bankruptcy, its symbol gets a "Q" on the end, as you can see here when At Home Corp. was changed from ATHM to ATHMQ on October 10, 2001.

Another year...

[Arandir]

Another year, another name for Larry Augustin's company. Now accepting sealed prognostications for next years new name.

"exiting Linux businesses"

[Anonymous Coward]

The San Jose Mercury News (Silicon Valley paper)
said a couple of days ago that the
name change reflects the company "exiting
Linux businesses".

What about the stock ticker....

[BLAG-blast]

VA are still going to use LNUX for a while?

I bet if they don't change the stock ticker every time Red Hat's stock goes up so will VA (this, of course could be an insider traders dream).

Of course I'm sure it'll go down when RHAT does as well. Also, I think Red Hat has too much marketing invisted in the "Red Hat" brand to change the stock ticker.

Oh well, nice try as a linux company VA, I really thought you'd make it (or atleast stay in the game).

Why not? Because...

[devphil]

Why not just save everyone the time and effort, and call themselves VA*?

How many people outside of programming understand wildcard characters?

When was the last time Joe Q. Windows User needed to know what a wildcard was, what it looked like, or what it meant?

Nobody will save time and effort this way, because nobody outside of programming is intelligent enough to use this "abbreviation". :-)

oh, quite so

[motherfuckin_spork]

your restraint is admirable.

How about

[Anonymous Coward]

Creating instead of destroying? Example: I see you are at default -1 here. How did that happen? (And before you say it, you don't need to be a mindless drone to get modded up, I should know I've been doing it for years.) Well, I seem to remember somebody posting porn, ascii art, wildly offtopic comments and the like. Some of those were with your name.

Were these creative acts? Appropriate to the forum? Or was it crap from an intelligent person?

VA's viability

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco, I hope you and Hemos got paid in cash, not stock ...

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[gmhowell]

No big deal. I must admit my 'angry man' comment was also out of line.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[toupsie]

Flames are never out of line on the Slashdot! :)

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[caferace]

Of course, by that reasoning VA Software would still be VA Systems (which it was before VA Linux).

Actually, it was called VA Research Linux Systems (www.varesearch.com) before. Or at least thats what it says on this tee shirt I'm wearing...

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fool! You put the chart upside down!

Re:Knowing our tech-savvy media & PR moves

[Anonymous Coward]

love the head-in-the-sand attitude. ya'll keep trying to change the world. i'm gonna go make some money...

newspapers

[Eric Smith]

I guess newspapers will stop calling the company 'Linux' all the time.

Yeah, now they'll refer to it as "VA Software, the company formerly known as Linux".

So what the hell do they actually do...

[aquarian]

...and how do they make money at it?

Be respectful!

[jrockway]

Well, I've read through the first page of comments, and I'm sick. Why is everyone criticizing VA Software!? They're the ones who provide us with the OSDN. Guess what, guys... VA dies, so does slashdot. And we all love slashdot. And Sourceforge. And freshmeat. They really have no way of making money off these sites, and yet they keep them up anyways. Just be thankful, and don't be so mean because they took "Linux" out of their name. Microsoft doesn't have "Windows" in their name, and they do okay (crap product, but oh well ;). Okay, I'm done ranting now :)

someone needs to tell Think Geek!

[DrSkwid]

(Note: ThinkGeek and Slashdot are both owned by Va Linux)

from http://www.thinkgeek.com/slashdot/

Plenty of opportunity for small Linux companies

[cyberformer]

Many small companies (or individuals) can make money by providing tech support for Linux, and many more can save money by using Linux (which in many cases will include developing their own improvements to the system, which under the GPL will then be released to benefit the community) instead of proprietary software. But the profits from Linux won't be concentrated into one company, and they aren't sufficient to pay for seven-figure CEO salaries, thousands of employees or (most importantly) billions of dollars in junk bond repayments.

No Linux company will ever be as big as Microsoft --- and if one did get that big, both the open-source and free software movements would have failed. The whole point of open-source and free software is that it prevents a software company from becoming a monopoly, by providing more power to software's users.

Re:Plenty of opportunity for small Linux companies

[maw]

Many small companies (or individuals) can make money by providing tech support for Linux, and many more can save money by using Linux (which in many cases will include developing their own improvements to the system, which under the GPL will then be released to benefit the community)

Incorrect. Changes made to software under the GPL does not necessarily go back to the originating group. You're allowed to keep private changes private.

Most people think this is a good thing. What would happen if all changes to a GPL program needed to be sent back to the originator? Imagine hacking at a program trying to figure out how it works. Chances are good you'd throw in a lot of print statements, maybe change stuff around, possibly rename things or add your own versions of components. All perfectly legitimate things to do, but also useless to anyone else. Should you have to send those changes back to the originator? Would the originator want a patch to his program that amounted to the program printing "Hello world, I am number X" in addition to whatever else it did? Unlikely.

You're right that lots of useful changes would be given to the originator, but it won't always be the case.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

People investing in this stock are idiots who look at the book value, which is 95% goodwill, and think the stock is undervalued. From their latest 10Q:

IF WE FAIL TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR AND MINIMIZE OUR USE OF EXISTING CASH AND CREDIT FACILITIES, WE MAY NEED SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL TO FUND CONTINUED OPERATIONS IN FISCAL 2003. Since becoming a public company, we have experienced negative cash flow from operations and expect to experience negative cash flow from operations for at least the foreseeable future. Unless we monitor and minimize the level of use of our existing cash, cash equivalents, short-term investments and credit facilities, we may require substantial additional capital to fund continued operations into fiscal 2003. We believe that our existing cash balances and credit facilities will be adequate to fund our operations for the next twelve (12) months, although there can be no assurances in this regard. We may require additional funding within this time frame, and there can be no assurances that this additional funding, if needed, will be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all. It is possible that we may require additional financing within this period, particularly if the general economic downturn continues to negatively affect revenues, or if we elect to acquire complementary businesses or technologies. The factors described in this paragraph, and other factors that may arise subsequently, will affect our future capital requirements and the adequacy of our available funds. As a result, we may be required to raise additional funds through public financing facilities, strategic relationships or other arrangements. Any additional equity financing may be dilutive to our stockholders. Debt financing, if available, may involve restrictive covenants on our operations and financial condition. Our inability to raise capital when needed could seriously harm our business.

Sounds like they have 12 months to live, max... Another gem in the 10Q is the line "WE HAVE A HISTORY OF LOSSES AND EXPECT TO CONTINUE TO INCUR NET LOSSES FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE". If that isn't the writing on the wall, I don't know what is.

only interesting to feces throwing monkeys

[Anonymous Coward]

to those who are mature and logical, we notice that there no presence of a mutual exclusive clash here. Being for Open source means that you wish to educate others on its merits. It means you believe it is better than the proprietary for any number of reasons. However, it does not mean that you should NEVER use closed source. That would be extremist zealotry, and is not the sign of a well ordered mind or evidence of being civilized.

No need to change the ticker symbol

[Proud Geek]

LNUX isn't really appropriate, but there's no need to change it. Just wait for it to drop off of the market completely.

Looking at the past trend, with ups and downs, the share price has maintained a drop of about one order of magnitude per year. If it continues the trend it will shortly reverse the small gains it has made recently and head down into sub-$1 range shortly. That will lead to its delisting, obviating the need to change from LNUX to SOFT or whatever.

Re:VA Bankrupt coming soon!

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, that's a logarithmic scale... Try this one.