Slashdot Mirror


OpenIPO and Lindows

An anonymous reader writes "Lindows is using bankers WRHambrecht and their OpenIPO process when they go public. The lower end of the pricing range will net them more than 50MM. But OpenIPO is designed to let ANYONE bid on IPO shares. If Linux can keep investor's attention and Google announces their own IPO, they could raise much more which could have impact on desktop Linux. Same CEO had near perfect timing raising 300MM with MP3.com IPO." OpenIPO is the same route Andover.net took back in the day.

158 comments

  1. Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahh, so the real reason they want to avoid a drawn-out battle with MS is revealed.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  2. Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny
    OpenIPO is the same route Andover.net took back in the day.

    And we all know how well that worked out.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  3. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by unformed · · Score: 4, Funny

    they should set the name to Tofkal (The OS Formally Known As Lindows)

  4. Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by tomblackwell · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It worked out for me. I bought and sold and exited with a tidy sum.

    1. Re:Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well lucky you.

      Unfortunately, many of us, who had large bids at the upper limit got jack sqaut.

      WRH changed the rules of their OpenIPO after the fact to basically screw the little guy. Level the playing field my ass; it was all about WRH's greed. And they wouldn't make good on their deal.

      A very tough (would've made $600K) lessen to learn - that WRH, and Slashdot owners, by complicity, are about as honest as wooden nickels.

      I'm glad CmdrTaco and CBNeal got their millions and millions, but their silence on the whole matter was disgraceful. A shame, given that I was supporting these guys (and their character)since /. was just a geeky blog....

      MP3.com IPO was another scam, but that's a story for another day.

      Run, run, run from WRH....

    2. Re:Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell would you buy stock in this anyway? It's like VA Linux. Think about it... a company that sells computers loaded with a free operating system. And it was worth BILLIONS! They do the exact same thing as many local computer shops do. But attach Linux to the name and suddenly they're worth a whole shitload more? Ridiculous!

    3. Re:Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by tomblackwell · · Score: 2, Informative

      I never got my shares from the IPO. I just bought when the market opened. There was still plenty of profit to be made, even if you got cut out of the IPO. Also, Taco et al had to hang on to their stocks for a while, and watch them erode. Taco started with $6 million, but I'm guessing he got out with much, much less.

    4. Re:Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by gui_tarzan2000 · · Score: 1
      And exactly why do people play the stock market anyway? Greed. You want more than you have, so you gamble with the stock market in hopes that you make money. It's no different than buying a lottery ticket except that you're guaranteed not to make money with a lottery ticket unless you hit the numbers. You only make money if you're lucky. In any case, greed is the motivating factor in most financial decisions where it comes to financial gain. If you didn't want more, you wouldn't participate.

      Greed isn't always bad, it's when you intentionally hurt someone or when it takes over your life that it's bad. By most accounts, the stock market is for greedy people who are only in it to make money by screwing someone else out of theirs. If you disagree, how else can you explain it? You make money by buying low and selling high. You're screwing someone else out of their money to put in your pocket. It's not their fault they're not smart enough to buy lower than you did and screw you instead.

      I can't wait to see what sort of comments come from this one... lol

      --
      Have you hugged your penguin today?
    5. Re:Hot Potato and Musical Chairs. by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. Michael Robertson released a Michael's Minute in which he claimed the IPO process was flawed with MP3.com, and how he was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO wronged. Except that he made hundreds of millions ($483M?) off MP3.com, and that is just plain WRONG. Lying cheating thieving bastard. Check my homepage for more news about Lindows.

  5. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes, plus the URL is missing the ".com". OpenIPO

  6. Broken Link by xy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The link to OpenIPO is broken. It should be:

    http://www.openipo.com/

  7. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by LouCifer · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, its MegaMillions. You know, the multi-state lotto?

    My guess is they're going to go IPO and dump all the money into MegaMillions in order to thwart off SCO's attack.

    --
    Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.
  8. Desktop Realitites by deliciousmonster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.

    The fact of the matter is that it will have to more closely mirror M$'s interface than you think to be accepted, perceived improvements included.

    If Longhorn came out with an OSX-like GUI, it would work, but any other OS has to ingratiate itself slowly.

    Not that 2008 for Longhorn isn't slow, but you get the point.

    --
    I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
    1. Re:Desktop Realitites by NineNine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.


      I hope so too, since I'm going to be shorting, and this company is going to be nothing but a big lawsuit target for all kinds of copyright & trademark infringements. Hell, leave the name "Lindows", make a "Start" button, and put a big MS logo on the desktop.

    2. Re:Desktop Realitites by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.

      If by "refining the GUI" you mean hiring sales and marketing, and padding the salaries of executives, you're perfectly correct.

    3. Re:Desktop Realitites by nycsubway · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have a point there. It's not only to mimick what people are used to, but Microsoft has spent years and millions of dollars doing research to find what GUI most people will accept.

      A linux desktop should look like Windows not only because its what people are used to, but its what most people have proven to be able to use.

    4. Re:Desktop Realitites by Liselle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I'd mod you up if I had points, because you're absolutely right (that's what you meant, though, isn't it?).

      Even Microsoft faced a backlash when they screwed with the UI in Windows XP, despite the fact that it's more intuitive. After users finally got used to the setup in NT/95/98/ME/2K, everything got flipped on its head. Fortunately, they are smart, and left a classic view in.

      For a Linux distro with a small userbase, trying to get Windows converts is an uphill battle if the UI looks different than Windows. Maybe not for you or I, but the technically inclined are a minority section of the Windows userbase. There is a lesson here, I think.

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
    5. Re:Desktop Realitites by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod me down if you must... [snip]

      You hear him. Mods, get at it!

      Seriously though, screw MS-Windows functionality. In Outlook it sometimes freezes for a minute if I make a quick mouse movement and click on a menu. It feels like it's pondering which button I really wanted to click on, almost as though the click event happened in two different widgets. And after a minute of what I can only believe is highly intelligent AI computations, it finally determines that I wanted to click on "View" instead of the printer icon.

      Now the quality of the GUI is arguable. It's widely known, and while that's not all it has going for itself, I feel it's the bigest reason why people continue to use new iterations of MS products. If the computer illiterate has to do anything other than their repetitious task, they won't know what to do (i mean, the structure of menus within menus leading to dialog windows isn't obvious). But this mostly comes down to the fact that the typical users don't ever read the documentation or bother with the help system.

      So what's my point... I guess that it is this. We do need a consistent Look and Feel in Linux, that is atleast superficially similar to other popular GUI's, but in functionality (average response time..etc) it should surpass those other GUI's. Arguably we have this already through "themes", though maybe not completely (GTK, QT, TK, Swing, etc all look different).

      What I fear is that a lot of that IPO money will probably end up in marketting, causing Lindows to be the first Linux introduction to many people. I don't know a lot about Lindows but I doubt it is up to large scale scrutiny. A bad distro + MS-FUD could do some big damage to public perception of Linux.

    6. Re:Desktop Realitites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it's SUPPOSED to act like this??

    7. Re:Desktop Realitites by evilviper · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Microsoft has spent years and millions of dollars doing research to find what GUI most people will accept.

      Oh? And when did they do this research, and what came out of it?

      Did they do this research before Windows 3.1? Did they do this research before WIndows 95? Or did they do this before Windows XP, and create the new interface that everyone truely hates?

      If Microsoft really has been spending lots of money on research, they've been getting ripped off by somebody.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    8. Re:Desktop Realitites by gosand · · Score: 1
      A linux desktop should look like Windows not only because its what people are used to, but its what most people have proven to be able to use.


      Because their alternatives have been....?


      And you make a huge leap in coming up with the statement "proven to be able to use". How come the SAME issues always come up for newbies? Sure, they get used to clicking on Start for everything, but their initial inclination is not to do so.


      Why not have Administration, Applications, System, Internet buttons at the bottom? That seems to make sense to me. Would MS change their now-familiar layout? Probably not. KDE or Gnome could. Heck, the distro or even the user could. Something like that would be a small change that user's might like better. I don't think it would be a stretch to think that there are more things out there that user's might like better than something Windows provides.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    9. Re:Desktop Realitites by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Longhorn GUI is graphic hardware accelerated. Watching three DVD windows move around the screen at 50% alpha shading so you could see the movie underneath when they overlapped sure impressed me. With only 10% cpu usage to drive the demo I sorta feel bad for X11. Isn't Aqua (for OSX) also GPU driven?

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    10. Re:Desktop Realitites by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Aye on the classic view thing. Have you ever seen an XP Desktop that isn't set to classic start menu and classic theme? During install before you've changed it doesn't count of course.

      All that extra bloated UNintuitive crap goes by by.

    11. Re:Desktop Realitites by jwsd · · Score: 1

      You obviously have no clue as to the true nature of hi-tech IPOs. The idea is to enrich financiers and top executives, who couldn't care less about the products and ideas they are selling. Money is the only goal of the game. As soon as they cashed in as much as they could, they will jump onto the next target leaving the low level employees and long term investors holding the bag.
      As long as there are irresponsible mutual fund and pension fund managers who play with other people's money without qualms, the show will go on.

    12. Re:Desktop Realitites by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mod me down if you must, but I hope that a majority of the IPO dollars are spent refining the GUI AND THE FUNCTIONALITY to be more similar to Windows.

      Um - 20% is going right back into Robertson's pocket, and then the IPO firm is getting a big chunk. So no, they won't do that. This is a legal Ponzi scheme and nothing else. Read the filing. They will run out of money in 24 months. This is a dot bomb waiting to happen.

  9. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 5, Informative

    MM is a standard postfix for "Million" of a relevant currency in financial circles.

    --
    RST
  10. Oh, yeah... by Otter · · Score: 2, Funny
    Same CEO had near perfect timing raising 300MM with MP3.com IPO. OpenIPO is the same route Andover.net took back in the day.

    Sales of disco records increased 700% through 1978! If this trend continues...AAAAAYYYYYY!

    (No, I'm not sufficiently motivated to go to SNPP and get the quote right.)

  11. Great opportunity to make $$$ by NineNine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Short it! I mean, c'mon, this company is run by some juvenile jackass who thought that "Lindows" would be a great name, and actually started to try to defend it. That's the kind of stunt that some college kid could pull, not a CEO of a publicly traded company. I know that I'm waiting for it to peak (day 1), then I'm shorting the hell out of this. Lindows will be long gone within a year or two.

    1. Re:Great opportunity to make $$$ by Suburbanpride · · Score: 1

      From 2000-203 UC San Diego's cycling team (which I'm on was generously sponsored by Michael Robertson (Of mp3.com and Lindows) a UCSD alumni. This year, he chose not to donate. I bet his personal fortune from the MP3.com IPO is running out. Maybe next year we will get Linspire across the backs of our jerseys. I wonder if the MP3.com and Lindows jerseys are going to be collector's items, now that both are defunct.

      --
      sorry 'bout the mess...
    2. Re:Great opportunity to make $$$ by synergy3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      AFAIK you are not allowed to short IPO stocks for a certain period of time. I think that will also depend on which board the stock is listed.

    3. Re:Great opportunity to make $$$ by NineNine · · Score: 1

      Really? Damn, you learn something every day. I'm definitely looking into it, and I'll watch it closely. If, by the time you're allowed to short, the stock is worth anything at all, I'll still short, definitely. This company is pretty much a guaranteed dud. Getting into Wal-Mart was a real fluke, and I'm sure that with all the negative press, Wal-Mart regrets it. I'm actually surprised they haven't dropped Lindows machines altogether. I assume they're waiting out some sort of contract.

    4. Re:Great opportunity to make $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey NineNine, could you please post a few *more* posts about how you're going to short this stock? I didn't get it the first three times.

      Thanks in advance!

    5. Re:Great opportunity to make $$$ by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Wal-mart DOES regret it. The Lindows computers have the highest return rate of any item they actually carry.

      Want to help turn Lindows into a burning pile of rubbish? Buy a Lindows PC from Wal-Mart and then return it. They'll be reduced to smoking ash as Wal-Mart dumps them.

  12. Motivation? by nodwick · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is being "better" enough to make OpenIPO popular?

    I suspect a big reason people use the current IPO process is not because they feel it's the best process for raising the maximum revenue, but because it raises acceptable amounts of revenue while letting people connected to the IPO profit by purchasing underpriced shares at launch. For this reason IPO shares are usually handed out as perks to people connected with either the company itself or their financial firm.

  13. Re:Overview by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Informative

    I submitted a story when Lindows announced their IPO a week ago. Rejected.

    Anyway, Lindows (not linspire) is going IPO. They've said that they are going to keep using the Lindows name for their company, and the Linspire name only as a name for their software products in some countries.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  14. Scamming people legally by BuddieFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But OpenIPO is designed to let ANYONE bid on IPO shares.

    Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public.

    Benjamin Graham (Warren Buffets "idol") used to say that IPO stands for "It's Probably Overpriced".
    Factor that in with an irrational and overenthusiastic general public lacking investment skills thinking all IPO:s are winners (they usually forget the last bubble in good times) and you have a table set for even more inflated IPO:s and ludicrous business models going public.

    1. Re:Scamming people legally by One+Louder · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public. I agree it's not perfect, but it's better than letting the investment bankers and large institutional investors be the only ones able to get the opening price.

    2. Re:Scamming people legally by evilviper · · Score: 1
      But OpenIPO is designed to let ANYONE bid on IPO shares.

      Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public.

      Dude... That's all that stocks are in the first place. The have no intrinsic value. They are worth only what people think they are worth, and that is usually due to pure hype.

      A company could be doing incredibly well, and have a good and solid business plan, and their stocks could be worth a fraction what the most popular company's stock are worth (with no business plan, and no profits).

      For a good example, try Amazon.com. Their stock was through the roof, even though they had made no profit at all, and there was no sign of profit in the near future.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:Scamming people legally by LaCosaNostradamus · · Score: 1

      Mod this man up! He recognizes that a stock market is usually "opened" widely for the purposes of cashing out the names in the investment business. Such an opening is the very definition of an investment bubble.

      Anything like OpenIPO is going to be another battering ram against the floodgate of IPO management. I'm not saying don't let people get involved if they want it; I'm just saying that if you do advocate such a thing, don't be all shocked and awed by the crash that MUST follow.

      --
      [You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
    4. Re:Scamming people legally by FallLine · · Score: 1
      Dude... That's all that stocks are in the first place. The have no intrinsic value. They are worth only what people think they are worth, and that is usually due to pure hype.

      A company could be doing incredibly well, and have a good and solid business plan, and their stocks could be worth a fraction what the most popular company's stock are worth (with no business plan, and no profits).

      For a good example, try Amazon.com. Their stock was through the roof, even though they had made no profit at all, and there was no sign of profit in the near future.
      While I agree with you that Amazon, VA Linux, and others were and are still (insanely) overpriced, it is a bit of an overstatement to say that all stocks' actual WORTH is simply arbitrary, that they have no instrinsic worth. Certainly the current market price is determined by market forces, i.e., whatever the market is willing to pay at that moment, but at there is still at least some instrinsic value behind it. A stock isn't terribly different than, say, a bond. In both cases you have uncertain outcomes, the only real difference is that there is a lot more risk in stocks and greater variations in expected value. Consequently you also have wild differences in pricing according to how valuable it is percieved to be. However, you can also have a reasonable floor on a stock. For instance, a company like Microsoft is worth a couple billion dollars minimum, because we know they have 6 billion some dollars in cash and cash equivalents and little in the way of debt/liabilities.

      Put differently, the market's price isn't necessarily the same as the actual worth. To say a stock is only worth what the market is willing to pay at any particular moment in time is foolish. Just as it can widly overprice stocks way out of proportion to reasonable growth, profitability, etc, it can price stocks wrong, particulartly in the short term. Just because the market does not realize its mistake, does not mean there is no longer any worth in the stock. For instance, the dividends or assets can easily exceed the financial worth of the price paid to acquire the stock. How is it that you think people like Warren Buffet manage to make money consistently over the long term? They don't simply get lucky. They simply act smarter than the market as a whole does.
    5. Re:Scamming people legally by evilviper · · Score: 1
      To say a stock is only worth what the market is willing to pay at any particular moment in time is foolish.

      Educate me then.

      Let's say some rumor has scared people away from Microsoft, and the stock price drops to practically nothing. You have 100 shares... How would you be able to get more than the market price for them? If you have no buyers, the stock has no value.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:Scamming people legally by FallLine · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd say that that is unlikely to occur in such a business for that long (based on its cash), but OK. What you have there is a liquidity problem. That stock would still have 6 billion dollars in the bank and a large and consistent revenue stream...

      a) If enough of the shareholders got together they could always vote to liquidate it for at least the value of its cash holdings (some 6 billion dollars).

      b) The only way such a fall is likely is if MS's growth prospects suddenly hit zero or worse. In this case, management would have to start issuing dividends and return that cash to investors anyways. In other words, even the dumbest investor could see that the shares are worth SOMETHING (Perhaps not the premium that YOU payed for it...)

      c) A large intelligent buyer would likely make an offer on this stock....For the cash, for the revenue streams (Windows is unlikely to become worthless on store shelves tomorrow...), and so on, even if the equity markets were so retarded....

      The point is that regardless, the company is a definite and substantial value that is as tangible as practically any other asset. What's not so tangible (or easy to estimate on terms that most people agree on) are the premiums paid for expected growth based on intellectual property and what not. Even there though, people may not agree on how much the company is going to grow, say, but there is going to be an eventual outcome that does have some worth.

    7. Re:Scamming people legally by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Indeed! Even the filing with the SEC says they will burn through this money in 24 months. Stay away. Lindows ALSO has signed an Agreement with SCO.

    8. Re:Scamming people legally by evilviper · · Score: 1
      a) If enough of the shareholders got together they could always vote to liquidate it for at least the value of its cash holdings (some 6 billion dollars).

      That is a valid answer, but doesn't really detract from my point. Saying stock has no value was a bit over-stating things on my part, but it's actual value is nominal.

      A large intelligent buyer would likely make an offer on this stock

      That's been exactly my point from the beginning. Stocks are a pyramid scheme. Money moves around, all to get a piece of paper that has nominal real value, because one person believes that there will always be somebody else that wants to do the same thing.

      The point is that regardless, the company is a definite and substantial value that is as tangible as practically any other asset.

      Very well, but the stock prices have nothing to do with the value of a company. Growth or Drop, stocks are worth what you think other people will be willing to pay for them, and not based upon the ammount of cash reserves you think the company will have in the future.

      I believe in dividend stocks, because they do have a very real value to them... Non-dividend stocks, however, have practically no value to them at all. It's purely a numbers game. You have to try to buy it when people think it's not worth much, but you think that they will think more of it in time. The price is related to the company, only in the buzz-word sense. If some expert says Microsoft's new filesystem is going to take over the world, stock price goes up. It's pure hype, everywhere.

      I don't know how I can put it better.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Scamming people legally by FallLine · · Score: 1
      That's been exactly my point from the beginning. Stocks are a pyramid scheme. Money moves around, all to get a piece of paper that has nominal real value, because one person believes that there will always be somebody else that wants to do the same thing.

      [snip]

      Very well, but the stock prices have nothing to do with the value of a company. Growth or Drop, stocks are worth what you think other people will be willing to pay for them, and not based upon the ammount of cash reserves you think the company will have in the future.

      I believe in dividend stocks, because they do have a very real value to them... Non-dividend stocks, however, have practically no value to them at all. It's purely a numbers game. You have to try to buy it when people think it's not worth much, but you think that they will think more of it in time. The price is related to the company, only in the buzz-word sense. If some expert says Microsoft's new filesystem is going to take over the world, stock price goes up. It's pure hype, everywhere.
      I'm not arguing that Microsoft is properly priced TODAY or even that most of these stocks are. However, it is quite irrational to argue that the only way to value a stock is based on its dividends or that growth prospects cannot or should not be factored into valuation. Even those dividends aren't a gaurantee. No investment gives you any gaurantees; it's all relative. Even if you buy, say, gold (or a house), you're buying it at a MARKET price. That price can fall or rise based on demand or changes in supply (someone could discover a way to cheaply create gold at an atomic level, new vast mines, etc). Do not confuse the secondary market price with value. The real difference between stocks (particular tech stocks), bonds, and other forms of investment is the levels of risk and return offered. With stocks, you have much greater prospects of higher returns, so you have much higher valuations and you also have greater volatility in risk, so you have huge fluxations. ALL things are priced on the market perception of value.

      What you are arguing essentially is that NO human activity that involves risk or that does not return a profit immediately is worth investing in. Microsoft clearly has made many times their initial investment; they clearly should have been worth over and above whatever they would would have been valued at, say, 10 years ago, because they have grown so much and are so profitable [that's not to say they shouldn't be paying dividends now...]. In other words, even if Microsoft were to be taken private (iliquid), you could have made your money back many times over with the amount of money they've made with their sales. If you know truly believed, in, say, 1990 that MSFT was going to grow as much as they did and be as profitable as they are today, then you can ignore the temporary fluxations in the market because you can be pretty sure the market price will return to its true value at some point in the future based on these facts.

      The market price has lot to do with a stock's actual value over time. It's what the market percieves as value. Maybe it's widly wrong sometimes and tends over and under-react, but it aims towards the instruments actual value. The fact is that over time is that the system WORKS and it allocates resources more efficiently than any other system that we know of. The stock market has returned an average of roughly 12% a year over the past 50 years or so. In other words, the average participant in the market makes money and a significant percentage at that. If you're smart, you can even exceed this amount over time.
    10. Re:Scamming people legally by evilviper · · Score: 1
      What you are arguing essentially is that NO human activity that involves risk or that does not return a profit immediately is worth investing in.

      No I'm not... Not by a long shot. The fact that you think so just shows that this conversation is going nowhere.

      As I've said, I think stocks are the equivalent of a pyramid scheme. I'm not saying they are over-valued, I'm saying they have no value themselves...

      It's like currency without anybody backing it up. It has no value of it's own... You buy it depending on the idea that somebody else will believe it has value, and be willing to give you something that is valuable in exchange for it.

      Stocks have this self-perpetuating value.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re:Scamming people legally by FallLine · · Score: 1
      I said:

      What you are arguing essentially is that NO human activity that involves risk or that does not return a profit immediately is worth investing in.

      You said:


      No I'm not... Not by a long shot. The fact that you think so just shows that this conversation is going nowhere.

      As I've said, I think stocks are the equivalent of a pyramid scheme. I'm not saying they are over-valued, I'm saying they have no value themselves...

      It's like currency without anybody backing it up. It has no value of it's own... You buy it depending on the idea that somebody else will believe it has value, and be willing to give you something that is valuable in exchange for it.

      Stocks have this self-perpetuating value.

      First and foremost, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but NO hard currency TODAY gives you any gauratanee of value. It, too, depends on other people finding your currency approximately as valuable as you did when you acquired it. The US government will NOT exchange your US dollars for gold, silver, or any other "valuable" asset at ANY fixed rate now (we stopped doing that many years ago). In other words, while 1000 USD may buy you X ounces of gold today, people may lose faith in US currency and that same 1000 dollars 10 years from now may not even buy you a fraction of an ounce [or even of bread, wheat, or other more practical essentials]. Conversely, that gold may drastically lose value relative to cash or any other asset so as to become essentially worthless. There is no automatic way to convert gold into food to feed your family, cloth yourself, and so on. The value is equally market driven, even if you might argue that it has some nominal utilitarian value in the event of a market crash. I believe your false perception of some absolute and constant value in ANY asset is the root of your false perception that stocks are somehow wholly different. Every asset you can think of to place your money in is ultimately valued on the market and CAN lose its relative value (or exchangability for any other asset on the market). Stocks may be amongst the riskiest or most volatile, but you also are compensated for this risk.

      Second, stocks DO have some store of value outside of its secondary value on the markets. You are REALLY confused here; the entire market just doesn't exist "just because". If you own 10% of a stock in a company, then you own 10% of the company's equity (Assets - Liabilities) and its potential cash flows. If you own 10% of a company like MS (with negligible liabilities), then you do own at least 10% of 6 billion dollars in cash, plus the "value" of their intellectual property (its ability to earn cash in the near future), plus its other assets (e.g., property in Redmond), and so on. The fact is that certain wealthy business people have made whole careers out of acquiring enough shares of particular companies (for less than its "worth"), getting control, and then liquidating its assets for a very tidy profit. Now, of course, you can argue that, say, MS could get sued tomorrow and lose that money, or they could opt not to return that cash to investors and eventually lose it, and so on, but the same is really true of debt too. Even if you have a guarantee from the debtor that you'll be payed X dollars by date Y, that debtor could go bankrupt, could get hit by an asteroid, and so on. It may be true that more times than not you'll get more cash on secondary markets for that stock and that it is far more liquid on secondary markets, i.e., the stock market, but you'd be wrong to assume that this is the ONLY value.

      Third, the fact is that SOME privately held companies exist without ANY viable secondary market to sell or exchange their shares to (or even the possiblity of this--witness the thousands of restaurants across the country). They make money with the equity value itself. In other words, the investors put up, say, 10 million dollars t

  15. WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Interesting

    A Euro, dollar, peso, ruble, what?

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by EmagGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      IANAE, but I believe MM is European for a Million... technically, MM is " a thousand thousand"

    2. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by oldmildog · · Score: 4, Funny
      technically, MM is " a thousand thousand"
      Or 2000 if you're Roman.
      --
      They have the Internet on computers now?
    3. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be a "KK"? A thousand thousand?
      MM doesn't make any sense.

    4. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Shouldn't that be a "KK"? A thousand thousand?

      No. Financiers have been writing MM since before you were born.

    5. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by JayJay.br · · Score: 1

      Almost right.

      M is for "Million". MM stands for "Millions".

      Plural doubles the letter.

    6. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just spoke with a guy in my office who is from Ghana. He explained the plurality rule, as well as the fact that there is no "billion," but rather "a thousand million." I thought that was interesting as well.

      Neat, in any case.. me being an American living under the worst unit system on the planet hehe.. I'm surprised we don't use a monetary system that has currency denominations that are neither divisible by each other nor another common divisor.

      Oddly enough, Alabama is one of the few states that puts KM markers on the highways... yes... Alabama... scary isn't it?

      Damn I have got to stop procrastinating...

    7. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by Daniel+Wood · · Score: 1

      Cool, does that mean that XXX really means 1000? :)

    8. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that the use is dying, the Bangkok Post still says "a thousand million" (10^9) and "a billion" (10^12). How very British of them, though my friend from London didn't even know that meaning.

    9. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We do in Sweden too, and no doubt in several other european countries.
      Except we have also "miljard" (10^9).
      10^12 is "biljon".

    10. Re:WTF Unit of currency is an MM? by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Cool, does that mean that XXX really means 1000? :)

      Well, look at linuxxxforum.com and that must mean linu1000forum - or else pornographic. Read my sig for more on what this insidious company does.

  16. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MM also means "million."

  17. Micheal has learned from experience. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Informative

    He had one of his infamous Micheals Minutes a while bakc that discused the ipo porcess he went threw with mp3.com. He was disgusted int he way that the shares were sold to cronies and friends of the finatial institutions that conducted the IPO. It reduced the amount of money the company raised, while make millions for others who did absolutely nothing. So, I'm not suprised he wen OpenIPO on this one. Still, I wouldn't be suprised if this was the begining of the end for Lindows. If you read the public disclosure that accompanied tha annoucement, they mention that they are essentially out of cash, and losing it hand over fist.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by kevlar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The funny thing is that if you have a stable business with stable income, you don't need to rely on venture capital and therefore would have much more clout when it comes time to whore your business to America via Nasdaq.

      When you raise venture capital, you sell your business to pimps, who in turn whore it out to the world. Thats what VCs do. If they had a legitimate business model, they wouldn't need to rely on VCs nearly as much.

    2. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by One+Louder · · Score: 1

      ....except that according to the filing, Lindows has not taken any venture capital whatsoever - they are totally running off of Michael Robertson's personal money.

    3. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by kevlar · · Score: 1

      I wasn't speaking about Lindows, I was talking about IPO's and Venture Capital in general.

    4. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by FallLine · · Score: 1
      The funny thing is that if you have a stable business with stable income, you don't need to rely on venture capital and therefore would have much more clout when it comes time to whore your business to America via Nasdaq.

      When you raise venture capital, you sell your business to pimps, who in turn whore it out to the world. Thats what VCs do. If they had a legitimate business model, they wouldn't need to rely on VCs nearly as much.
      I'll grant you that most VCs can't be trusted, but it's not as simple as just having a good business model. Many fundamentally good businesses rely on getting large infusions of capital to get off the ground or expand operations; in bigger businesses it's not always possible to grow organically entirely from the initial seed capital because the markets they sell in simply aren't structured like that.

      If you had an truly novel patentable idea to, say, build a car with 40% more efficient engine design and the car manufacturers weren't willing to invest or buy the technology (or if you weren't willing), then your only other way to make it happen would be to get large amounts of capital to make the car yourself. You can't possibly hope to design a modern car that's price competitive without investing millions of dollars first in design, manufacturing facilities, etc. There's just no way you can do it incrementally in the modern world--you sometimes just have to go out quickly and be a fully competitive with the big-boys overnight. VCs and the IPO process, flawed though they may be, are often the only way to access this type of capital.

      Sometimes, if you're a more-mature company, have a proven track record as an entrepreneur, and what not, you can delay and somewhat (or entirely) avoid the need for VC money (by getting private investment, hedge funds, direct corporate investment, etc) and get more leverage with the VCs, when and if you need to, to get more reasonable terms and pricing... but sometimes taking VC money is the best option, even for perfectly good companies.
    5. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      He had one of his infamous Micheals Minutes a while bakc that discused the ipo porcess he went threw with mp3.com. He was disgusted int he way that the shares were sold to cronies and friends of the finatial institutions that conducted the IPO. It reduced the amount of money the company raised, while make millions for others who did absolutely nothing. So, I'm not suprised he wen OpenIPO on this one. Still, I wouldn't be suprised if this was the begining of the end for Lindows. If you read the public disclosure that accompanied tha annoucement, they mention that they are essentially out of cash, and losing it hand over fist.

      Except that Michael made over $483 million personally. He conveniently left that out.

      He also tries to leave out that he's pocketing better than $11 million himself on this deal. Keeping that quiet too.

    6. Re:Micheal has learned from experience. by kevlar · · Score: 1

      However true my posting may or may not be, it was merely an attempt at gaining mod points and had absolutely nothing to do with reality.

  18. Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Why didn't anybody think of this before? ;)

    "Same CEO had near perfect timing raising 300MM with MP3.com"

    hmmm, what's the current value of MP3.com stock?

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      hmmm, what's the current value of MP3.com stock?
      Oh, come on. MP3.com was sued into obscurity, it didn't fail because it was a bad idea. Get your wagons in a circle, ya?
    2. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by metallicagoaltender · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. MP3.com was sued into obscurity, it didn't fail because it was a bad idea.

      So you're saying it wasn't a bad idea for them to follow a business model that was bound to piss off the major labels and get themselves sued into oblivion?

    3. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I'm not, you have a good point. It wasn't their business model though, but rather an early mistake that cost them in the long run.

    4. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by wscott · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Oh, come on. MP3.com was sued into obscurity

      And no one would think of sueing Lindows.

    5. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by turnstyle · · Score: 1
      "Oh, come on. MP3.com was sued into obscurity, it didn't fail because it was a bad idea. Get your wagons in a circle, ya?"

      In fact, I was a big fan of My.MP3.com -- that was the service that got them into so much trouble (not the 'regular' MP3.com catalog). For those who don't rememeber, My.MP3.com provided a service where you could put a CD into your drive, it would then get the unique ID from that CD, and then -- if that CD was already in the My.MP3.com -- provided you with immediate streaming access to an online locker, from anywhere on the net.

      It seemed very reasonable to me, moreso than Napster. At the time, Napster was still wining its cases and My.MP3.com was losing, and I thought that made no sense.

      In any case, just because I thought it was fair doesn't make it legally sound. And, as it turns out, it wasn't -- to build a commercial service copying CDs and making them available, they needed licenses that they didn't have.

      In any case, the premise of the original post -- that just because Michael Robertson had a successful IPO with MP3.com during the height of the dot com boom -- that somehow means that a Linspire IPO will fare similarly, is just plain bad advice.

      And likely advice from someody who didn't lose money on MP3.com stock... ;)

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    6. Re:Oh, I get it! Buy tech stocks and get rich... by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Oh - so that was DIFFERENT than the early mistake of calling the company Lindows and getting sued into obscurity?

  19. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by sirinek · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the people who bought VA Linux at $200-300 a share are still crying in their beer.

    On the flip side, how did RHAT get up to $25.. it seems like it was at like $5 not so long ago. Mini-bubble in progress?

  20. Lindows IPO by doodlelogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is interesting that this company's management was apparently involved in previous dud tech floats. This is the latest in a long series of floatations by companies that have not gone from the stage of having a good idea to the stage of making money from it. There is an unfortunate precedent for this company: just as users of mp3 sites wanted (at that stage) something for nothing, so linux users are generally still looking at the system as a cheaper, or free, alternative to those on the market. For Lindows to make a decent profit, it will either have to change the culture of its user base, or make serious inroads into the entrenched Windows market. Either will be a formidable task.

    1. Re:Lindows IPO by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...here is an unfortunate precedent for this company: just as users of mp3 sites wanted (at that stage) something for nothing, so linux users are generally still looking at the system as a cheaper, or free, alternative to those on the market. For Lindows to make a decent profit, it will either have to change the culture of its user base, or make serious inroads into the entrenched Windows market.


      Unlike all the Windows users who like to "pirate" their applications. The workings of the scene itself may not be about free stuff. But they certainly feed a rather large mass of people who like getting stuff for free. This, of course, doesn't mean that there are no paying customers for Windows or Windows applications.

      Enter Linux. Sure - people like free stuff. But that doesn't mean all Linux users won't pay for something. In every environment I've worked in for the last 9 years, the organization I worked for could afford anything they want to include Windows and all commercial Unix products. They ran all these environments... and Linux. They would even pay for Linux support and applications that ran on Linux. And today my Organization pays for RedHat Enterprise.

      As for me... my own workstation at home is Debian Linux. My laptop is Mandrake - from a boxed set I purchased at the local Best Buy. I also own several commercial games that I purchased either at a local store or online. I prefer Open Source applications but will pay a fee for software when there is sufficient reason too. And I do the same at work.

      Sure - Lindows has a hell of a rough road in front of them. Anybody trying to launch a desktop OS in to this market does. And fighting dominant desktop environments such as wintel and MacOS is tough enough without also competing against other Linux vendors. But whether Linux users will pay is not the issue. They will. They do.

      But will they pay for Lindows?
  21. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by cyb97 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The name won't catch on unless it includes at least one recursive letter ;-).

  22. I'll invest... by kevlar · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... as soon as my 401k, multi-million dollar homes, multiple ferraris and student loans are all paid off and I have some expendable income that I'd rather donate to the Linux movement rather than to my local soup kitchen...

    1. Re:I'll invest... by Fammy2000 · · Score: 1

      ... as soon as my 401k, multi-million dollar homes, multiple ferraris and student loans are all paid off and I have some expendable income that I'd rather donate to the Linux movement rather than to my local soup kitchen...

      I've been paying off my 401K for years and it only seems to get bigger.

      --
      If I had something intelligent to say, I would have said it.
    2. Re:I'll invest... by LilMikey · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've been paying off my 401K for years and it only seems to get bigger.

      Haha! When I started off here I noticed my 401k balance was 0. They almost fooled me into making payments toward it as well but my wily arse saw through their plot!

      Personally, I only invest in "Credit Cards". The intrest rate is astronomical... look into it.

      --
      LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
  23. Re:Overview by gui_tarzan2000 · · Score: 1
    " Am I the only person who has no clear view over this story?"

    Maybe. If you read the message it makes clear reference to Lindows and IPO, which should spur anyone at all interested in the Lindows.com organization (or at least the lawsuits) to click on the 'when they go public' link to see what's up. The article clearly states the filing of Lindows.com paperwork to initiate an IPO to raise cash.

    At first glance I get from the article that Lindows.com is going public to try to raise 50 million dollars. Did I miss something?

    --
    Have you hugged your penguin today?
  24. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by frankmu · · Score: 1

    it's almost up to the intial ipo price! (yes, i bought some)

    --
    Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
  25. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by NineNine · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that anybody who paid that much for LNUX can afford to cry in their beer?

    This is another stock I'm kicking myself for not shorting. I mean, really.... It didn't get any easier than LNUX. But, while Lindows won't be *quite* such an easy target, I'm sure that many many smart people will make a mint shorting it. I can't wait for all of the Linux fanatics to drive it through the roof the first day!!

  26. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by hey · · Score: 1

    Or maybe "Mad Magazine" (according to the link)... which I prefer.

  27. I seriously want to know! by wo1verin3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But can someone explain what the huge appeal with Lindows still is? All of the hype building up to the release had to do with it's ability to run Windows apps.

    This functionality was never above or beyond any other Linux distribution... so it's just another distro now... right or wrong? What else does it offer besides the click and play?

    1. Re:I seriously want to know! by NineNine · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's one of the few Linux firms that actually has a marketing department to tell people that they exist. Average people have never heard of SUSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Knoppix, etc. I'm betting only a tiny percentage of average people have ever heard of Red Hat and know that they make software.

    2. Re:I seriously want to know! by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      What else does it offer besides the click and play?

      Nothing, really. Every time I read about Robertson I'm reminded of Homer running CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet, staring blankly at the Comic Book Guy and asking "Can I have some money now?"

      Click-and-play is a good idea, anything that simplifies the installation of packages on linux machines is a plus. End users need an easier (easy as in clicking the setup icon, apt-get command lines are not easy to the casual user) way to get stuff on the box.

      But, end users don't like the idea of subscriptions. I don't. If you take politics/dogma out of the picture, I'd rather pay 200 upfront for XP Pro, and get free updates for the life of the product, than get a yearly/monthly/weekly bill.

      Meh, who cares.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    3. Re:I seriously want to know! by wscott · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Especially considering that at $50 for the OS and $50/yr for the subscription to their software archive you might as well have just purchaced XP.

    4. Re:I seriously want to know! by jonasmit · · Score: 1

      >>click and play CNR - Click and Run ;) Which is quite nice except for the monthly fee. Nice categorization of apps and descriptions in one place. Other advantages: It installs in 10 minutes. It recognizes almost any hardware. It allows you to browse your local network immediately as well as access the Web. It's user interface is friendly while still allowing access to the power of linux through the terminal. But I would never use it b/c I love Gentoo. But that would be impossible for most users to install.

    5. Re:I seriously want to know! by One+Louder · · Score: 3, Informative
      As I understand it from an article I read elsewhere, updates to the operating system are free, just as they are with Windows, and don't require a subscription.

      What the click and play thing is for is other applications which don't come preinstalled, and unlike Microsoft's recent experiment with subscriptions, you're not required to maintain a subscription to continue to use the products you've acquired.

      Since it's a Debian-based distribution, you can probably just use apt-get if you don't want to subscribe to their service.

    6. Re:I seriously want to know! by One+Louder · · Score: 1
      It looks to me like they changed their business plan for some reason, maybe because they found out it was harder than they thought, or perhaps even unecessary given the later emergence of things like StarOffice.

      We also don't see Rhapsody shipping from Apple, Chrome shipping from Microsoft, or any number of other projects announced with great fanfare but never released.

      If you required companies to actually ship what (and when) they say they're going to ship, Microsoft would probably have the most to lose.

    7. Re:I seriously want to know! by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      As I understand it from an article I read elsewhere, updates to the operating system are free, just as they are with Windows, and don't require a subscription.

      Actually updates DO require a subscription. And the default install forces you to run as root. They have removed apt-get and replaced with CNR. You're better off buying Xandros.

    8. Re:I seriously want to know! by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Especially considering that at $50 for the OS and $50/yr for the subscription to their software archive you might as well have just purchaced XP.

      Or bought Xandros. Or Lycoris. Or Mandrake. Or anything else. It's just a scam, and Robertson will be on to something else.

    9. Re:I seriously want to know! by davidorban · · Score: 1
      The development of native applications for Linux is a better path for both Linux adoption, and for the companies that make them: a Linux program tends to be free, or much cheaper than their MS Windows equivalents, and the newcomer is more likely to benefit from the novel market than the established player. This is the reason Lindows does not pursue anymore the compatibility route in Linspire. Actually they released Lsongs, a music playing, organizing, ripping, burning application, exactly to fill in a whole in easy to use Linux applications.

      Ease of installation, auto-discovery and configuration of peripherals and networks go for Linspire, too. CNR - click and run - is the system by which Linspire users can get both programs and services delivered to their system in a seamless way.

  28. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by Paul+Neubauer · · Score: 1

    They should have gone with something like "FM Linux" and then said that FM stood for 'Feature Mature' or some such. Then others could expand the FM a bit differently.

    --
    I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
  29. Details? by FreeLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ok. So you think the Lindows IPO is news. It may well be for some people.

    But, when you report about IPOs it is usually a good idea to offer a bit more information about the company and its impending IPO. The link to the SEC document doesn't offer any of this information.

    How about a bit of information about the company and its present financials? When is the IPO scheduled to occur? I hope for their sake it is nothing like Andover.

    1. Re:Details? by cheezhed · · Score: 1

      Oh, c'mon--if you actually take the time to read the S-1, it has all kinds of juicy stuff. Like Lindows last year lost $4 million on $2 million in revenue, they're scraping by on $250K in cash, and a fifth of the projected $50 million the IPO is expected to raise will go to retiring Michael Robertson's investment in the company. And the "statement of risks" section is highly entertaining.

    2. Re:Details? by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Highly entertaining indeed! Check my sig for more info. They also will - get this - need more money than $57 million in 24 months. It's a farce designed to make the stockholders rich and screw the users.

      They spend $6.7 million in 2002 to get sales of $63,000!!!! OH MY GOODNESS they are absolute idiots! That's more than $100 spent for every dollar they take in!

      And they announced a HUGE amount of vaporware. The Tablet PC - never came out even though the photos were there. Photoshop anyone? They run as root. They announced they had a Windows clone. Do something original - don't buy this crapware! Kill the IPO.

  30. Grasping at straws by andih8u · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If Linux can keep investor's attention and Google announces their own IPO, they could raise much more which could have impact on desktop Linux.

    Its kind of sad how every linux story is always "this will probably maybe most definately finally be the tipping point for desktop linux." Lindows, or whatever their name of the week is, having an IPO for a product that will probably crap out in the near future, certainly won't help linux on the desktop as it will make investors more leary of linux.

    --


    slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
    1. Re:Grasping at straws by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 1

      I'm reading: which could have impact on desktop Linux and struggling to see how you transmogrified that into: this will probably maybe most definately finally be the tipping point for desktop linux?

      Given past generosity/support from Mr Lindows, presumably more $$$$ for Lin---s will result in more projects like Nvu: I don't think we can really expect - or claim we were promised - more than that.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:Grasping at straws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lindows sucks. They have always been cheap profiteers on the Linux bandwagon and have never contributed to the community.

  31. Millimeter capital? by JLavezzo · · Score: 1

    in financial circles.

    Slashdot must also be "News for Financial Nerds..."

    Standard non-fiancial-geek prefix and postfix would have been $50M

    Perhaps it's actually millimeters (mm) capitalized. So, when you're raising capital that's measured in millimeters, you use MM.

    1. Re:Millimeter capital? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MM would be megametres, not millimetres. Though it's arguably a nanoscale difference .....

    2. Re:Millimeter capital? by tverbeek · · Score: 1
      MM would be megametres, not millimetres.

      You're right that "M" as a modifier stands for "mega", not "milli". But "metre"/"meter" is abbreviated as m (lowercase). "M" as a unit stands for "moles".

      So what we're talking about with "50MM" is 50 megamoles (50*Avogadro's number) of dollars, or in excess of $3.01*10^25! That's over $30 septillion (US nomenclature), or 30 Yottadollars.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  32. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by haystor · · Score: 2, Funny

    LinuXP. Just to screw with that other company.

    You'd also sell an extra 2 copies to all the LISP programmers out there who would think it's the "true Linux".

    --
    t
  33. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by Nimrangul · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tonkat (The OS Now Known As Tonkat) actually sounds much better than Linspire. Though the Tomcat people may disagree.

    --
    I'm sick of following my dreams - I'm just going to ask them where they're going and hook up with them later.
  34. 50 millimeters!?!? by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 4, Funny

    50 millimeters of what?!!?

    Why can't the editors be a little sympathetic to lamers like me in expanding acronyms!?!

  35. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by jonasmit · · Score: 2, Informative

    They are keeping the corporate name Lindows Inc. but the branding of the software changed to Linspire. The name Lindows is legal in the states so no problem with that - they just needed a new brand for Europe.

  36. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by xoran99 · · Score: 2, Funny
    The name won't catch on unless it includes at least one recursive letter ;-).

    Lindows - Lindows Is Not Deemed Of Windows' Standards.

    --

    Karma: Bad (mostly due to all those "In Soviet Russia" jokes)

  37. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public.

    Listen to the feedback this is already generating on Slashdot... I don't think *anyone* is being overenthusiastic. At all.

  38. asset dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So is this just another case of corporate execs dumping their investment on the public to cash out? Lindows doesn't seem a large enough company to get much out of an ipo at this time. I would watch if Lindows execs start bailing after the ipo. This could be a bad sign.

    1. Re:asset dumping by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      Watch to see if Kevin Carmony - the president - leaves. Why DO you need a President AND a CEO when there are less than 20 people in the company? Why should we buy the IPO if you have never shown a profit, and never will? They actually spend $1000 for every dollar they take in. Read my sig for more.

  39. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Informative


    I can't wait for all of the Linux fanatics to drive it through the roof the first day!!


    Linux fanatics? Lindows? You don't pay much attention to the group you like tweaking, do you?
  40. flame them from orbit, it's the only way to be sur by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still, that doesn't make them right!

  41. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by NineNine · · Score: 1

    Linux fanatics? Lindows? You don't pay much attention to the group you like tweaking, do you?


    Good point. I can't wait for all of the techie-wannabes-who-know-the-"Linux"-buzzword types to drive it through the roof the first day!!

  42. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    MM is a standard postfix for "Million"....

    MM is a standard mail application for "Million".

    I wonder if you meant POSIX. (Which I still don't think is accurate).

  43. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

    This is just an extension of the dot-bomb bubble. Now that the institutional investors are leary about blowing hundreds of millions on the latest IPO scam, OpenIPO swoops in to take the money directly from Joe sixpack. If you think about it, it doesn't really matter whether these companies are selling open source or proprietary software anyway because their real flagship product is selling stock.

    -a

  44. People spending their own money legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Sounds to me like legal way to scam/cash in on hype and an overenthusiastic general public.

    Okay. So people are bidding ridiculously high prices on a speculative tech stock. What's the problem? I don't see single mothers and starving children being physically coerced into bidding on IPOs. It sounds to me like you're complaining that consenting adults with extra cash are being allowed to speculate with THEIR OWN MONEY! Imagine that. Next up: Loterry tickets, slot machines, and the blackjack table have worse odds than tech IPOs.

    you have a table set for even more inflated IPO:s and ludicrous business models going public

    Okay. So don't bid on it, tell your aging parents to not bid on it. And then chill out. Nobody is doing something they don't want to do here.

    1. Re:People spending their own money legally by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

      See - the problem is that Robertson says things like money from ChoicePC.com goes to "protecting Desktop Linux." In REALITY - he's lining his pockets with the money and the suit was covered by insurance. That's called lying. Emperor's new IPO indeed.

  45. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by deander2 · · Score: 1


    Tofkal (Tofkal is the OS Formally Known As Lindows)? :-P

  46. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least if they were selling proprietary software, they'd have a chance at making a profit. As it stands, the current model is:

    1. Give away software
    2. ???
    3. ???

  47. Isaac Newton called by ColonelPanic · · Score: 1
    And verily desireth he his philosophickal spellings back. Hast thou been reading overmuchly Neal Stephenson of late?

    ... mimick ...

    --
    "Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
  48. shorting IPO stocks by sleepingsquirrel · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're allowed to short the stock, but the initial purchaser might not be allowed to lend the stock out . So you might have to wait a while (those shares need to trade hands at least once) before shares become available for shorting.

  49. Re:Who is raising what 50 MM for? 300MM? by evilviper · · Score: 1

    MM? Where is that used, exactly?

    I've seen Mn, and just M of course, but MM is a new one to me.

    Methinks I see a typo.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  50. I have news for you..... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 1

    If former generations were as sue crazy as the past few have been, we'd all be driving horse drawn carriages on old dirt roads and using the telegraph to communicate. These days, lawsuits are used to stifle INNOVATION like bever before. There are FIVE major labels...FIVE!! They control 90+ percent of the music in the WORLD. If we didn't have a republican controlled everything, they'd likely be proscecuted under the RICO statute as a cartel! Instead, Congress gets nice fat deposits in Switzerland and everything's fine RIGHT?? The bottom line is this: MP3.com tried to buck the cartel. The cartel (with the help of law enforcement) destroyed them. Period.... A perfect (textbook) example of how government works AGAINST the people!

    1. Re:I have news for you..... by turnstyle · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "They control 90+ percent of the music"

      What you seem to be missing is that it's not at all like controlling 90% of some natural resource. There's plenty of great non-RIAA music, go listen to that instead.

      --
      Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  51. Yup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to work for a brokerage; the old timers always used MM to refer to a million.

  52. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by Carnildo · · Score: 1

    Tonkat (The OS Now Known As Tonkat) actually sounds much better than Linspire.

    It's about time someone came up with a tail-recursive acronymic name! There are entirely too many head-recursive names already.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  53. Lindows: what the future holds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    What does the future hold for Lindows?

    Im thinking Hall of Fame inductee at www.fuckedcompany.com

  54. Been there already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. IPO which appeals to rabbid (but stupid) anti-MS zealots
    2. Whole lotta coke, whores, company jets
    3. Bleed money like a gut-shot tramau center patient
    4. Fold company, voice trite excuses of 'being ahead of time', 'market conditions not right', etc.
    5. Laugh all the way to bank

    Hey Lindows, the 90s called, they want their business plan back!

  55. Millimeter. by sulli · · Score: 1

    50mm == length of Robertson's penis.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  56. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

    After all the name changes that they have, they don't need to add recursion! Lindoz (actual original name) Lindows Lin---s Lindash Linspire Linsipid Maybe just L?

  57. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I read that and thought you said Feature Manure. That would have been entirely appropriate.

    The OS defaults to running as root, and you CANNOT run CNR without being root. Not to mention it's set up with insecure Windows Networking compatibility to start with. Really! The preconfigured networking is set with a lot of insecure ports open.

    This IPO needs to fail and fail quickly. No one read the article apparently. Spending $6.7 million to get $63,000 in sales is um - BAD BUSINESS.

  58. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually the name hasn't been declared legal yet. The fight's not finished. I'm sick of people who who say Lindows has a right to trade off the Windows name. The geek goes and kicks the bully, and when the bully beats the living crap out of him, he complains. I say let the bully beat him up - they deserve it.

    Maybe if they released quality software instead of getting publicity over lawsuits then they might be an asset to Linux. Until then - they are a bunch of charlatans and thieves.

  59. Re:Surprised by Wealth! Then by Total Loss! by DebianRcksLindowsLie · · Score: 1

    Well based on Lindows spending $6.7 million in 2002, and having sales of $63,000, they sure aren't selling software! Stay away from these people. Check my sig for more info on this horrific company. They actually promote porn while selling SurfSafe to protect you from porn! Conflict of interest? Snake oil? YOU decide.

  60. Mod parent up by TaraByte · · Score: 1

    The stock market is definately a scam. I learned the hard way myself, losing $2M in "paper money" on an IPO venture during the dotbomb era. The stock market exists simply to keep the money in the hands of the rich and steal it from the middle class.

    --
    Security is inversely proportional to the commitment of one desiring to circumvent it.
  61. Linspire: X-Lindow would have been neater by Forget4it · · Score: 1

    Why not X-Lindows
    with the accent on the
    ex Lindows.
    ....

    --
    Artificial intelligence is the study of how to make real computers act like the ones in the movies.
  62. White Devil!!! by kevlar · · Score: 1

    WHITE DEVIL!! YOU's the white devel!!

  63. the only reason by tacokill · · Score: 1

    The only reason a reputable company would use OpenIPO is because their business model is not compelling enough for the big boys of finance to take an interest in.

    The capital markets are open for everyone to use, given you have a solid business model. If don't, then you go to "alternative" capital markets, like OpenIPO or junk bonds.

    Yea, there are success stories that arise from these alternative financings, but they are rare.

  64. don't remind me. by bobaferret · · Score: 1

    I thought it was just me and RUSH that turned thirty this year. Now it's also D&D on my birthday too...thanx for making me feel old..:)

  65. Re:Lindows? I thought it was not Linspire by jonasmit · · Score: 1

    Well, the US courts have denied Microsoft's request for an injunction. So a legal victory but until trial not declaratively legal. And then there are appeals. But, the injunction was denied which indicates the courts saw enough of a grey area that they can continue.
    Then name Lindows may have been an unwise choice given the litigous nature of Microsoft, but I'd hardly say it is obviously illegal.

  66. Re:Surprised by Wealth! ... slightly off topic end by Joey7F · · Score: 1

    It seems easy, but shorting is very dangerous. Because all you need is some heavy buying, some good news, etc and suddenly "Hello Mr. Investor, yeah, we'd like you to buy some of that stock you sold" and now you are having to cover your assets during a short squeeze. I look at the short ratio when I buy stock.

    Oh and just for a little editorial comment: Many people say the stock market is just like going to Vegas, I say, look at the amount of people that make money in the market. Look at the people that make money in Vegas! There are "safe" bets like betting on broad indices (QQQ - Nasdaq, DIA - Dow, SPY - SP500, EWJ - Japan, IWM - Small Caps) and the earlier you do it the more you end up with when you retire, I have been investing since I was 19 (about two years ago) and have made ~35%.

    You only need $500 to start, and with some mutual funds, you can buy in small increments without paying much/any commission.

    Don't think you need to be an expert to invest and to profit.

    --Joey

  67. WHITE DEVIL!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You's da White Devil!!!