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

Ouch.

[Deadguy2322]

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

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...)

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: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

don't think of them as layoffs

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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).

What happened?

[Laser Lou]

Did Linus ask for another raise?

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?

[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).

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...

[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: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: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.

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