Slashdot Mirror
Cobalt Networks files for IPO
A reader wrote in with the news that Cobalt Networks has officially filed their S-1 to the SEC on 9/8/99. The full story is online, although quite brief. Be interesting to see how this one goes.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
/usr/src/linux/COPYING
... source code .. three year ... source code
or, if you for some reason are not running Linux:
here
1. Refers to the orignal program's source code
You may charge a fee for the physical act of tranferring a copy...
2. Refers to a modified program
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. (emhasis added)
3. regarding binary distibutions...you must
a) Accompany it with the
b) Accompany it with a written offer
All of the above require that what is released be released under the GPL.
So, they only have to distribute to their customers, BUT they CAN'T prevent their customers from redisributing.
No. The GPL imposes an obligation to provide source to those whom you have supplied with binaries, not to the copyright holder of the code, Linus Torvalds or Joe Random Hacker.
It will be on www.sec.gov in a day or two.
I got the opportunity to set one of these up this summer. They are really cool. We used one of the Qube II's. The web interface for setting it up is easy enough for your MS network admins. If there is something that you can't do through the web interface, you can always telnet to the box. Out of the box it runs very quick. Just don't turn it off. It takes about 30 minutes to fsck the disk. Figured I might as well test that while we had it.
They come in a few different configurations. There is the Qube and the Raq. The Qube by default has two ethernet interfaces and an open PCI slot. The Raq has one ethernet interface, but I think it had SCSI. Not sure if they support RAID or not.
As for their sales guy, he was very knowledgable. He answered every question we had, and with a bunch of security buffs and other Linux users sitting in on the presentation, he got his share of toughys.
The only thing that I didn't like, was all the admin stuff is done in the clear. There is no standard SSL package for the admin side. It doesn't come with SSH, but I think they provide a compiled RPM of it on one of their distribution servers outside the US.
It's statble and most of the software that a small business is going to use is already preinstalled on it. It does run the 2.0.34 kernel, Apache 1.2, and Samba 1.9.x. I think they're working on new machines, but I don't know much about that.
All in all, it's a good box. Easy to set up and manage. It looks cool too. I love that color of blue. Try and find the picture on their website of 40 of their Raq mount units in a Raq. It's slick...
They run "Linux 2.0" but I couldn't find the exact distribution.
/. user couldn't make, but the convenience factor is nice, and presumably they're simple enough to administer that even an MCSE could do it. .
Basically they sell Linux boxes with Apache and Perl on them. Nothing that a typical
You can start at Cobaltnet for their home page, or, being provincial, go to their North American mirror.
They were also mentioned in WiReD 7.05.
From there, you can read scads of reviews from Linuxworld and ZDNet, product specs, etc.
They seem to have a good product for someone (ISPs?) needing to add cheap, reliable, high performing web servers without needing too much inhouse expertise. And the cube is a funky cobalt blue box.
Why is this good for Linux? I suppose when you can go to a professional looking web site with your PHB and get some nifty servers preloaded with Linux shipped to you for far less than NT, you might start seeing more Linux boxes show up. It makes them more of a web page toaster than a complex, arcane, unsupported hack.
George
I think Cobalt has a great thing going. The integration they've put into their product really helps in the performance area.
;)
I also like how they aren't using an Intel architecture, which helps promote Linux's cross-platform abilities.
Best of luck Cobalt! (I love that color too
Well basically Cobalt sells standalone server appliances and rackmount systems, a niche area eminently suited for Linux due to hands-off maintenance and need for long-term stability. Rather intrigingly, they use MIPS-based chips (is similar to SGI) which, despite corporate x86 fixation, is a very cost-effective and efficient processor. If one ignores benchmark pissing contests, MIPS chips actually produce very good real-world application performance per dollar. Some generic reviews can be found by searching zdnet for their products. While I have no clue as to their success in the wider market, I note that several ISPs offer bulk CPU/storage/network based on amortised capital cost + (storage+bandwidth) operational charges. This may be a good choice for companies looking for a place to park their corporate data without worrying about the fine details.
/.ers is should Cobalt be viewed as a company that supports the OpenSource philosophy? Despite porting Linux to use MIPS, as far as I'm aware, they have not contributed their port back into mainstream (correct me if I'm mistaken). Despite distribution hiccips and angst, RedHat have recognised the value of the Linux community by releasing a portion of its IPO shares to the hacker community but then their success is directly tied to the availability of high quality source. Cobalt is not exactly the same situation being more a vertical integrator rather than Linux distributor/support.
The interesting question for
I suspose the point of all this musing is to think and explore the relationship between traditional businesses and the OpenSource "gift economy" as detailed by ESR. Would insisting on a gift (of shares) be considered boorish? A "gift" which is automatically expected suddenly shifts from a voluntary exchange of appreciation to a compulsary tithe on the future goodwill (ie thou must give away x servers or else!) which could shatter the easy-going nature of the OpenSource community. While individuals can be expected to keep social balances in their heads (e.g. cousin x gave y last Xmas so I'll give z in return where y~=z), corporations are run on tough balance sheets principles under recognised accounting rules with the sole objective aim of increasing "value" to "shareholders". This creates an unresolved issue in dicussing how corporations can both support and benefit from OpenSource without being seen as overly exploitive (which could potentially lead to loss of goodwill). What do people think?
LL
: The underwriters for the IPO include Goldman,
: Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., and
: BancBoston Robertson Stephens.
Interesting underwriters, could be a good IPO....