Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
Bill Karpovich, bringing vague managerial-speak to OSS since August 2005.
Future ventures to include:
Paradigmoss
Leveragoss
Top-downoss
Empoweros
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
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.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
I mean, it's not a bad idea, but that name? Sounds kind of like eFax calling themselves Windows Print Driver.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
This list is only looking at servers etc and none of these projects/companies would be of any interest in embedded space.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
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
Uncopyrightable: The longest word you can write without repeating a letter.
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.
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.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.