Layoffs and CEO Resignation At OSDL

lisah writes "Big changes are afoot at Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) with today's surprise announcement of the departure of CEO Stuart Cohen and the layoff of nine other employees. Details are still emerging about what exactly this means for OSDL but according to a preliminary announcement, Cohen is 'leaving to pursue other open source opportunities' and OSDL is 'refocusing the scope of [their] work to better align resources with [their] revenues...'" The article also mentions the last year's layoff at OSDL.

Comments

Scope of work in line with revenues means...

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll be doing nothing?

Re:Scope of work in line with revenues means...

[DietCoke]

Nothing is *something*. As a result, it requires proper budgeting, processes, allocations and mission statements.

Re:Scope of work in line with revenues means...

[Anonymous Coward]

No they'll read slashdot now.

Linus.

Re:Scope of work in line with revenues means...

[Anonymous Coward]

Potato, kartoffel.

Couldn't figure out that "?"

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess they never found the right "?" that would lead to "profit!"

Re:Couldn't figure out that "?"

[morgan_greywolf]

OSDL is a non-profit organization.

Re:Couldn't figure out that "?"

[FyreFiend]

Unfortunately, not by design

Re:Couldn't figure out that "?"

[queequeg1]

"non-profit" doesn't mean that don't have to make net income. All going concerns must make a profit. Even the most charitable of non-profits will require an annual net operating income of 3-4 percent at a minimum. Otherwise, small fluctuations in revenue result in layoffs (the employees are not themselves non-profit). The issue is whether that profit benefits owners (i.e. shareholders) or the public (by growing the concern and furthering its purpose).

Ouch.

[Deadguy2322]

Merry Christmas! This year we're giving you a pink slip!

Re:Ouch.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't think of a better gift. Thank you.

Re:Ouch.

[Omega Hacker]

Yeah, really. I haven't figured out what the deal is with the yearly rash of large-scale layoffs from various companies in the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas. I *really* love the ones where a plant closes with no notice on the day before Thanksgiving, with a whopping 2 weeks severance for people who've worked their entire lives there but were e.g. contractors so had no pension.

Obviuosly Scrooge owns a lot more companies than anyone realized. I really should start making a formal blacklist of companies that do stooopid things like this and others. Lessee, GM's on the list (see "Who Killed the Electic Car") along with the obvious Microsoft, SCO, Walmart, etc.

Re:Ouch.

[PinkPanther]

Lessee, GM's on the list (see "Who Killed the Electic Car") along with the obvious Microsoft, SCO, Walmart, etc

So you are against companies that give consumers exactly what they want?
That kill products that aren't selling?
Boards that do what (they believe) their investor base is demanding?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of those on your list...however they are big targets exactly because consumers support them (or don't, in the case of layoffs and the "electric car").

Re:Ouch.

[Archeopteryx]

Happened JUST that way with my former employer Ikadega; We all got pink slips just before Thanksgiving.

Re:Ouch.

[tomstdenis]

Companies like GM and Ford saw the writing on the wall for the last 20+ years about cars being more practical than luxurious. If they didn't market and advertise contrary to those notions the general public wouldn't be so adverse to the notion of a practical car. Now you have more and more people wanting practical cars and they can't sell the monstrocities fast enough.

Judging by the number of kia, toyota, honda, and the like I see on the road, practical is in. It's also interesting to note that these "import" cars are often made with more north american parts than the GM/Ford counterparts. In short, they were greedy and milked the "big bulky muscle SUV" style car too long. Now they have to redesign, retool, remarket, and win over their loyal customers with designs that are completely unlike what they had before.

Maybe if the execs had the customer in mind instead of the shareholders they"d be profitable....

Tom

Re:Ouch.

[Tet]

I haven't figured out what the deal is with the yearly rash of large-scale layoffs from various companies in the month between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

In the UK financial sector, at least, January is bonus time. Hence December frequently sees a round of redundancies, which are often cheaper than paying the bonuses...

Re:Ouch.

[mrchaotica]

So you are against companies that give consumers exactly what they want?

First, GM: it did not discontinue the EV1 because "consumers" didn't want it; on the contrary, most people who leased one begged GM to let them buy it when the lease was up. So what did GM do instead? It destroyed the cars! Maybe you ought to actually watch that movie, as the parent suggested. Then you'll realize that maybe, just maybe, GM had an ulterior motive.

Is that "giving consumers exactly what they want?"

As for Microsoft, it got to where it is now in large part to shady deals (QDOS, OS/2, etc.) and illegal business practices. Ask the average person on the street and they'll initially tell you they want Windows, but if you prod them a little you'll eventually find out that what they really want is the applications that run on Windows, and that the OS isn't that great.

Is "giving consumers what they want" the same as forcing them to take it?

And what is SCO giving "consumers" nowadays? Lawsuits? I'm not even going to bother with this one -- the notion that SCO is doing anything that "consumers" want is just too absurd.

Do "consumers" want to pay $699 worth of protection money?

Finally, as for Wal-Mart... well, Wal-Mart doesn't belong on the list. (Sony does, though, but that's another rant...)

Re:Ouch.

[tshak]

As for Microsoft, it got to where it is now in large part to shady deals (QDOS, OS/2, etc.) and illegal business practices.
 
This is so far from being proven it's absolutely rediculous. Anybody who worked software retail during that timeframe (I did) knows that you A) had droves of people lining up for Windows 95 and B) and droves of people returning OS/2 Warp because of technical issues (e.g. data corruption, not "lack of programs cause MS screwed us").

Re:Ouch.

[Anonymous Coward]

A large part of Ford/GMs problem is that they lost a whole generation of car buyers in the 70s/80s. I know I (born 1972) won't even look at a US car company. Why do you think Ford's tagline was "Have you driven a Ford lately", i.e. "we don't suck like we used to, please give us another chance"?

Now where they didn't lose us was the truck market. For years I used to say "Buy a foreign car. Buy an American truck." Foreign manufacturers just didn't know how to build a truck that American's wanted. The small Toyota trucks were OK for cheap occasional use, but if you needed a workhorse you bought a steel body F-150 or a Chevy.

And so you get to the landscape facing the American companies. They can't sell their cars. They can sell their trucks but not enough people want trucks to make you a profit. So, they decided to turn their trucks into cars, and the modern SUV was born.
The redesign was cheap as they could leverage their truck bodies. They could also upgrade their trucks from the Spartan steel body F-150s (which I wish I could still get BTW) to the luxurious F-2/350s.

The new problem American car companies have is that the SUV has been so successful that the foreign car companies have started to figure out how to make trucks (see the Honda Ridgeline).
So, they still can't sell cars to my generation and now they have good competition in the truck market.
They other problem killing these old (and "old" is impoertant here) US auto manufactures is that they have pension systems that weight them down. Their 50s/60s style pension systems just aren't permissible when facing companies that only have 401ks. Even if they moved the new workers to 401k schemes, the old union labour is a mill stone around their neck.

Re:Ouch.

[mr.warmth]

I just wanted to point out that you're not giving the EV1 story a fair treatment.

It is true that there were many leasees who were dying to own one outright. However, that doesn't mean that GM would have obviously made money from that. For example, I believe that there're laws requiring car companies to make parts available for some amount of time (maybe 10 years?) after a car is manufactured. That would mean that GM would have to maintain this stock or production just to make the EV1 leasees happy.

This is not to say that GM did not have an ulterior motive - they may have. But to conclude that they were motivated by something other than profit from the fact that they crushed rather than sold their production run is not fair.

Re:Ouch.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it possible in part that the desire for Windows 95 was because Windows 3.1 "won"? Why did Windows 3.1 win?

Consumers (and OEMs) saw Was IBM responsibthe writing on the wall. le for all of that scribbling?

Re:Ouch.

[frank_adrian314159]

In short, they were greedy and milked the "big bulky muscle SUV" style car too long. Now they have to redesign, retool, remarket, and win over their loyal customers with designs that are completely unlike what they had before.

And, you know, it's not like they couldn't foresee this. They hit the same wall during the first oil shock in the mid-seventies and the writing has been on the wall for at least the past five years. But, as usual here in the US, they looked at the profit margin on SUVs and other big iron, did no investment in their capacity for smaller vehicles and, in the pursuit of quarterly profit, have probably destroyed the US automobile industry once and for all. Look for GM and Ford to give up their US badges for foreign imprints, soon, just as Chrysler did in 1998 (Ford's been most of the way there since the early nineties, anyhow). The tinfoil hat part of me says it's all part of the conservative movement's plan to crush one of the last major unions in America, but I try never to attribute to malice that which can be so easily ascribed to stupidity.

Re:Ouch.

[mrchaotica]

However, that doesn't mean that GM would have obviously made money from that. For example, I believe that there're laws requiring car companies to make parts available for some amount of time (maybe 10 years?) after a car is manufactured. That would mean that GM would have to maintain this stock or production just to make the EV1 leasees happy.

First of all, if there is such a law couldn't GM get around it by having the buyers sign a waiver or something? Or even sell them with salvage titles? Speaking of salvage, GM could have just sold the things to a junkyard and let people by them as (intact) "scrap." But it didn't. No, GM made damn sure the cars were actually destroyed. That goes beyond any possible profit motive; that can only be attributed to malice.

Re:Ouch.

[salmon_austin]

At my company it's to make up for yearly shortfalls and to show Wall Street that we're doing something about the downward slide we've taken recently. I believe layoffs are also often done around this time to balance out the spreadsheets for next year. Sucks...

Re:Ouch.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's quite a huge difference between "let me buy this exact car I've been leasing" and "let me buy some car that resembles this car after we participate in a couple levels of legal indirection". My guess is that selling to automotive recyclers (Junkyards have junk -- car parts and fixable cars are not junk) would have resulted in very few sales. For example, see the fantastic reception the OLPC machine gets here on /. vs. the actual number sold @ $300.

Throw in the 10 year parts/service liability and the infinite legal liability tail (e.g. The 4.9 billion (with a B!) verdict in the Anderson case) and why wouldn't they crush them.

This is not a new policy for GM. They made some stunning Harley Earl designs in the 50s -- all driveable, all great, and any true automotive enthusiast would give up his left testicle for one and yet they were all crushed by edict of GM legal.

Re:Ouch.

[tomstdenis]

Just a heads up, there are "imports" which are made in the USA and Canada.

I personally have no problem buying or driving a non-traditionally american car. Provided it's safe, fuel efficient and gets me where I'm going I don't care who made it. Granted "fuel efficient" is a subjective scale. 40MPG is nice, for instance, but it's probably not the best our level of technology can afford us.

But I'd rather only get 40MPG than the current typical 25-30MPG most cars/suvs get.

Tom

Re:Ouch.

[PinkPanther]

You are confusing a few concepts w.r.t. the EV1. It's discontinuation was precisely because of lack of consumer demand. The fact that they destroyed the few vehicles that were already created does not change the fact that there was next-to-no demand for them.

And I have seen the movie...very convincing for a one-sided argument...however it could be argued that GM's destruction of those vehicles was a sound business move. Maybe they felt that the technology was decent but they as a company couldn't figure out how to effectively market and sell the machines; they would be concerned that someone else could figure it out.

There's also the angle (GM's "official" stance), that as the EV1's deteriorated over time, without replacement parts (remember, there was no demand for making the machines, so there'd be no market for replacement parts) then the EV1's could become a serious liability.

On top of all of this, the lack of need for servicing (assuming the EV1's really were as good as the movie claims) takes away a serious revenue source from GM (service and maintenance), so killing the EV1 again could be considered a sound business move...if consumers really wanted the machines, they'd have been willing to pay the real price.

But what consumers want is cheap, low-cost, best deal; Wal-mart, McD's, Ford/GM/Chrysler, third-world production facilities give them exactly that. A few hundred (or a few thousand) individuals do not comprise "consumers". For any of these large corporations, thousands of consumers is not worth the effort of developing a pilot product, much less bring an entire product to market.

Re:Ouch.

[mrchaotica]

however it could be argued that GM's destruction of those vehicles was a sound business move. Maybe they felt that the technology was decent but they as a company couldn't figure out how to effectively market and sell the machines; they would be concerned that someone else could figure it out.

We weren't discussing a list of companies that make "sound business moves," we were discussing a list of companies that are [don't really] "give consumers what they want." It's possible that you're right that it was a "sound business move," but that's entirely irrelevant. And I'm damn sure that destroying something out of concern that "someone else could figure [how to serve the customers] out" doesn't help the customers!

Besides, it's very possible that it was not a "sound business move" anyway:

But what consumers want is cheap, low-cost, best deal; Wal-mart, McD's, Ford/GM/Chrysler, third-world production facilities give them exactly that.

If that were true regarding GM, then why is it doing so poorly compared to, say, Toyota? Could it be that -- gasp -- "consumers" don't actually want cheap crap as you say? Could it just possibly be that maybe customers actually care about the quality of the stuff they buy, and that they'll patronize the company that has the best technology? Is it a mere coincidence that Honda and Toyota, the leaders in hybrid technology, are also the leaders in the market?

I don't think it's a coincidence. I think having these "halo technology" cars, even ones like the Insight that don't sell many units, are still worth it to make even if only for their marketing value. GM could have had that, if it had kept the EV-1. Hell, with the high gas prices last year, it would have been golden -- instead of having a bunch of Suburbans sitting on the lot forever, EV-1s could have been flying out of the showrooms. But that's not what happened. Instead of looking like the technology leader and an environmentally-responsible company run by forward-thinking people, GM has a reputation of building crappy products and appears to be run by petty assholes. And that's what you call a "sound business decision?!"

Oh, and one last thing:

For any of these large corporations, thousands of consumers is not worth the effort of developing a pilot product, much less bring an entire product to market.

Don't you realize that GM already built the damn things? Have you never heard of the concept of a sunk cost? Destroying them does not magically bring that money back; in fact, it only costs more! Even if it was a bad decision to make them in the first place, it's still stupid to flush more money away destroying them instead of just giving them away for free.

Re:Ouch.

[PinkPanther]

Destroying them does not magically bring that money back; in fact, it only costs more!

But likely nowhere near as much as the potential lawsuits from vehicle owners a few years down the road (class-action at that!).

Or the potential of the immeasurable bad reputation they could get if these cars started exploding or driving off on their own or whatever ("Pinto", "Pacer", "Nova", ...).

Yes, there was a measurable cost in destroying those cars, but I bet that lawyers and accountants would have argued that the potential liability of letting them stay on the road greatly outweighed the cost of a few days rental of a crusher.

But many people prefer the tinfoil hat view, and I don't completely dismiss it either. I just don't believe that any corporation would give up the opportunity of taking vasts sums money from anywhere unless they saw the potential cost of taking that money as being too high.

Little revenue obtained making free software?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Little revenue obtained making free software? The single biggest attraction of open source is that as a big corporation, you can leech the efforts of thousands of unpaid but experienced contractors and never once feel the need to give back. (e.g., Thanks Apache!) So...it isn't exactly surprising that OSDL isn't exactly raking in the dough.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[gstoddart]

The single biggest attraction of open source is that as a big corporation, you can leech the efforts of thousands of unpaid but experienced contractors and never once feel the need to give back. (e.g., Thanks Apache!)

Eh? There have been numerous times where I've grabbed some nice-free Apache software and used it for my purposes. Tomcat, xerces, xalan, jakarta, and a bunch of other things.

Apache is giving back by providing us with a huge amount of useable software that we're allowed to use to solve our own problems. Much of it has solved some of the tedious bits one would rather not have to write onesself.

How exactly is Apache leaching off developers other than being a central point where OSS developed code can be found by all? (Like that's a bad thing or something.)

(I'm specifically curious about this, I've always thought Apache was a good netizen and a place to get some useful stuff.)

Cheers

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Score Whore]

I think he is quoting the big corporation there:

Apache Foundation: Here you go, one webserver with java servlet engine and xml parser on the side.
Big Corporation: Thanks Apache!

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Fnkmaster]

To quote from their website: "OSDL is a nonprofit organization that provides state-of-the-art computing and test facilities to developers around the world."

So OSDL doesn't really have much of a business model other than "our members give us some money, and we use it to pay Linus Torvalds a salary".

The fact that they aren't making lots of money is therefore not a failure of a business model, but the fact that they are a non-profit, with perhaps a poorly defined mission, that as a result has difficulty attracting lots of sponsorship money and would probably be dead by now if it weren't for the fact that Linus works there.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

How exactly is Apache leaching off developers other than being a central point where OSS developed code can be found by all?

I think you missed my point: Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Psiren]

I think you misunderstood the original post. I believe the point he was making was corporations are using Apache left right and centre, but very few of them are giving anything back (bar bug reports, and probably not even much of that). They are harnessing the benefit of the developers work, and not having to pay anything for it. That's the nature of open source though. I'm not saying it's good or bad.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[aevans]

What about the other multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache and has contributed money and code to the Apache project, but hasn't contributed a cent to Linux kernel development (which the first multibillion dollar oil company happens to host a high bandwidth mirror of, and has contributed bug reports to?

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[warpSpeed]

...Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.

Where does this monitary obligation come from? The license under which Apache is distributed under spells out the responsibilities of the user who downloads the software. If the Apache creators and maintainers wanted money, the should have spelled it out in the license.

The fact that the these oil companies that you speak of have "multibillion dollars" does not raise the licenes requirments, it is the same for everyone!

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[dedazo]

Relying on the inherent goodness of humans (or corporations) is naive at best. You can't come up with this super-wonderful new "business model" wherein you give everything away and then sit there and pout when people don't behave the way you idealistically expected them to.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[tcopeland]

> as a big corporation, you can leech the efforts of
> thousands of unpaid but experienced contractors and
> never once feel the need to give back. (e.g., Thanks Apache!)

True, but an open source project doesn't take much to run - just a server and some bandwidth, and the bandwidth needs can be minimized via judicious mirroring.

But I agree that corporations should support the developers of the open source projects they're using.... +1 on that.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look on the bright side. If the multibillion dollar oil company uses apache, it means its business partners don't *have* to use IE7 to talk to it, and *you* don't have to either, in order to talk to them. More people use free software, so that's a good thing overall.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[TheCabal]

Guess they shouldn't be giving the software away, eh?

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[toadlife]

"Relying on the inherent goodness of humans (or corporations) is naive at best."

Yet, history has shown that if the project is good enough, the inherent goodness of humans is enough. Apache, XFree/Xorg and the BSDs may not be raking in mega-millions of dollars, but they keep on keeping on year after year.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[PinkPanther]

Where does this monitary obligation come from?

Obligation does not need to be a legal entity. There is the whole concept of community participation.

Let's say there was a resource that was available in HUGE amounts, was free, and no one was obliged to conserve, reduce or become more efficient in use of that resource. If all of the large users of that resource continued to use this "free" resource, eventually it will begin to deplete or become of poorer quality or possibly become something where only for-purchase alternatives are desirable....err...wait a sec....

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[gstoddart]

I think you missed my point: Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.

Hmmm ... then you're right. I missed your point; my bad. =)

Cheers

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Zapman]

Leach?

The promise of FOSS is that you get the source code to do what you want with it. No matter who you are. If you make changes, and distribute them (assuming the GPL), you have to distribute your code changes as well.

They (your Oil Company) are taking the code, compiling it, and using it as it was intended. That's not leaching.

The license cuts both ways. There's no requirement to pay for it. Whether your some kids in your garage, saturating your parents DSL line to upload data to youtube, or a multinational oil company saturating a bunch of OC-3 lines.

Would it be 'nice' of them to contribute back? Sure. But we can't speak ill of them for not (Though I'd be willing to bet that there are a few code patches coming from said Multinational Oil).

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you missed my point: Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.

I work for multi-billion dollar company where I was part of a miracle and we got Linux in.

So they have someone to sue we buy Red Hat "licenses." Does Red Hat contribute any, enough, of that money flow to the Open Source organizations?

If not, I could float the trial (prolly lead) balloon that we make some donations outside of the tons of money that we send to Red Hat.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Tet]

Apache isn't itself the leech. The multibillion dollar oil company that runs Apache all over the place and hasn't ever contributed a cent to the Apache project is.

Is it? When I worked for a multibillion pound megacorp, I used Apache extensively. It never once crossed my mind to make a donation to the Apache project. Why should it? The thing is, a web server is such a trivial piece of software to write. It just happened that someone else had already done it for me, so I didn't need to write it myself. I'm pleased they had. But I just don't see the need to fund an entity like ASF (indeed, I'm not sure I see the need for the ASF at all). I did, however, try to get them to donate to the OpenBSD project.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[NineNine]

True, but an open source project doesn't take much to run - just a server and some bandwidth, and the bandwidth needs can be minimized via judicious mirroring.

Uuuh, ok. That's like saying that all you need to run a successful business is a cash register. If these projects are run like hobbies, and you don't expect any kind of widespread useage or support, then yeah, slap it up on a web server, and be done with it. If you want it to be successful, than it needs to be run the same as any other successful business.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Sponge Bath]

I'm not saying it's good or bad.

I would say using an open source product without contributing code or cash is still a subtle good. Wider use means:

* Wider testing (If it doesn't work, even leeches will bitch)

* Indirect advocacy via increased market share

* Increased interoperability between entities using FOSS

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[DreadfulGrape]

"leech" is a highly perjorative term when you're talking about software that is, in fact, distributed for free.

That said, even NPO's (non-profit organizations) have to pay salaries. If OSDL can't even do that (this is a 33% reduction in their paid staff), then it certainly seems like the business model is broken in some way, shape or form, or at very least not working the way it ought to.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Yet, history has shown that if the project is good enough, the inherent goodness of humans is enough. Apache, XFree/Xorg and the BSDs may not be raking in mega-millions of dollars, but they keep on keeping on year after year.

History has shown no such thing. Many of the biggest contributors to those projects are paid. Either directly, like Keith Packard who was hired by SuSE and then Hpaq to work on XFree86/Xorg or indirectly like academics or users who "scratch an itch" for their employer's needs and then feed the enhancements back.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[porl]

so you are saying that if too many people download the apache code then there will be less copies left for others?

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[toadlife]

"Either directly, like Keith Packard who was hired by SuSE and then Hpaq to work on XFree86/Xorg or indirectly like academics or users who "scratch an itch" for their employer's needs and then feed the enhancements back."

Exactly. Open source projects are driven by a combination of....

Charity: (i.e., "product_x" benefits us/me so we/I will donate money to them)

Necessity: (i.e., If we fork "product_x" and lock up the source we'll be shut out from the volunteer community and only increase the burden of maintaining the software for ourselves)

With all the millions big companies like IBM have out into projects like linux, I think people are too quick to downplay the role that volunteers plays in open source projects. Without the volunteer help, maintaining a project becomes much more expensive.

My point was that if a project is worthwhile to enough people, it will stay alive. Expecting billions in profit to come from it is the mistake.

Come to think of it, perhaps I am sort of agreeing with the OP here.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[nacturation]

Many of the biggest contributors to those projects are paid. I'd be interested to see some hard numbers for this. Take the amounts paid out to all contributors to a major project. Come up with some kind of estimate on the value of the contribution, even something as simple as lines of code. Now add up all the lines of code and then divide the total amount paid out by that number. You should have the average value of a line of code. It's all well and good that the big stars of a project get paid decent money, but they're paid that money because tons of others just aren't paid at all.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[toadlife]

All you have to do is look at the FreeBSD project. According to the FreeBSD foudation page, so far in 2006, they've received a total of just over $60,000 in donations, yet they have hundreds (~300?) committers and thousands of other contributors.

Without volunteers, FreeBSD would die...and you wouldn't need Netcraft to confirm it.

I'm sure other OS projects are similar.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Lord Ender]

You may be contractually permitted to eat 20lbs of food at an all-you-can-eat buffet, but if you do it, you're being leach.

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[big_daddy_mpd]

It is indeed a non-trivial task to leverage the "appeal" of "free" without taking on the "risk" of "no cashflow". Perhaps this whole Open Source phenomenon is experiencing the very reality that Communism faced. That is, "from each his ability, to each his need", really is a violation of human nature. Regards, Big

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Without volunteers, FreeBSD would die...and you wouldn't need Netcraft to confirm it.

The question is how many of those 'volunteers' worked on it during their 'free' time and how many worked on it as part of their regular job adapting FreeBSD to meet their needs. Remove all .edu and and then any non ISP .com addresses and you get a rough approximation of the true 'volunteers' (except for the ISP's that use FreeBSD, which is probably substantial).

Re:Little revenue obtained making free software?

[PinkPanther]

Yes, precisely.

What I'm suggesting is that constantly dipping into the resource of open-source goodwill without returning anything at all will eventually deplete the pool.

Silly business-speak.

[Lethyos]

... refocusing the scope of [their] work to better align resources with [their] revenues ...

Or to put it in English: “we are not making enough money and we have to cut back.”

Reminds me of this one study I heard a while ago that found the more obfuscated and elaborate the wording is used by companies the worse their financial situations are. Very appropriate in this case.

Re:Silly business-speak.

[Fnkmaster]

Correct, but they aren't supposed to make money. To quote from their website: "OSDL is a nonprofit organization that provides state-of-the-art computing and test facilities to developers around the world."

Non-profit, ya see?

Re:Silly business-speak.

[istartedi]

Some businessmen were born to "employ people", others to "utilize human resources". There are far too many of the latter; but we can't blame them totally. The other side of the equation is the worker who doesn't like the fact that he "works for them" and actually feels better being a "team member". Then there is the investor who probably doesn't buy companies that are "laying people off", but might be more interested in purchasing the stock of a company that is "engaging in refocusing the business and remaining agile". Everybody knows what they really mean. My favorite one is when a Washington, DC powerplayer who has fallen out of favor decides to "spend more time with the family". That one has become such a cliche that I think it's actually seems to have fallen out of favor in recent years. I don't know what is replacing it; but you can be certain something will. The need for sugar coating is probably as old as the human race.

Re:Silly business-speak.

[kfg]

. . .they aren't supposed to make money. To quote from their website: "OSDL is a nonprofit organization

Nonprofit != without profit. Nonprofit designates the manner in which the profits are dispersed. A nonprofit business is a business, and if it don't make money from somewhere it's a business that's out of business.

I've sat on the board of nonprofits. About all we talk about is how to make more profit. Some nonprofits are the most profitable businesses known to man. Why do you think the March of Dimes didn't keep their promise to disband after conquering polio?

There was too much profit in it. Nobody runs away from that sort of money.

KFG

Re:Silly business-speak.

[Tim C]

Correct, but they aren't supposed to make money.

Non-profit is not the same as loss-making. Any profit that they do generate could simply be invested back into the business, eg by acquiring other companies, increasing their staff, etc.

In fact, "non-profit" really just means "any money we do make won't be given away to shareholders/kept for ourselves or left in the bank".

(Disclaimer: IANAE)

Re:Silly business-speak.

[Fnkmaster]

Yes, I realize that. The "not supposed to make money" thing was partially in jest, I didn't realize how seriously everybody would take it. My point was that a non-profit generally has a set of non profit-oriented goals and engage in a variety of means to raise funds to support expenses incurred in reaching that goal.

Re:Silly business-speak.

[kjart]

Speaking of which, what the hell is "I'm looking forward to forming a venture to explore open source joint development using best practices in collaboration and building communities." I'm certain that this somehow involves getting very drunk in the near term, but I'll be damned if I know how.

Re:Silly business-speak.

[tehcyder]

they aren't supposed to make money. To quote from their website: "OSDL is a nonprofit organization

But whether you're non-profit or not, you can still be in good or bad financial health. A poorly performing charity is just as likely to phrase its announcements in pseudo-grandiose business speak as a commercial organisation.

Spooky!

[OriginalArlen]

From this week's BOFH:

I'm betting it says something about 'right-tasking', 'examining organisational structure' and identifying roles and the people best suited to them." "Yeah, sort of." "Then yes, they want to get rid of someone."

Hmmm... doesn't read so good

[jimicus]

"Leaving to pursue other Open Source Opportunities" : he's sacked.

"refocusing the scope of [their] work to better align resources with [their] revenues...'" : we've just realised that for all that we do, very little actually brings money in. This is a problem. So if it doesn't bring money in, it's either canned or changed such that it does.

Not particularly nice if you work for OSDL, but it happens in business from time to time...

Re:Hmmm... doesn't read so good

[Macrat]

Especially when their business plan was to hire Linus and make the world think they were Linux experts for contract work.

At least the CEO didn't get fired

[plopez]

Or the phrase would have been "Wanted to spend more time with his family".

Re:At least the CEO didn't get fired

[Webmoth]

Actually, he was Open-Sourced.

So

[warrior_s]

Did they let Linus go ?

Re:So

[Knackered]

Oh, for goodness sake. RTFA. I know this is Slashdot, but this point was addressed in the second sentence of the article. No, I'm not going to tell you. Go and read the article yourself.

Re:So

[psxman]

You don't even have to do *that*. You can just RTFD. (department)

Re:So

[antifoidulus]

The story is from the "linus-is-ok-though dept" as well, so it's even written in the summary if they would look :P

Re:So

[xlordtyrantx]

RTFA... Im just a lurker for the most part and I can even do that! Linus Torvalds, whose work on the Linux kernel is sponsored by OSDL, was not affected by the job cuts.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes Linus was sacked and promptly accepted an entry level position with Microsoft helping to work on IE8......sheesh.

Re:So

[squiggleslash]

Sadly yes. Word is they're tapping Theo DeRaadt to take over kernel development, but this will be a part time, unpaid, position. Overall management of the direction of Linux will be given to Avie Tevanian, late of Mac OS X fame.

Also Alan Cox has announced he's leaving voluntarily to persue other interests. No replacement has been announced, though apparently Eric Raymond, Hans Reiser, and Kevin Warwick are being named as possible successors.

Developing...

(Note to mods: I'm going for +5 Funny, not -2 I don't understand the joke)

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

third sentence

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

"(Note to mods: I'm going for +5 Funny, not -2 I don't understand the joke)"

This sad or what.

Re:So

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Re:So

[tehcyder]

Did they let Linus go ?

And just who is this Linus guy that he's so important anyway?

don't think of them as layoffs

[Anonymous Coward]

think of them as being released to the public, free of charge

Re:don't think of them as layoffs

[Anonymous Coward]

Com'on... that's pretty funny!

Re:don't think of them as layoffs

[Anonymous Coward]

hear hear - mod this up WAAAAY FUNNY mate

Non-profits need business models too...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

The fact that they aren't making lots of money is therefore not a failure of a business model, but the fact that they are a non-profit, with perhaps a poorly defined mission, that as a result has difficulty attracting lots of sponsorship money...

Non-profits need business models too, preferably built on the strength of a brand and/or the willingness of profitable businesses to build their own brands through them. For examples, see the United Way (tie-ins w/ the NFL, etc.), the Red Cross (sells blood with markup) and the Komen Foundation (tie-ins with every homemaker product ever invented).

Off Topic comment about his sig...

[soft_guy]

-- Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven I love your sig. Does it mean that you learned that really cool spaceships just fall into your lap whenever you need one?

Re:Off Topic comment about his sig...

[fostware]

Or just that you're constantly being twarted by a skanky ho in too much makeup?

Re:Off Topic comment about his sig...

[tehcyder]

twarted

Is that like an amalgam of thwarted and twatted?

Re:Off Topic comment about his sig...

[fostware]

In certains episodes, yes :S

Re:Off Topic comment about his sig...

[OriginalArlen]

It does mean that, but oh so much more... (Shamelessly ripped off from here):

• Trust is only dangerous when you have to rely on it.
• Reality is a dangerous concept.
• There is no logical reason why aliens should be hairy.
• I am not stupid, I'm not expendable, and I'm not going.
• No good deed goes unpunished.
• It is frequently easier to be honest when you have nothing to lose.
• Civilization has always depended on courtesy rather than truth.
• On Earth it is considered ill-mannered to kill your friends while committing suicide.
• The art of leadership is delegation.
• All that patience gets you is older.
• Show me someone who believes in something, and I will show you a fool.
• Regret is part of being alive -- but keep it a small part.
• He who trusts can never be betrayed, only mistaken.
• Infallibility depends on your point of view.
• There are times when even the most cynical must trust in luck.
• Heroics seldom run to schedule.
• Dignity, at all costs, dignity.
• The choice is very simple -- either you can fight, or you can die.
• In the end, winning is the only safety.
• Power usually makes its own rules.
• Some days are better than others, Section Leader.
• It is not necessary to become irrational in order to prove that one cares. Indeed, it is not necessary to prove it at all.
• While there's life, there's threat.
• Luck has nothing to do with it.
• Strategic withdrawal is running away, but with dignity.
• Idealism is a wonderful thing; all you really need is someone rational to put it to proper use.
• Nobody is indispensible.
• Everyone's entitled to one really bad mistake.
• In the end, your word is all there is, really.
• There are other rules, but you'll find out what those are when you break them.

And of course the big one: "One of these days, we're going to fly into a hole in the ground and not come out again."

Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[Mustang Matt]

They have to cover their costs, so if they can't make $500,000 to cover the CEO and employees salaries + benefits they have to cut back.

I've never understood how this is non-profit. The company doesn't profit and doesn't have investors. I guess that's the difference.

Just like Mastercard is non-profit.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[NineNine]

I've never understood how this is non-profit.

At the end of the financial year, there is no profit to be paid out to the owners. It all goes back into the company. Realistically, in this case, you're right... a lot of it goes to salaries. Although, you can't claim to be a "non-profit" company, and pay the CEO a kajillion dollars. Once you're a non-profit, then the IRS watches closely to make sure that people are paid reasonable amounts. You can't use it as a tax loophole (otherwise, every company on the planet would be a "non-profit") company. But, you're right, you still have to cover your expenses like any other company, or you have to close the doors and sell the Aeron chairs.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[bunions]

> You can't use it as a tax loophole

Sure you can. Visa and Kaiser-Permanente are both "nonprofit" organizations. Of course, you can't simply pay the CEO what would otherwise be the companies profit, instead you simply re-invest it into the company, as visa does, or buy the competition, like KP does.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[NineNine]

Well, I guess I meant that you can't use it as a tax loophole to take money out of the company without paying taxes on it. The "owners" or "directors" of a non-profit can only get paid via salaries, vs. a traditional company, where anything left at the end of the year belongs to the owner(s).

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[bunions]

Oh, I see - sorry for the misunderstanding.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[GlassHeart]

"Non-profit" just means that their institutional objective is not to maximize profits at the expense of all else. They have another objective that (theoretically) overrides the desire to make more money.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[DerekLyons]

I've never understood how this is non-profit.

At the end of the financial year, there is no profit to be paid out to the owners. It all goes back into the company.

True
 
 

Realistically, in this case, you're right... a lot of it goes to salaries. Although, you can't claim to be a "non-profit" company, and pay the CEO a kajillion dollars.

False. There are no limits to the salaries than can be paid to the employees of a non-profit. (Being the CEO or Chairman of a large charity can be quite lucrative.)
 
 

Once you're a non-profit, then the IRS watches closely to make sure that people are paid reasonable amounts.

False. The IRS doesn't scrutinize the return of any single non-profit than do any single individual or business.
 
 

You can't use it as a tax loophole (otherwise, every company on the planet would be a "non-profit") company.

Partly correct - non profits are chartered, and must operate within that charter. Theu can't be chartered unless they are a (generally speaking) charitable, social (fraternal), or educational organization.

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[Fnkmaster]

See my other reply. I thought that was so obvious it wasn't worth saying. In any case, my post was a half-jest. And my point about it being a non-profit was really in response to all those whining about how Open Source companies have no business model - a non-profit doesn't generally have a profit-driven business model, they usually have some non-profit-driven goals and seek funding through any number of means (grants, donations or business activities) to further those goals.

And clearly if uses of funds are greater than sources and there's no large pool of assets you're sitting on, you have a problem. :)

Re:Non-profit still has to pay the bills

[salec]

Um, but who owns the stuff that company owns? If I understood you correctly, there is no owner, the company is own owner, so you cannot i.e. buy a non-profit organization... How they start at all then? Someone makes it and donates it to itself?

Dr Mr Cohen...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking forward to forming a venture to explore open source joint development using best practices in collaboration and building communities.

I'm looking forward to finding your ideas fascinating and would like to use best practice when subscribing to your newsletter. Also, my Bullshit-Bingo cards are printed, ready and waiting.

What happened?

[Laser Lou]

Did Linus ask for another raise?

What actually happened?

[TopSpin]

OSDL is 'funded' by a collection of corporations. As far as I know they don't actually sell anything. So, either their funding was cut, or they have mismanaged themselves into a deficit. Which is it? Anyone actually know? I suppose their recent IP projects have led to high legal costs, but I'll bet someone reading /. knows the truth.

Re:What actually happened?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe somebody didn't like Cohen's supporting the Novell-Microsoft deal.

OSTG is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look out, Slashdot "editors". Talk about a job that can be easily replaced with a script.

Re:OSTG is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw, they've put captchas on the submission queue to prevent that kind of thing.

Re:OSTG is next.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pssst. They already know. None of them has gone into work for years. Shhh, keep it on the down-low.

Re:OSTG is next.

[Durrok]

Naw, we would just the the slashvertisments triple.

Re:OSTG is next.

[Archeopteryx]

Seems to me that they get US to do most of the editing... ;-)

Re:OSTG is next.

[uchihalush]

But Don't worry Zonk! A Better Job is Waiting for You--Find it Now. Check out Slashdot's new job board. Browse through tons of technical jobs posted by companies looking to hire people just like you. http://jobs.slashdot.org/

At Least the CEO Also Leaves

[RAMMS EIN]

At least the CEO also leaves. Something went wrong...and they didn't put all the blame on some low workers who had nothing to do with the decision making, while the higher ranks were unaffected. I don't know if the CEO left voluntarily, but if he did, I commend him for that.

Re:At Least the CEO Also Leaves

[Anonymous Coward]

Bet's on the number of figures in his golden parachute?

I bet he left with high 6 figures in his pocket.

Re:At Least the CEO Also Leaves

[Jesterboy]

Personally, I'm wondering if Cohen's departure has anything to do with his position on the Novell/Microsoft deal? (look at the section labeled "Good for the Open Source Community")

While I enjoy imaginations of Linus giving Stuart Cohen the metaphorical/physical boot, I think the realistic interpretation of "leaving to pursue other open source opportunities" means "huge bed of cash to land on from Novell/Microsoft deal". After all, work with Novell is still considered "open source" in letter if not spirit. Perhaps he has a new job coinciding with Novell's plan to add support for Microsoft's OpenXML document type to Open Office?

Something about it smells fishy to me...

Re:I'LL TELL YOU OSDN's PROBLEM:

[WilliamSChips]

They didn't let you in, did you? I bet you made them a cake the shape of open source even!

And the new CEO is...

[ziggamon2.0]

After a quick vote between stakeholders: ...

CowboyNeal!

Merry Christmas

[MrZaius]

Wonderful timing, with the layoffs.

Re:Merry Christmas

[bloobloo]

Generally it is better to announce redundancies before Christmas - rather than waiting until people have run up their bills and THEN making the announcement. Sad but true.

Re:I'LL TELL YOU OSDN's PROBLEM:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear once you've worked there for 256 days they teach you the secret of levitation.

The limitations of Linux

[14erCleaner]

From TFA: OSDL also underwent a restructuring last year and laid off nine employees.

The layoff command probably only takes a single-digit argument: le -9

Re:The limitations of Linux

[nacturation]

Open up a shell and try it yourself:

kill -9 -1

this will be an unpopular opinion

[Anonymous Coward]

... except among those of us that have worked at the OSDL.

GOOD RIDDANCE!

(shout outs to the rest of my ex-homies)

I wonder if there is some...

[Anonymous Coward]

...nervousness in linux kernel land based on ballmers latest threat? People can say "no way" all they want, but *if* MS decides to throw their lawsuit turd into the open source punch bowl, it is going to cost a lot of someones some serious cash-ola, win, lose, or draw.

just a thought

I have a naturally suspicious mind

With that said, and changing gears, I wonder why OSDL doesn't take the raw linux standards base guidelines and just release a plain vanilla distro to go along with the plain vanilla kernel? (they are free to use that name as far as I care) They could make some scratch that way.... just because you are "non profit" doesn't mean you can't make money and pay salaries and so forth, a ton of "non profits" handle quite a bit of cash all the time.

I'd like to take this opportunity...

[NineNine]

I'd like to take this opportunity, after countless Slashdot posts about "Everybody should know how computers work", that perhaps what would be more useful if everybody instead learned a bit about how business works. I think that the OSS community has pooh-poohed the importance of basic business knowledge long enough, as is obvious from the overwhelming non-success of OSS companies.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[Kopl]

"Overwhelming non-success of OSS companies." I did not know of this, can you show why you think this?

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[NineNine]

OSDL is shrinking (again) by 33%. VA Software (The owner of Slashdot) is still bleeding. Linspire has largely flopped. Novell is only making money because MS just gave them a big cash infusion. Red Hat is the only OSS company out there making any money, from what I can tell, and even Red Hat is in trouble from the big boys (lots of other people agree... lots of short selling of their stock.

There simply are not many OSS companies out there that are really financially healthy.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[TopSpin]

While you may have a point, it doesn't really apply in the case of OSDL. OSDL isn't a business in the sense of cost vs. revenue. It is a non-profit organization, funded by sponsors. So, unless the sponsors cut funding and/or OSDL mismanaged itself into a hole, this shouldn't be happening. The sponsors supply a budget and, assuming you have the ability to forecast costs with at least some competence, there should be no dramatic shortfalls.

I'm confident the sponsors haven't cut funding or it would have been news here at /. and elsewhere. How would you keep people that work on open source software from leaking that Intel or HP have walked away? Not likely. That means OSDL is being run poorly by the powers that be.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[that this is not und]

But there are plenty of Open Source projects that are doing fine.

Maybe it's just (some of the) instances where someone comes along and tries to commercialize it.

Me, I have been nervous for quite awhile about tendencies toward centralization.

A lot of smaller websites supporting projects and acting as development centers is harder for some large entity to 'knock down' than One Big Site like SourceForce. And yet SourceForge promotes and encourages people to move onto their site to run projects on.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[molnarcs]

OSDL is shrinking (again) by 33%. VA Software (The owner of Slashdot) is still bleeding. Linspire has largely flopped. Novell is only making money because MS just gave them a big cash infusion. Red Hat is the only OSS company out there making any money, from what I can tell, and even Red Hat is in trouble from the big boys (lots of other people agree... lots of short selling of their stock.

Trolltech. MySQL AB. Google - not an open source company per se, but uses OSS to turn on profits. So does IBM now. Stock prices alone are not directly related to a company's strenght & health.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[DerekLyons]

I'd like to take this opportunity, after countless Slashdot posts about "Everybody should know how computers work", that perhaps what would be more useful if everybody instead learned a bit about how business works. I think that the OSS community has pooh-poohed the importance of basic business knowledge long enough, as is obvious from the overwhelming non-success of OSS companies.

The OSS community knows quite well how business works. Their failing is that they confuse a philosophy/belief system with business.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[Enry]

Stock prices alone are not directly related to a company's strenght & health.

No, they're directly related to the *perception* of a company's strength and health. If it's believed that the company will do better over the next $TIME, then people will buy it since everyone else will buy it. The demand will raise the price and thus give a profit.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[Kopl]

After looking at wikipedia and finance.yahoo.com to verify what you said in your comment: OSDL- This isn't even a company. VA Software- I simply don't see how they are "bleeding", They have started to make money. Novell-Even money from Microsoft is money, and other than that they are still doing fine. Red Hat-Last few months have been hard haven't they? Agreed, but only for the last few months. Freespire-I don't I do not know the names of many OSS companies, here are the ones that I do know of: VA Software, Freespire(both from you), Novell, Red Hat, Sun, and Canonical. Also Apple and Oracle are dabbling in it. From these, Sun and Canonical are very healthy. Don't choose the worst examples of something and pretend that they are the norm. I appreciate you trying to answer my question, but what you said in that post should not of been enough to convince you that there is an "Overwhelming non-success of OSS companies."

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[Kopl]

What I meant:
After looking at wikipedia and finance.yahoo.com to verify what you said in your comment:
OSDL- This isn't even a company.
VA Software- I simply don't see how they are "bleeding", They have started to make money.
Novell-Even money from Microsoft is money, and other than that they are still doing fine.
Red Hat-Last few months have been hard haven't they? Agreed, but only for the last few months. Freespire-I am not able to verify this, can you show me your source.

I do not know the names of many OSS companies, here are the ones that I do know of:
VA Software, Freespire(both from you), Novell, Red Hat, Sun, and Canonical. Also Apple and Oracle are dabbling in it.
From these, Sun and Canonical are very healthy. As are the dabblers.

Don't choose the worst examples of something and pretend that they are the norm.

I appreciate you trying to answer my question, but what you said in that post should not of been enough to convince you that there is an "Overwhelming non-success of OSS companies."

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I don't understand this response. The entire point of the discussion was open source business, not open source projects in general.

Puting projects on Sourceforge does ease the burdens of bandwidth & storage, as well as reduces concerns about whether you've paid up your hosting company. The front end of Sourceforge is one big site, but they encourage the use of mirrors which are spread all over.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[molnarcs]

Yes, you're right, except for the last part: profit. This very much depends on the company. The fall in the stock price may not effect a company's profit margins at all. High stock rates might be important if a company plans large investments, and needs capital to do that (and has plenty of stock to sell). In case of RH, their falling stock prices doesn't mean much. They have an established business, with exceptional customer satisfaction rates and a business model that doesn't depend on stock rates that much. With the current situation, RH is a borderline case inasmuch as it hasn't been in the 25$ range for long enough to consider the drop in their share rates merely temporary. OTOH it has been there long enough not to consider the fall final either (as far as "final" goes with stock prices, especially in the IT sector). This is a wait and see situation - with my personal prediction being that their stock will rise 10-20% over the next few months (fairly large error margin there you might say :), but that's just speculation (and you better not listen to ./ speculations, especially considering the stock market). The point is, that in their case, their stock price has a negligible effect on their performance as a company.

Re:I'd like to take this opportunity...

[that this is not und]

Putting projects on SourceForge centralizes O.S. projects. Needlessly, in some people's opinion. If OSxx (the whole shootin' match, which IS 'open source business' everybody's project sites) go 'poof' all at once, all those projects disappear and/or must be pulled together again. The 'front end' is a big, rich target. And I don't know why it has to be so centrally organized. Except, uh, the people who run the 'open source business' want it that way.

I don't understand why this isn't worth discussing.

Parent could not be more wrong.

[willisbueller]

Actually, they do need to make a profit... or in the least break even. Non-profit means the profits aren't getting sifted off to owners. They are going back into the business, which is -- in Canada -- run by a board of directors, who are in turn regulated by laws controlling the operation of the non-profit. The ODSL should be striving to take in as much revenue as possible to expand their services.

... I don't think a lot of slashdotters are understanding this. And to hear this about the ODSL it is actually kinda grim... which only puts me in a better exam mood.
Effing exams.

Re:Parent could not be more wrong.

[Fnkmaster]

You took my post too seriously and apparently missed the obvious tongue-in-cheekiness of it. I realize that a non-profit still has to cover their costs, whether through grants, donations, or business revenues - I didn't think this should need to be explained explicitly, but your suggestion that I said something "wrong" is laughable and makes you look like an idiot.

The point is that people in this thread kept harping about Open Source business models. A non-profit organization doesn't have a profit-driven "business model"; rather, they generally seek to raise money by any means possible and spend or distribute it to support worthy causes. In this case developing the Linux kernel.

I really shouldn't have to explain all of this, it should be obvious.

Re:Parent could not be more wrong.

[willisbueller]

my bad... I think exams are killing what's left of my brain.

This is a bummer

[tuxlove]

I always thought OSDL was a cool idea. The idea of being able to work for a company that just produces open source is pretty neat. It is saddening that they have to lay off people. It doesn't bode well for the model. One would think that with 70 sponsors, there would be enough revenue to fund such a small organization, but I supposed that depends on what it costs for a company to buy a sponsorship.

Nope, that's pure disinformation.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was one of many people who tried to get an EV1. GM refused to sell. And as for the laws about parts & service that you allude to, GM was specifically exempted from those laws.

There was a titanic demand for the GM EV. GM would have made huge amounts of money from selling it to everyone who wanted one. They turned down profit in order to kill the car.

OSDL + FSG = Linux Inc.

[ryuch]

How about this idea, Linux Inc. which merged OSDL and FSG.
They could make profits to sustain by standards and certifications.
With that measures they could play governance role of Linux which is ready to evolute into mutants.

So, to recap...

[petrus4]

• We have a group at least partially led by a Stalinist fanatic who has tried to prove that economic incentive is actually detrimental to producing good work, and who has essentially declared war on capitalism in general. (At least as far as software is concerned, anyway)
  

  
  

• As a direct outgrowth of their beloved Leader's stated beliefs, said group themselves verbally abuse, defame, and threaten without mercy any within their midst who would be suicidally foolish enough to attempt to openly generate revenue in association with open source. Said group are themselves typically grindingly poor, cubical-dwelling wage slaves whose primary objection to capitalist philosophy is a seething resentment over the idea that somebody *else* might get rich. (I find myself wondering how much abuse Mark Shuttleworth has had to weather over his own economic status, although he apparently had the good sense to become wealthy in another field before starting Ubuntu. He'd probably find himself nailed to a cross if he tried to generate revenue from that)
  

Then, moving forward, we suddenly find that businesses which trade in Linux, (or try to) apparently aren't doing so well.

Gee...Wonder why?

Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

You moderators are nuts!

Perhaps they canb re-brand

[Anonymous Coward]

And call themselves the Linux development Lab because they really arn't about open source.

I disagree

[shaneh0]

"Ask the average person on the street and they'll initially tell you they want Windows, but if you prod them a little you'll eventually find out that what they really want is the applications that run on Windows, and that the OS isn't that great"

I think they'd probably say that what they REALLY want is the applications that run on Windows and that the OS is irrelevant. I really doubt that most people have negative or positive feelings about Windows. An analogy that I think is somewhat apt is that of airline travel. Nobody cares whether they fly in an Airbus or a Boeing. The vast majority don't even know the difference, or that there is a difference. The only difference they see is what their specific Airline (PC Maker) does to differentiate their plane (Windows) from their competitors. Furthermore, I think if you told people that there was another airline manufacturer, and that it would be cheaper to fly on airlines that buy from that company, and that companies airplanes crash less, the biggest thing you'd get from customers is skepticism. They have brand loyalty. They like Delta (Dell) and they don't have a problem with Delta crashing, and they hear about crashes, but it's not often, and it's not very serious.

In other words, Linux solves a problem that most people don't have. They don't know or care about their OS. They don't want to. I use my XP PC 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, and I seldom have a crash. This idea that Windows just doesn't serve an average user, I think, is misguided. It does just fine.

And before you deride Microsoft for it's business practices, remember this: One mans "shady deals" is the next mans "capitalism." Despite corporate personhood, a corporation itself needs no ethics or morals. The people that run it should have them, but not the company itself. The most unethical thing that a company can do is sacrifice profits because you're worried about making people like you and giving them warm fuzzies. Did Microsoft screw IBM over OS/2? Yes. Has IBM screwed over people in its past? I'm sure they have. But did Microsoft do something wrong? No way. Microsoft didn't have a monopoly back then. I think NT beat OS/2 to the market by a small margin, if at all. I'm not positive about that, but I know they were released near each other. If OS/2 was the better product, it would've succeeded in the market place.

And about QDOS, here is the excerpt from Wikipedia:

"SCP later claimed in court that Microsoft had concealed its relationship with IBM in order to purchase the operating system cheaply (even though Microsoft was still under a nondisclosure agreement and the PC's degree of success was not widely foreseen)."

This seems to me like a "boo hoo hoo" deal. SCP sold them a nonexclusive license. They obviously wanted to make the sale so badly that they sold it for what they thought a small company could afford. This was a BAD BUSINESS DECISION on their part and was not Microsofts fault. Especially considering that, according to the same article, Microsoft was under a non-disclosure agreement with IBM. It would have been not only unethical, but opened them up to tort if they disclosed their relationship with IBM.

Microsoft isn't candyland. I'm not saying that I would want to invite the company to my house for christmas dinner. But this is business, in America. It's ruthless and cut throat and unforgiving, and that's one of the reasons that America is the most powerful economy in world history.

A far more important measure of a Business than how they treat their competitors is how they treat their employees and their customers. Look at software prices. Windows is expensive but it's not unduly expensive. Look at how many software packages sell for tens of thousands of dollars. Windows, maybe the largest "application" ever built sells for a couple hundred. Yes, they do try to extract every dollar from their customer that they possibly can, but since when is that unethical? Apple does it. They could, if they wanted to, provide a way to upgrade the device or

Re:I disagree

[mrchaotica]

I think they'd probably say that what they REALLY want is the applications that run on Windows and that the OS is irrelevant. I really doubt that most people have negative or positive feelings about Windows.

What people do have negative feelings about is their computer being slow, unstable, or insecure. They don't blame Windows for this only because they don't realize it's Windows' fault.

I use my XP PC 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, and I seldom have a crash. This idea that Windows just doesn't serve an average user, I think, is misguided. It does just fine.

You're reading Slashdot. Therefore, you are most emphatically not average! You can't extrapolate your experience to the "average user."

Point! You missed us! Turn back at next Exit!

[shaneh0]

"Therefore, you are most emphatically not average! You can't extrapolate your experience to the "average user."

If I use my PC 300 hours a month without an intrusive crash, then the average XP install can probably expect the same. I don't do any special Voo Doo magic with my install. The last time I installed from scratch was 2 years ago. I don't do anything magic to get rid of malware: I run Microsoft OneCare like basically every other Windows Update user.

Say what you want, but I seldom see users running insecure, instable installs of XP. Three years ago on an average PC of an "Average" (non slashdot reading) user, when I had to fix it up, I would run AdAware, run SpyBot, check MSConfig, turn on the firewall, etc.

Today, I make sure that Windows Updates are set to "Automatic Install" and I install the critical and recommended patches. Problem Solved.

Re:Point! You missed us! Turn back at next Exit!

[mrchaotica]

Say what you want, but I seldom see users running insecure, instable installs of XP.

Oh, well that would be the difference then! Your experience and my experience diverge completely.

What's a CEO?

[heroine]

Maybe you can explain to the uninitiated, non-CEO-suckups outside U Know Where why it's such a disaster for a CEO to resign.

Unfortunately, it's about time this happened.

[Bruce Perens]

The CEO who left had his head handed to him by the membership, and if they didn't actually tell him to go, staying would not have been very pleasant. Endorsing the Novell thing wasn't too smart, and they were very upset. And he's said to have promoted the GPL3 story to Forbes, which also pissed off the membership tremendously. Other than that, Oracle won't join (Wim said he feels that OSDL doesn't operate in Linux' best interest, which I think is correct), Andrew Morton walked out and went to work for Google, and OSDL can't get enough members to stay afloat financially.

Let's cross our fingers and hope that OSDL goes in a better direction now.

I don't know anything about the other laid-off folks and suspect they were innocent bystanders.

Bruce