USA Today and NYT on Linux rising
prostoalex writes "USA Today notices significant rise of Linux in the high-end enterprise environment. Although it doesn't provide obligatory pretty pictures, the paper mentions the projects at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and NASA. Also if you've missed the New York Times Google article of the day, the expose on John Doerr from Valley's venerable KPCB talks about venture fund investing $12 million in LinuxCare. NYT quote: "That's a freight train I wouldn't want to get in front of," said Mr. Doerr, explaining the importance to having a stake in a Linux-based venture. "Probably get run over.''"
You were probably being facetous, but back in the day one of his first venture investments was in Compaq, which paid a dividend prior to their acquisition by HP. HP, of course pays a dividend as well. Pretty sad that you have to go back to his first venture investments (in 1980 to find a dividend paying company). Intuit could afford to and will likely begin to pay a dividend in the next few years.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Correcty me if I'm wrong, but didn't linuxcare already go bankrupt (or nearly so) once during the DotCom flameout? I seem to recall them having an IPO planned and then canning the IPO and laying off a large portion of their staff in the same week. The only useful thing I remember from them was their bootable business card rescue CDs.
Heck, google doesn't even have a snapshot of text for linuxcare.com indicating it's been down for a while and was recently brought back up. In fact, the top hit for which there is a snippet is an article about linuxcare laying people off.
Seems like some people are getting a bit too excited about the Google IPO and thinking that once again companies with no real business plan can do IPOs worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I'm sorry, but you're going to check your enthusiasm in favor or results for a little while at least.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
That link says: "circa: In approximately; about: born circa 1900"
While not as common, "circa" is perfectly reasonable to apply to numbers.