9 Open Source Companies to Watch

An anonymous reader writes "A look at 9 open source companies to watch, focusing on everything from systems management to portals to apps servers. " Silly bits like where their names come from to less silly bits like how much VC they got and what they actually do. I haven't heard of many of these, but it's encouraging to see a growing number of businesses being built around Open Source.

Comments

N3P - The #1 Open Source company to watch!

[network23]

They missed the #1 Open Source company to watch:

N3P

"N3P offers a brand new, contrasting and intrepid two-year college level training in how to become a successful Project Entrepreneur in Open Source. Our students will learn not only the technical possibilities, but also how to exploit new business opportunities, manage profitable ideas, and create flourishing businesses. The training will focus on how to generate business using open source."

N3P

Re:N3P - The #1 Open Source company to watch!

[UbuntuDupe]

Browsing the site, it looks like they're doing just what I talked about. Teaching how to be a manager, how to finance something, how to get people to be creative. They're not teaching how to come up with ideas, how to identify undervalued resources, i.e. the stuff that constitutes genuine entrepreneurship.

I know, it sounds like a nitpick, but I don't like when people act like, hey, once you teach this course, you'll be a successful entrepreneur, because entrepreneurship comes precisely from not following standard thinking. Maybe I didn't say that right...

Re:N3P - The #1 Open Source company to watch!

[DerekLyons]

intrepid two-year college level training in how to become a successful Project Entrepreneur
 
Entrepreneurship is something that, almost by definition, can't be taught, because it involves identifying how to use resources no one had before thought to identify. If you can systematize the method, it's not longer entrepreneurship, but a rote process.

 
Hardly.

• Cooking, for example, is deeply systemized - but it's hardly rote. Considerably experience and knowledge is required to routinely produce great dishes. (I can hand you a recipe - and even with that experience and knowledge you might not be able to duplicate it. My sister, who is a trained chef, cannot (yet) duplicate several of my dishes.)
• Chess is deeply systemized - but it takes considerable skill to know how and when to apply a specific tactic, or a counter to a specific tactic (after learning how to recognize it).
• Military tactics and doctrine are deeply systemized - but it's decidely nontrivial to apply those in real situations. When the SSBN I served on went on patrol, we carried a shelf of books nearly five feet long detailing the tactics, doctrine, and philosophy of conducting a deterrent patrol as well as general submarine operations - but it takes years to master the material and know when to follow 'the book' and when to 'punt' (go your own way).

Now, I'll agree with you that you cannot teach how to identify opportunities - but you can codify how to search for, evaluate, and exploit them.

The 9

[neonprimetime]

1. Cleversafe - dispersed storage grid
2. Digium - open source PBX
3. Hyperic - manage heterogenous it environments
4. Optaros - consulting
5. Qlusters - open source systems management platform
7. Sahana - secure web portal
8. ws02 - open source application server
9. zenoss - network and systems-monitoring software

Begone, foul beast

[Red Flayer]

FTA, re: Zenoss:

"We are bringing the Zen of open source to IT management," says Bill Karpovich, co-founder and CEO.

Bill Karpovich, bringing vague managerial-speak to OSS since August 2005.
Future ventures to include:

Paradigmoss
Leveragoss
Top-downoss
Empoweross
Bleedingedgeoss

Really, I could go on and on... But for the sake of my own sanity, I'll stop there. Besides, companies have been named far worse.

Besides Red Hat

[lottameez]

Are there any other open source based companies besides Red Hat that are actually profitable? I don't mean this to be flamebait, just wondering.

I was at a conference a few months ago sitting in an Open Source track, and the panel of Open Source vendors basically said that the best chance of success in the open source business was to be renamed Red Hat and to have come about about six years ago.

Re:Besides Red Hat

[Poppler]

Ubuntu is a company also, is it not, didn't M Shuttleworth make his money from selling books about open source

Actually, Shuttleworth got rich selling his former company (Thawte Consulting) to VeriSign.

Linux File System??

[SanityInAnarchy]

I mean, it's not a bad idea, but that name? Sounds kind of like eFax calling themselves Windows Print Driver.

Biasses: No embedded companies

[EmbeddedJanitor]

A huge %, if not most, Linux systems are embedded and mobile devices like phones etc. Mobile/embedded space is the fastest growing area and if it isn't the biggest already, it will soon be.

This list is only looking at servers etc and none of these projects/companies would be of any interest in embedded space.

excerpts

[Tharkban]

I just wanted to know what the companies did. So here it is (company name followed by "What does the company offer?")

Cleversafe

The Linux File System, which lets Linux computers store information on a dispersed storage grid called the Cleversafe Research Storage Grid. The company plans to offer commercial dispersed-data storage services and software.

Digium

Asterisk, the industry's first open source PBX, and Asterisk Business Edition, a professional grade version of the software.

Hyperic

Hyperic HQ, an open source platform for managing heterogeneous IT environments, including operating systems and Web, application, database, middleware, and virtualization technology. The company also provides subscription-based services and support, as well as advanced features.

Optaros

Consulting and systems integration services focused on open source softwar

Qlusters

OpenQRM, an open source systems management platform.

Sahana

A secure Web portal that includes applications used to coordinate and collaborate during relief efforts following disasters.

WSO2

Tungsten, an Apache-based open source application server built from the ground up to handle Web services. The company is planning to roll out a line of Web-services-focused, Apache-based middleware, with its Titanium Enterprise Service Bus due for release soon.

Zenoss

Open source network and systems-monitoring software.

Zmanda

A commercial version of the open source AMANDA (Advanced Maryland Automatic Network Disk Archiver) backup utility software, as well as services and support for the software.

Re:The question I'd like to see...

[truthsearch]

Digium sells PBX hardware which can be used with their open source software. They have quite a large selection for their niche.

Cleversafe

[TheUnknownCoder]

Funding: Private, plus angel investors, amount not disclosed.

Plus free, shameless advertisement through Slashdot:

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wednesday April 26
Posted by Zonk on Monday August 21
Posted by CmdrTaco on Monday August 28

ZManda, hmmm...

[gardyloo]

I like how ZManda's web page says they offer "Two levels of world-class technical support".

      Because some worlds are just naturally classier than others. I'd hate to get their Underworld-class support.

Re:The question I'd like to see...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why did anyone mod this up? At best it is a straw man argument. At worst it is a troll.

Oh wait, let me guess... "support", right? Oh, sure...

Allow me to translate. The previous poster said that the question was answered over and over again. This poster asserts that the previous poster must have meant that answer was "support," even though that was never mentioned anywhere, and then went on to decry (not debunk he simply makes assertions to the contrary, but does not provide any reasons).

Just in case this last poster was just ignorant and not a troll, allow me to make a quick summary of how OSS fits into the business world. Proprietary software is made by a single company and sold to multiple companies for as much as they can get. A cheaper method is for the companies that want to use software to collaborate on the development (OSS) and each only pays for what they need. In addition to that, they all get access to bug fixes and features someone else needed for free. Sometimes this is done by using internal developers who become experts in the software. Sometimes this is done by hiring outside developers to do the work you need. For projects like Apache, there is a core group of developers paid to make general improvements and to make specific customizations or improvements on commission. Developers are paid for support, customization, new features, and sometimes just given a salary to make general improvements and be an internal expert until something specific is required. The actual code is used to provide services or products to other people.

In this model, the developers have less chance of "making it big" but at the same time they can undercut the costs of the competition and provide a better product and have more widespread adoption of their product, which brings a lot of prestige and can lead to other financial opportunities. This model has only been working for a few decades and is in constant use by IBM, Apple, Cisco, and pretty much any major IT company you can think of, and I've, personally, read explanations not very different from this one a dozen times. Please stop asking this.

Hyperic

[porkrind]

We've been profitable since day 1.

http://www.hyperic.com/

-John Mark
Community Manager
Hyperic

Not even a particularly good list.

[jd]

I can think of a few dozen Open Source-based companies that are offering far more innovative products, far better products and sometimes even both at the same time. I have no problem with an editor saying "these are worth watching", but I do have a problem with an editor astroturfing. I also have a problem with editors making bold claims without any actual evidence. All we're getting is the corporate handout.

A proposal I made many many years back was to run a league table, where so many points were scored for the release of an open source product, so many points were scored for updating someone else's open source product, so many for closed source products that supported or enhanced the usability of an open source product, etc. The more open source, the more points. Also, the more significant (in terms of power, flexibility, etc) the more points, and the more practical the more points.

The idea was to show who actually was doing work, versus who was merely bragging about it. The idea was also to make major Open Source figures (some of whom have never actually released a product but have contributed to many) just as prominent in the table as major corporations with Really Big Bucks to throw around. It would also show those who are working on making Open Source a key player in the computing world, even if their products are not themselves Open Source.

(Oracle would score points for having put their corporate database on Linux, for example, but it would not be as much as Computer Associates for putting their corporate database - Ingres - not only on Linux but opening up the source as well. Postgresql would score more yet, as it is not only Open Source but regularly maintained.)

Newcomers are at no disadvantage, because whatever REAL added value will show up notwithstanding the newness or the lack of awareness. If there's no added value, then there is nothing there to watch. It's merely a rebadge. If there's added value and this value is constantly added to (which is what a new company should be doing), then it will be a very obvious rapid-riser through the charts.

Proprietary vendors who are wary of opening their high-value major product lines will obviously not score as well, nor should they, but they will be represented as a function of what they have contributed - directly in terms of products, and indirectly in terms of improved usability.

Then, journalists MIGHT have a clue as to what is interesting and what is not. They might also have a clue as to what is significant, what is likely to become "big news" and what is worth the effort of covering.

As it stands, they neither know nor care. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. Mind you, what I'm aiming for, with this idea, is not to introduce honesty, but rather to give people a copy of the songbook. Let people see for themselves if the tune is any good or is even what it's claimed to be. It would seem to me that an informed userbase will take care of the honesty issue by itself.