Slashdot Mirror
The Linux Uprising
ballpoint writes "Business Week is featuring a list of articles under the header 'The Linux Uprising' including topics like 'Red Flags for Red Hat' and 'A Bad, Sad Hollywood Ending?' touching everything dear to the Slashdot community. A good read to align yourself with what mainstream businesspeople are fed."
You read the first paragraph of the article and you get the impression of Linus, Alan and RMS just limping down the road with a torn GNU/Linux rampart and whistling the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle. Not really a bad picture but what's the *nix equivalent of Yankee Doodle?
The only thing bothersome with the articles is the idea that Linux is still something that's "rebellious". It's not. No, it doesn't have the market share that some of the other operating systems out there has (ahem), but just because you're not #1 in market share doesn't make you a niche technology. Linux IS mainstream. It's proven itself time and time again.
Just because Ford (or whatever car comany) has market share, it doesn't make my buying a Honda "rebellious". It just might be the choice that fits my needs better.
Executives need to know that Linux isn't a rogue OS. It's a choice you can make that provides different features. For those whose requirements would be better by Linux, they need to know they are simply making another mainstream choice.
Business Week needs to catch up to the present.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
This is the main issue in open source: using open software for your business is a no-brainer (unless there is no open source solution for your problem), however developing open source software and making a living out of it is not easy. I am not saying it is impossible, it is just pretty difficult.
I have the feeling that the next main contribution to Free/Open Source Software will come from a business person, not from a developer. We need to find a way so that people can make money producing (as opposed to "using") free software, without compromising the spirit of free software.
Implying that Free Software has a problem with people making money which isn't the case given:
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.
found here.
It might be said that Free Software has a problem with how you go about making money off of software not the fact that you do.Logic is not Divine.
You can no longer play the "blame it on Microsoft game". You have to get up your lazy a$$ and do some research before recommending a m$ product next
Coz, next time you recommend a m$ solution, chances are your customer will ask ..Whats this linux thing We are hearing about ?
And if you say , "Oh its just some geeky thing used by hackers ." Chances are they might ask, "Oh yeah then how come IBM and HP and so many other big guns are supporting it ?"
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
<:
Here's a quote from one of the linked articles that I think sums up what most Linux advocates fail to realize:
"The revenue growth isn't particularly impressive," says Paul McEntire, portfolio manager of the Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund (TPFQX ), which has owned the stock in the past. Moreover, he says, Red Hat's financial results don't persuade him that it can be solidly profitable in the future. Mostly, he worries that it would take only a little price competition from Microsoft (MSFT ), which goes up against Linux in the operating-system market, to see the return of red ink. Notes McEntire: "Microsoft hasn't really responded to the Linux threat yet."
Should Microsoft ever truly respond to the Linux threat, say by slashing their prices of Windows XP/Windows 2003/Windows Whatever in half, and slash the prices of Microsoft Office in half (much as they have already done in a recent promotion for Apple Macintosh users), it's game over for Linux on the desktop. Xandros is $100. LindowsOS is $130. Hardly anyone would be willing to switch to Linux, when for just $20-$50 more, they can buy the latest and greatest version of Windows, and avoid that steep learning curve and lack of "critical applications" that Linux tends to bring.
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
Although you'll also see articles like this out there.
I thought the "Red Flags for RedHat" article was actually pretty good--after all, investors are cautious now, and for good reason; also, Linux distributions haven't been making money, especially when compared to sales of other server operating systems, and a lot of people are looking at the bottom line now, after getting burned.
So, yeah, RedHat is a great company with a solid product... but always, always do your research first. I think that's a very responsible position to take. If you believe in RedHat, buy some stock--but don't bet the farm on it, especially if you might need that farm someday.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Linux is certainly mainstream, but the process behind Linux (OSS) is certainly not mainstream, especially to a business audience, hence the "rebillious" description.
The notion that a company which went from a $2m loss to a $300,000 profit, which has a clear majority in terms of install base and which is the only company making money in its segment is headed for trouble seems like seriously flawed thinking to me.
It seems pretty clear to me that Red Hat has the rare gift of competent management. Maybe RH isn't going to see a big pop in the next quarter, but it's hard to see how the "next five years" view isn't looking pretty rosy. I don't see the fact that it's not back to it's stupidly high .com-era stock price as any sort of a reasonable warning sign.
Anyhow, I own a couple thousand dollars worth of RH shares, so maybe I'm just believing what I want to.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
I think once mainstream people understand that big businesses use linux, lots of it's out-of-the-way appeal will be lessened.
By then, it won't matter anymore.
Software Wars
Before using open-source software, tech companies must sign a license in which they promise to give away innovations they build on top of it.
WTF? That has to be one of the more dangerous pieces of bad reporting I've seen lately. Not only is it utterly inaccurate (you don't have to sign anything to use open source software), it also hopelessly confuses "code" with "innovation".
Since when did Intel start "making chips for linux" (Well, I guess technically ever since the 386, in a way.)
Since when did the GPL become synonymous with all of open source? (Not that they got the GPL all that accurate in the first place.)
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
McEntire doesn't get it.
Most of the Linux distro revenue comes from professional servers and technical workstation users who want paid support. These users couldn't care if MS gave away their products. They would consider switching to, say, IBM's AIX or Sun's Solaris if the price was right and the apps available. But not to Windows.
The fact that this guy is not aware of this simple market reality and yet manages a stock portfolio is really scary. Keep away from his Marketocracy Technology Plus Fund.
Now, on another hand, your argument about Linux on the desktop makes much more sense:
I especially see this coming as the other divisions of Microsoft, such as MSN and the XBox, while still losing money, are not losing as much money as they used to, and thus Microsoft would no longer have to rely on Windows and Office as their cash cows so much as they have done in the past.
Now that's a valid argument. It would not hurt the server sales but it would certainly hurt the Linux desktop numbers.
However, keep in mind that Microsoft depends on the value of its stock in order to retain employees with stock options. Now take a look at MS'S SEC filing, especially Note 9, "Segment information". Their operating systems and applications account for more than 86% of their sales income (financial activities excluded). The other divisions, entertainment and consumer electronics, are barely showing up on the radar screen. Even if they were profitable, they really couldn't scale up to the Office+Windows income. A sustained price cut on Windows and Office would hurt MS's income very badly, send their stock price down, and bring down their option-based financial Ponzi scheme. So they just cannot afford to do it.
See Bill Parish's report for an overview of MS's financial pyramid. Recommended reading to understand what makes the Redmond Beat tick.
--
Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/
To be fair to the author of the article -- Intel has had very strong ties to Microsoft.
"Wintel" -- When Microsoft releases a new OS -- lots of Intel chips are sold in the MS push. The most common way people get a new microsoft operating system is via new hardware.
Intel needs Microsoft to drive the hardware sales. Microsoft needs intel to get chips specs and support on optimizing their operating system for the next generations of intel chips. Microsoft also enjoys a market controlled by intel-compatible PCs.
Recently, Intel has been making moves away from Microsoft (and Microsoft away from Intel). I might be tempted to point to AMDs upcoming 64bit chip as the source of alot of the friction. But the fact that intel has decided to completely support Linux as a first class operating system also bothers Microsoft.
I basically think the authors point was fair.
Microsoft is dieing. No trolling intended here.
Seriously. I mean, this is a story in business week
predicting their demise basically. How can you stop
a compeditor that doesn't have bills to pay, or
debt? I mean, I was worried back in the day. I was
sure they'd come up with some way of simply taking
advantage of strong political ties to make Linux
essentially illegal. That doesn't even matter
anymore. Money is getting invested. Huge companies
are in. I used to flat out laugh at the
"world domination" types on here because it just
sounded so silly. My argument was always, who
cares about the rest of the world. How can they
stop something free? It's turning out to be their
achilles heel. Microsoft can't buy Linux out.
Microsoft is moving too slowly to make something
that can compete on cost. They've spent a fortune
on trying to market their way out of this
inevitable approaching death, and people just
don't buy it anymore. I'm not saying that
Microsoft will fade into the distance. That's just
not realistic. But they will have to give up the
childish name calling and get onboard at some
point. The sooner they realize they need to give
up the server market and embrace Linux as much
as they can, the less money they'll bleed down
the road. If they don't, they'll lose the server
market within a short time, then they'll slowly
lose the desktop market. It's all right there in
that article. It's what I see. I can't be the only
one. Imagine all the PHB's reading that going
"wow, that geeky guy telling me about Linux years
ago was right. We need Linux now". I don't even
feel silly saying that. I would have a year ago.
Scott McNeilly in a Penguin suit speaks volumes.
It's only a matter of time now.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
In my experience, the only time the customer cares, is when they specify Microsoft. I've worked at my company for 4 years now, and every client I've heard express a preference, has wanted MS. The rest (the vast majority) don't care how we do it as long as they get the website they want.
Java, C, PHP, ASP - they couldn't give a toss. Well designed site that works and lets them sell things/get their prescence on the web, that's what they care about. The choice of technology is irrelevant - in fact, that's what they're paying us for.
It's official. Most of you are morons.