He's not talking about flipping. He's talking about open-market purchases on the first day. Read his first sentence: "Buy on the IPO day."
I do agree with you about flipping, if you flip, e*trade will not want to do any more IPO business with you. Consider that VA Linux, Caldera, and Linuxcare are all talking about going public. So I'm not flipping mine!
... at the IPO phone number, 1-888-707-8680 ext 4263. Don't bother with the main IPO phone number.
The first time, I talked to a helpful man who transferred me to a very helpful rep who modified my limit order to $14.25 for me. I asked the rep if Red Hat as likely to change the price again, and he said "probably not". Keep in mind that Red Hat, not e*trade, determines this price.
The second time, I realized I had more $$$ in my account and I could actually buy 100 more shares. So I called again, and this time e*trade's rep told me that their computers were currently unavailable, and he would call me back when he could revise the order.
I opened every conversation by stating that I was in Red Hat's Directed Share Program, and I always used the special 6-character account number (the one I get on http://www.etrade.com/redhatipo after I log in).
Anyone who has a limit order in for less than $14, you might want to call e*trade and revise it.
Change control and open source go together just fine.
Suppose I needed a TCP/IP stack in an EEG monitoring machine. I could:
(1) write my own (2) buy a commercial off-the-shelf stack (3) buy an open source stack (e.g. from Caldera) (4) download an open source stack
In all four cases, who bears responsibility for validating the software? I do!
In all four cases, what happens if the original author (me, Wind River Systems, Joe Open-Source Author) changes the source code? Answer: I am responsible for the version of code that I choose to include in the device. Just because Joe O.S. Author, or Jane New Contributor, puts up a new version of the TCP/IP stack doesn't mean I'm going to blindly stick it in my ROMs.
Open-source peer review is not a substitute for the giant stack of paper, code review, and testing which the FDA requires. But if I start with an open-source product then I am going to have fewer bugs to deal with and access to the source code, which is going to reduce my validation effort.
BTW the change logs and deltas for open-source projects are usually far more accurate than the equivalent artifacts maintained by closed-source third-party software vendors.
... then I will read the code. Yes. I am interested, I can understand it, and I presume you can, too.
You are misreading my statement. Look at the noun phrases : "medical software", "non-medical commercial software", and "best open-source software". Yes, I am comparing across domains. But medical software has configuration parameters, data storage, user interfaces, and (these days) TCP/IP networking, there are plenty of overlapping sub-domains to compare.
You, and a lot of other people here, are also confusing "open source" -- software whose source code is available to everybody -- with "volunteer software" -- software written by unpaid people.
I am looking forward to the next red herring, where someone compares "medical company tests its software" to "open source volunteers review the software. That's a false comparison. The real comparison is "medical company tests its software" versus "medical company tests its software PLUS independent volunteers review the software". In other words: A + B > A, if B is positive.
Like another poster here, I've written software for a medical device company. We used a large open source component in the device. I'm not at liberty to comment on specifics.
The whole liability question is easy to answer: the device manufacturer bears responsibility for the whole device. For example, if they store data in a file system and then use that data to control patient treatment, and the file system gets corrupted, the manufacturer of the device is liable, whether they bought the file system from Microsoft, bought the file system from Red Hat, downloaded it from the network, or wrote it themselves. So the device manufacturer has to choose which means of procuring a file system will give them a file system which will harm the fewest patients, because they will have to pay for that harm.
Again, as another poster mentioned, the FDA does criminally prosecute people who are negligent. They don't just regulate the industry -- they can walk into any company, any time, ask to see any records, and suspend or shut down the operations of any company at any time.
The FDA has extensive documents on software requirements for medical devices:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/swareval.html
My experience is that medical software is somewhat higher quality than non-medical commercial software, but not as good as the best open source software. Peer review works.
Imagine a bunch of slashdotters broke down your door and stole away $2000 from you. Maybe in the future, they'll be back with $20,000. Maybe not.
Yeah, I'm really pissed at Red Hat for activating those back doors in Netscape, lifting my account numbers, wiring all that money to e*trade, and placing trades in my name.
I guess that's what I get for running some weirdo fringe operating system written by people with sandals and beards, instead of sticking with Microsoft, where all the programmers wear suits and ties and come to work at 9:00 every morning. There's a safe choice! Everybody uses it!
Seriously: if you can't tell the difference between "stole away $2000" and "my choice to invest $2000", do me a favor, please don't vote in any more elections. I'm completely serious about this part. I'm sick of the Nanny State.
Yeah, well, if it's so freaking risky for Mr. Ananian to buy RHAT at $10 to $12 per share on 8 August 1999, how come every damn broker in the country will be happy to sell it to him for $45 a share on 9 August 1999?
I laugh at the "IPOs are dangerous" argument (even though they certainly are if you buy them on the secondary market). Show me some tech IPOs that have broken their offering price.
But I do join you in spitting on the "let's protect people from themselves" mentality.
(First a note about MPPP: their IPO price was $28, and they have not broken that price level.)
I've got one of The Letters and I'm in a position to use it. If it goes well, I'm going to take the money and live on it while I write some more open-source software.
I've been active in the stock market for several years. Before e*trade, there was no public access to IPO's. Companies like Netscape would go public, the underwriters would deal out the shares to elite customers at $20, the stock would open at $65, the elite customers would score $45, and the offering company would get $20. A lot of companies leave a lot of money "on the table" that way. That money goes into the pockets of well-connected Wall Street suits.
e*trade is busting that system open so that anybody can offer $20, or $25, or whatever they think is a good price -- so that $45-per-share gap will close up. The company will get more of the money (and I personally like to see a well-funded Red Hat), and the people who want to buy the stock get to put in bids for it, rather than being forced into the secondary market to pay that $65.
Some poor guy at e*trade must have gotten a hell of a slashdotting this week. Just in case they are monitoring this debate, I recommend: e*trade, forget the net-worth questionnaires, and really get to know your customer:
* We aren't just fans and well-wishers; like Scott Ananian said, we actually wrote the intellectual property that Red Hat sells.
* A lot of us don't fit the usual income and net worth parameters of our society. Be flexible here. If some guy wants to buy 100 shares, that's different from the usual customer buying 10,000 shares. Your mission is to offer service to the 100-share guy too, right?
* A lot of us don't fit the "blame somebody else" mentality of this society, either. If I get my shares, and RHAT trades below the print price, I am not going to blame e*trade. You do your job when the shares arrive in my account; you are not responsible for my decision to buy them or the market's decision about where the price goes, and I know this, deep down, through and through. We are willing to take responsibility for our decisions.
* In a situation like this, it would help if e*trade put up some more in-depth educational pages about the stock market and the IPO process. Make the Slashdot Effect work in your favor -- if you put up a good informative page, tens of thousands of people will read it. That's good for everybody.
* Learn what the news sources in our community are: Slashdot, Linux Weekly News, Wired, Salon, Slate. And learn that they publish on an hourly, not daily, schedule.
And now my two cents for all of us trying to get into the IPO...
* Educate yourself. Motley Fool is a good place to start. I also like TheStreet.com and Yahoo Finance. Also check out the SEC EDGAR database, which is where they keep the raw data for Wall Street -- on the Internet, where anyone can read it (sound vaguely similar to anything you know?)
* I'm not planning to flip my shares. I hope you aren't planning to flip yours, either. If you ploughed your rent money into the IPO and you need it back right way... I admire your guts, but you need to think about the risk, too.
* Know who your friends are. Yes, the IPO market is currently organized for the benefit of the Gnomes of Zurich. Yes, e*trade is probably your first contact with the IPO market (maybe even the stock market). That doesn't mean Red Hat and e*trade helped organize the current ripoff scheme. In fact they are both fighting it.
I don't work for e*trade, although it looks like I do, eh? Ok, bring on the flames.
When I lived in Berkeley, an organization named 'Copwatch' organized citizen surveillance of police actions. They used still cameras and video cameras to photograph police doing their jobs.
Brin's point is that it's inevitable that the cops will have cameras. I agree. Brin goes on to say that GIVEN THAT, it's good for citizens to have cameras pointed back at them. I agree, too.
Big Brother, we're watching you. And we saw what to did to Rodney King.
So, what's your company's ticker symbol?
on
Rumours
·
· Score: 1
... I'm interested in short-selling some.
With losing FUD-attitudes like that, they're going to wonder where all their revenue went and why their software support costs are so high.
I love reading this stuff. As soon as your boss sees what a competent Linux administrator can do with Linux, compared to what you can do with NT, they will conclude that they are a lot better off with Linux.
Try editing scripts/tkparse.h and taking out the BUG_COMPATIBLE flag. That ought to fix it. Whether it works or not, send me a test report at mec@shout.net. Slashdot the new code for me, please.:)
I expect all vestiges of BUG_COMPATIBLE will be gone by 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. Ain't no way Linus would hold up 2.2.0 for more xconfig bug fixes. I'm happy I got the steam-cleaned tkparse in under the wire.
Slashdot Mirror
I just called -- e*trade hasn't allocated shares yet, and in fact I was able to increase the size of my Conditional Offer.
So I'm surprised that yours are allocated. The ways of IPO's are mysterious indeed.
He's not talking about flipping. He's talking about open-market purchases on the first day. Read his first sentence: "Buy on the IPO day."
I do agree with you about flipping, if you flip, e*trade will not want to do any more IPO business with you. Consider that VA Linux, Caldera, and Linuxcare are all talking about going public. So I'm not flipping mine!
... at the IPO phone number, 1-888-707-8680 ext 4263. Don't bother with the main IPO phone number.
The first time, I talked to a helpful man who transferred me to a very helpful rep who modified my limit order to $14.25 for me. I asked the rep if Red Hat as likely to change the price again, and he said "probably not". Keep in mind that Red Hat, not e*trade, determines this price.
The second time, I realized I had more $$$ in my account and I could actually buy 100 more shares. So I called again, and this time e*trade's rep told me that their computers were currently unavailable, and he would call me back when he could revise the order.
I opened every conversation by stating that I was in Red Hat's Directed Share Program, and I always used the special 6-character account number (the one I get on http://www.etrade.com/redhatipo after I log in).
Anyone who has a limit order in for less than $14, you might want to call e*trade and revise it.
Change control and open source go together just fine.
Suppose I needed a TCP/IP stack in an EEG monitoring machine. I could:
(1) write my own
(2) buy a commercial off-the-shelf stack
(3) buy an open source stack (e.g. from Caldera)
(4) download an open source stack
In all four cases, who bears responsibility for validating the software? I do!
In all four cases, what happens if the original author (me, Wind River Systems, Joe Open-Source Author) changes the source code? Answer: I am responsible for the version of code that I choose to include in the device. Just because Joe O.S. Author, or Jane New Contributor, puts up a new version of the TCP/IP stack doesn't mean I'm going to blindly stick it in my ROMs.
Open-source peer review is not a substitute for the giant stack of paper, code review, and testing which the FDA requires. But if I start with an open-source product then I am going to have fewer bugs to deal with and access to the source code, which is going to reduce my validation effort.
BTW the change logs and deltas for open-source projects are usually far more accurate than the equivalent artifacts maintained by closed-source third-party software vendors.
... then I will read the code. Yes. I am interested, I can understand it, and I presume you can, too.
You are misreading my statement. Look at the noun phrases : "medical software", "non-medical commercial software", and "best open-source software". Yes, I am comparing across domains. But medical software has configuration parameters, data storage, user interfaces, and (these days) TCP/IP networking, there are plenty of overlapping sub-domains to compare.
You, and a lot of other people here, are also confusing "open source" -- software whose source code is available to everybody -- with "volunteer software" -- software written by unpaid people.
I am looking forward to the next red herring, where someone compares "medical company tests its software" to "open source volunteers review the software. That's a false comparison. The real comparison is "medical company tests its software" versus "medical company tests its software PLUS independent volunteers review the software". In other words: A + B > A, if B is positive.
Like another poster here, I've written software for a medical device company. We used a large open source component in the device. I'm not at liberty to comment on specifics.
The whole liability question is easy to answer: the device manufacturer bears responsibility for the whole device. For example, if they store data in a file system and then use that data to control patient treatment, and the file system gets corrupted, the manufacturer of the device is liable, whether they bought the file system from Microsoft, bought the file system from Red Hat, downloaded it from the network, or wrote it themselves. So the device manufacturer has to choose which means of procuring a file system will give them a file system which will harm the fewest patients, because they will have to pay for that harm.
Again, as another poster mentioned, the FDA does criminally prosecute people who are negligent. They don't just regulate the industry -- they can walk into any company, any time, ask to see any records, and suspend or shut down the operations of any company at any time.
The FDA has extensive documents on software requirements for medical devices:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/comp/swareval.html
My experience is that medical software is somewhat higher quality than non-medical commercial software, but not as good as the best open source software. Peer review works.
Imagine a bunch of slashdotters broke down your door and stole away $2000 from you. Maybe in the future, they'll be back with $20,000. Maybe not.
Yeah, I'm really pissed at Red Hat for activating those back doors in Netscape, lifting my account numbers, wiring all that money to e*trade, and placing trades in my name.
I guess that's what I get for running some weirdo fringe operating system written by people with sandals and beards, instead of sticking with Microsoft, where all the programmers wear suits and ties and come to work at 9:00 every morning. There's a safe choice! Everybody uses it!
Seriously: if you can't tell the difference between "stole away $2000" and "my choice to invest $2000", do me a favor, please don't vote in any more elections. I'm completely serious about this part. I'm sick of the Nanny State.
Yeah, well, if it's so freaking risky for Mr. Ananian to buy RHAT at $10 to $12 per share on 8 August 1999, how come every damn broker in the country will be happy to sell it to him for $45 a share on 9 August 1999?
I laugh at the "IPOs are dangerous" argument (even though they certainly are if you buy them on the secondary market). Show me some tech IPOs that have broken their offering price.
But I do join you in spitting on the "let's protect people from themselves" mentality.
(First a note about MPPP: their IPO price was $28, and they have not broken that price level.)
...
... I admire your guts, but you need to think about the risk, too.
I've got one of The Letters and I'm in a position to use it. If it goes well, I'm going to take the money and live on it while I write some more open-source software.
I've been active in the stock market for several years. Before e*trade, there was no public access to IPO's. Companies like Netscape would go public, the underwriters would deal out the shares to elite customers at $20, the stock would open at $65, the elite customers would score $45, and the offering company would get $20. A lot of companies leave a lot of money "on the table" that way. That money goes into the pockets of well-connected Wall Street suits.
e*trade is busting that system open so that anybody can offer $20, or $25, or whatever they think is a good price -- so that $45-per-share gap will close up. The company will get more of the money (and I personally like to see a well-funded Red Hat), and the people who want to buy the stock get to put in bids for it, rather than being forced into the secondary market to pay that $65.
Some poor guy at e*trade must have gotten a hell of a slashdotting this week. Just in case they are monitoring this debate, I recommend: e*trade, forget the net-worth questionnaires, and really get to know your customer:
* We aren't just fans and well-wishers; like Scott Ananian said, we actually wrote the intellectual property that Red Hat sells.
* A lot of us don't fit the usual income and net worth parameters of our society. Be flexible here. If some guy wants to buy 100 shares, that's different from the usual customer buying 10,000 shares. Your mission is to offer service to the 100-share guy too, right?
* A lot of us don't fit the "blame somebody else" mentality of this society, either. If I get my shares, and RHAT trades below the print price, I am not going to blame e*trade. You do your job when the shares arrive in my account; you are not responsible for my decision to buy them or the market's decision about where the price goes, and I know this, deep down, through and through. We are willing to take responsibility for our decisions.
* In a situation like this, it would help if e*trade put up some more in-depth educational pages about the stock market and the IPO process. Make the Slashdot Effect work in your favor -- if you put up a good informative page, tens of thousands of people will read it. That's good for everybody.
* Learn what the news sources in our community are: Slashdot, Linux Weekly News, Wired, Salon, Slate. And learn that they publish on an hourly, not daily, schedule.
And now my two cents for all of us trying to get into the IPO
* Educate yourself. Motley Fool is a good place to start. I also like TheStreet.com and Yahoo Finance. Also check out the SEC EDGAR database, which is where they keep the raw data for Wall Street -- on the Internet, where anyone can read it (sound vaguely similar to anything you know?)
* I'm not planning to flip my shares. I hope you aren't planning to flip yours, either. If you ploughed your rent money into the IPO and you need it back right way
* Know who your friends are. Yes, the IPO market is currently organized for the benefit of the Gnomes of Zurich. Yes, e*trade is probably your first contact with the IPO market (maybe even the stock market). That doesn't mean Red Hat and e*trade helped organize the current ripoff scheme. In fact they are both fighting it.
I don't work for e*trade, although it looks like I do, eh? Ok, bring on the flames.
That's right. Dressing up as good old Obi-Wan reinforces the Microsoft meme that computer users are either Windows users or FREAKS!
I think freaks are cool, being one myself. But if you want to be our spokesman, Eric, put on a damn suit when you're making a media appearance.
When I lived in Berkeley, an organization named 'Copwatch'
organized citizen surveillance of police actions. They used
still cameras and video cameras to photograph police doing
their jobs.
Brin's point is that it's inevitable that the cops will have
cameras. I agree. Brin goes on to say that GIVEN THAT, it's
good for citizens to have cameras pointed back at them. I agree, too.
Big Brother, we're watching you. And we saw what to did to Rodney King.
... I'm interested in short-selling some.
With losing FUD-attitudes like that, they're going
to wonder where all their revenue went and why their
software support costs are so high.
I love reading this stuff. As soon as your boss
sees what a competent Linux administrator can do
with Linux, compared to what you can do with NT,
they will conclude that they are a lot better off
with Linux.
Having a walked a mile in one pair of Russ's shoes,
I feel comfortable in seconding his sentiments:
AC, where's your contribution? Put up or shut up.
Try editing scripts/tkparse.h and taking out the BUG_COMPATIBLE flag. That ought to fix it. Whether it works or not, send me a test report at mec@shout.net. Slashdot the new code for me, please. :)
I expect all vestiges of BUG_COMPATIBLE will be gone by 2.2.1 or 2.2.2. Ain't no way Linus would hold up 2.2.0 for more xconfig bug fixes. I'm happy I got the steam-cleaned tkparse in under the wire.
I confess! I admit it! Blue is my favorite ... I love coming in the morning to find
color
out I'm going to have another "blue screen day!"
Here's an SCO official comment on Linux:
6 0/0000891618-98-005461.txt
"Over the past months competition from companies
selling versions of the Linux Operating System
has increased."
SCO 1998 10-K
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8515
You can also read up on how much money they lose each year.