[plug] Red Hat becomes like M$

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Bret Busby wrote:
> IPO = Initial Public Offer, as far as I know.
> Public = the people, as far as I know.
> So, was it available to all (emphasise the "all") the people?
It was. The only people who got any kind of preferential treatment were
Free Software developers. Is that what you are complaining about?

> > Why exactly are Redhat not meant to sell shares to outside investors?

> > Why do you think Redhat did not want the people to whom it offer
> > prerelease shares to get hold of them?
> As reported and mentioned previously, anyone who could not afford to put in at
> least 10,000USD, and prove to E*Trade that they were experienced eploitative
> speculators, failed the E*Trade eligibility test that was reportedly applied
> to every person who wanted to buy shares in Red Hat.
Why do you think Redhat did not want the people to whom it offer
prerelease shares to get hold of them?

> > Would you prefer they didn't make an effort to let your "common people"
> > get hold of the shares?
> That's the big problem; it was done so no common people could not buy the
> shares.
Rubbish. Redhat did nothing out of the ordinary in terms of determining
who could or could not buy shares. What they did do was allocate shares to
developers so that developers who were going to buy shares would not miss
out in the rush. 

> > Do you feel they should not have had an IPO in the first place?
> If they had made a genuine IPO, where common people and small investors
> could buy shares
You mean, if noone wanted any of their shares? Why was this a non-genuine
IPO? Because it was so popular not everyone who wanted a slice could have
one? You think Redhat should have tried to make the shares less appealing?

> and Linux developers and users were given priority,
Linux were given priority by Redhat, it's as simple as that. Previous
investors are given priority by how the market works, which of course, i
scompletely outsaide the scope of Redhat's influence.

> > Which other IPO are you thinking of in which such hot shares were made
> > available to hundreds of "common" associates from outside the company?
> As far as I am aware, I have not referred to another IPO. I have referred to
> this IPO, and to the supposed nature of the company, and the product, and the
> supposed philosophy behind the product, and the people who made the company
> what it is.
Aaaah, so you're imaging what you would like an IPO to be, and then saying
RH's is not a genuine IPO because it is not what your imagination prefers.

> > Like Christian, I can only assume you are "ill-informed" or else just
> > bitter 'cos you didn't get "the letter". :)
> Some receive letters; some don't. As far as I am aware, people who do not
> receive "the letter" are still able to buy shares in an IPO (apart from the
> way this one was conducted).
I think you'll find thousands of people who didn't get the letter were
still able to buy shares. How exactly was it conducted to prevent this?

> As I said, read what has been published.
> If research makes a person ill-informed and stupid, as Christian said,
> then we are indeed in unfortunate times.
I fear you must have miquoted Christian here, though I don't think I saw
quite what you are quoting. When he called you ill-informed was talking
about your _lack_ of research.

-Greg