[plug] Red Hat becomes like M$

[Oliver White]

Bret Busby wrote:
> 
> 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?

This is really an issue of E*Trade's policies.

> 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?

There are a limited number of shares, this particular *Initial* Public
Offering involved offerings to many deserving people in return for the
valuble work they've done for the community... that means *us*. As it
now stand, you can buy Red Hat stocks on the US stock market *now*, if
you so wish.

> 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?

The company of course, of which many of our most valued hackers own a
portion.

> 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?

Blame E*Trade for the mess. If you followed the news a bit closer,
E*Trade crumbled and let the folks (including slashdot's Rob Malda) into
the deal

> 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?

It means E*Trade sucks.

> How many common people were allowed to buy shares?

None, it's an IPO, employees, friends and family only. There's only a
limited number of shares, would you rather everyone made a few cents, or
the few people heavily involved in the making of the company made a few
thousand bucks? (We're not talking millions yet. I don't know about
australian citizens, but you can still buy shares in Red Hat. If the
stock keeps going up, and the company grows, maybe *you* could make your
million.

> 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)

The shares were driven up by demand, yes. That is the nature of the
market. If you're really anti-capitalist, there are dozens of movements
devoted to redistribution of wealth you can join.

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

E*Trade sucks... yadda yadda yadda.

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

Which common people? If you don't have a reasonable amount of capital to
invest, the inefficiencies of the market are going to illiminate any
profits, and indeed any capital. It would be great if there were no fees
associated with the stock market, but that's the way it is. Hopefully
technology will drive fees down to a level where a $100 investment is
worth it. Hey, maybe they'll install linux boxes in the brokerage
houses, that would help. :-)

Seriously, is $10k that much? If you own a house, you've invested a hell
of a lot more than that, and even most "common" people manage the
purchase of a house.

> 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?

Please post a link supporting this.

> 
> 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?

Posts on slashdot generaly reflect the maintainer's interests. As it
happens, Rob Malda was offered shares, so yes, he had a vested interest
in the rise of Red Hat stocks. He admited as much in a news artical on
the site.

> 
> 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), 

Please post supporting evidence.

> 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?

Most speculators didn't get a look in. The IPO was for the benifit of
the employees, their friends and families.

> 
> 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?

What about the people who spend their own money to found the company?
They get the lion's share of course. The rest of the employees had their
go too.

> 
> Ill informed?

Yes.

> 
> 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.

ROFL. Slashdot is hardly the yard stick for editorial integrity. They're
a bunch of nerds with too much time on their hands. (Love the site,
don't get me wrong).
> 
> 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.

Are you talking about academic research?

> 
> 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?

while(bret_ranting == true) 
    flame_etrade();

> 
> Think about it.

Done. Thankyou and goodnight.

> 
> Bret Busby
> ......................

--
Oliver White