[plug] Red Hat becomes like M$

[Bret Busby]

Christian wrote:
> 
> Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Bret Busby wrote:
> > > The red cap has definitely succeeded in going the same way as M$. No doubt, it
> > > intends to rival M$ in everything, including its corpoate philosophy.
> >
> > What makes you say that? I've really not seen much evidence of Redhat
> > acting in a way to harm the community. The recent fiasco with E*Trade was
> > a shame, but it was just an unsuccessful attempt to give something back to
> > the community - something which they certainly had no obligation to do.
> > It's unfortunate that it didn't work out the way they planned it, but I am
> > very impressed that they tried to do it in the first place.
> >
> > Even as someone who would never use their distro, I have a great respect
> > for the way Redhat has treated the rest of the Free Software world, and
> > their history of staying (mostly) true to their roots and ideals,
> > especially in the face of competition from companies like Caldera and
> > SuSe who are not bound by the same moral ideals.
> 
> I'd just like to echo Greg's sentiments here.  I only used Red Hat (the
> distribution) for a short while before moving on to Debian (and deciding
> never to change back) but the active work done by Red Hat as a company
> in supporting Free Software and the GPL is second to none.  When the
> Qt/KDE licensing problem first cropped up, Red Hat committed money and
> resources to funding a Free alternative.  Other distributors like SuSE
> and Caldera simply started shipping the non-Free software.  Red Hat also
> devotes resources to other important projects in the Free software
> community and releases most (maybe all?) of their own work under the
> GPL.  Perhaps I've missed something but I've never noticed Microsoft
> doing this.
> 
> As for the link included in the article, all that says is they are
> making lots of money on the stockmarket.  Like Oliver says, good on
> them!  Nothing wrong with making money out of Free software and Red Hat
> have shown pretty conclusively that it can be done without compromising
> the ideals of GNU.
> 
> As I mentioned before, I didn't particularly like Red Hat the
> distribution but Red Hat the company certainly has my vote and it gets
> very old very quickly when ill-informed people start spouting off with
> stupid, snide remarks about a company that actually puts its money where
> its mouth is when it comes to Free software, morality and community.
> 

Ill informed?

How many people were able to invest in Red Hat, that were not experienced, rich,
exploitative speculators?

How many people with less than 10,000USD, or 15,000AUD, and without proven share
exploitation experience, were allowed to invest?

How many people, who had a genuine interest in the copmpany, and the product,
and the open software philosophy, and therefore, intended to invest on a long
term basis, were allowed to buy shares in the IPO?

The share sale clearly got the intended result; the rich buying in, so they
could immediately get rid of their shares, without any regard for anything other
than getting in, and getting out, as fast as possible, and making as much money
as possible, in the process.

For whose benefit was the share offer?

Was it for the benefit of the Linux users or developers? How many of them were
allowed to buy shares in the company, via the IPO?

Are you saying that all the developers who could reportedly not take up the
personal offers that they were sent, were lying? If so, does that mean that
Linux itself was developed by dishonest people, and is therefore as unreliable?

How many common people were allowed to buy shares?

Was the last minute share offer price increase of 20%, in a way that prevented
people other than the exploitraive speculators, who spend all their time
monitoring the share market goings on, a move that benefitted people who were
trying to buy shares? (Read the information - they had a few hours after
notification to respond to the move, and, even then, a particular, concealed
action was required to be taken, of which the buyers were apparently not
informed)

Was the releasing of the shares through companies that do not respond to
queries, to the benefit of the public?

Was it really a genuine public share offer? Or, was it done in such a way as to
keep the common people out?

If so, why have people who have not been able to buy shares in the IPO, and
people who, having got past stage one to buy the shares, and, having had the
sudden 20% increase imposed on them, so they, even then, were prevented from
buting the shares, requested that the SEC investigate the share release?

Considering that slashdot is supposedly a Linux-friendly organisation, why have
they published so much information about the goings on? Or, is slashdot not to
be trusted?

With the methods of the release, and the resultant valuation of Red Hat at
3,000,000,000USD, and, given that the developers are reported as saying that
they got nothing for their efforts, which Red hat had exploited (according to
the developers), can you really say that the share sale was for the benefit of
Linux users and developers, rather than for the exploitative speculators, and
the company directors?

To quote a question from a few years ago, "What about the workers?", or, to
paraphrase it, to put it into its original context, what about the common
people?

Ill informed?

Well, I suppose if slashdot, and news.com. and all the other sources, and
personal experience, cannot be trusted, then, there is no way that we can be
informed at all.

And, if researching something before writing about it is stupid, then so be it,
and I will not make any comment about the mentality of people who do research,
or theses and such.

As for Red hat putting its money where its mouth is, how many of the developers
who were sent personal share offers by Red hat, were allowed to take up the
offers? Is that what you mean when you refer to putting money where one's mouth
is; offering something, when the offer can't possibly be taken up?

Think about it.

Bret Busby
......................