Red Hat watched its stock tumble 6.4% on Thursday as Wall Street digested the open-source software firm's latest results and details on the drag its recent JBoss acquisition will have on its profit this year.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-08
> Sun is turning a profit;
I don't know where you get your financial data from. Sun reported a $217 million dollar loss for the fiscal third quarter.
> IBM's UNIX division makes a profit, sure, its part of
> a 'larger organisation' but it still is turning
> a profit, because as you know, in IBM, the
> divisions must operate profitably like a
> standalone business.
I suppose next you are going to try to tell me they are making a profit on OS/2 as well? No, IBM is not making a profit on AIX.
> but if they do implement the technology, it'll
> be compatibility reasons.
No, they won't. They will implement it so that they can get the same 300% speed increase I got in query processing. There would be no legimite compatibility reason to implement it. (hint: Oracle tables are not compatible with MySQL tables are not compatble with PgSQL tables, etc)
Websphere profit growth rates are down nearly 70% from what they were a few years ago because of competition from open source and the fact that Web Apps servers have been comoditized.
> As for ReactOS, why would they get sued?
I'm sure Microsoft could find something in their collection of 5000+ patents that ReactOS is violating.
> Microsoft has killed off Webservers because
> they include it with Windows
Actually, it was Apache that killed off commercial Web servers. Not Microsoft.
> Please, those companies who go under, go
> under because they have no vision, no
> imagination, and crap marketing;
Oh please. Linux has ripped of so many technologies from Sun it's not even funny. Commercial companies simply can't compete against free clones.
> making sure that they're investing sufficient
> funds in ensuring that the software they're
> selling has compelling enough features to make
> people purchase it.
Why bother investing those funds to develop those features? After all, how long will it be before the open source crowd decided "Hey... That's cool. We need to clone that and add it to open source project X"?
> do I care? nope; too long these companies
> have leeched us consumers for more and more
> money each year.
Of course you don't care. Cause you are just as selfish as the companies you slam. "To hell with those developers. They don't need jobs. They don't need to feed their families... Who cares about them? as long as I don't have to pay for software."
> I'm not going to pay IBM $100,000+ for Websphere
> when JBoss or SUN Application Server can do the s
> same thing, when including setup costs, 1/10000
> the price of which IBM is charging.
Would you be signing the same tune if you were the one getting the layoff notice cause product you had been hired to create was no longer profitable thanks to open source cloning? Somehow, I doubt it. Everyone wants cheaper products, or free products... unttil they are the one that ends up losing their job because of it.
> You may like to get price gouge
Na. I just look out for the welfare of my fellow developers. Which is something you obviously don't care about. "To hell with those other developers. They don't need jobs. As long as I have a few extra dollars in my pocket at the end of the day."
Member since:2005-07-06
I don't know where you get your financial data from. Sun reported a $217 million dollar loss for the fiscal third quarter.
And obviously you can't disguish between paper loss and actual loss. If a company makes a $200million asset right down, they haven't physically lost $200million off their profit, but it is reported as such.
In terms of money in/out of Sun, they' have continuously made a profit, their revenue may decline, but they have remained profitable.
I suppose next you are going to try to tell me they are making a profit on OS/2 as well? No, IBM is not making a profit on AIX.
Bullcrap, when you add the AIX sales plus the hardware sales plus the service sales that go with that, they come out infront. When you add all the things they sell as part of the AIX/POWER picture, they come out ok.
Websphere profit growth rates are down nearly 70% from what they were a few years ago because of competition from open source and the fact that Web Apps servers have been comoditized.
And obviously you know very little about business. The profit growth rates were up because of issues external to the commoditisation of application servers, then it flattens off once a wall has been hit - hint, it isn't the free application servers, they lack the same muscle which Websphere has.
As for the rest, I don't care if you lose your job, quite frankly its time you moved out of your comfy job and did some hard slog rather than sitting behind your nicely padded chair dictating to the world that all those mere mortels should tremble before the almighty programmer and pay that individual thousands per year.
I know the bullshit that gets pulled; this crap programmers try to pull that some how, what they do is some sort of mystical, special skill that only a few have a capability to understand.
I've been in IT, and quite frankly, thank god I no longer work in the field, the parastic nature of the people, the dishonesty of management and those who work in the industry, I've seen more integrity in the mafia than I've seen in the IT industry.
Sorry to break the 'cone of silence' but there is nothing magical about programming, nothing special about system design, nothing amazing about what the software companies do; its no more special than a person who can speak two languages.
Edited 2006-07-02 04:17
Member since:
2005-07-06
Please show me one commercial UNIX vendor that is profitable anymore (And IBM doesn't count since they are not primarily a UNIX vendor). Some of them aren't even in businesss anymore before of FOSS alternativves. BSDi for example.
Sun is turning a profit; take away the 'paper' asset downgrades as they shrink the size of property, they're actually making a profit without any problems. IBM's UNIX division makes a profit, sure, its part of a 'larger organisation' but it still is turning a profit, because as you know, in IBM, the divisions must operate profitably like a standalone business.
Again, take my database structure example. If I spend a ton of money and time developing a database structure and search algorithm that is 30 times faster than anything else out there right now, and I don't patent it. How long do you think it will be before I lose my competitive advantage and most of my R&D investment because Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, MySQL, etc. all copy my algorithm / structure?
Why would they do that? it would be better for them to improve their own products than it would be to copy you; if they wanted your technology and the people who created it, they could buy you out, but if they do implement the technology, it'll be compatibility reasons.
I've yet to see a single vendor copy a technology simply so that they can 'beat' a competitor; it makes no sense; you're going to beat your competitor with the same technology which they offer? thats stupid.
Wrong. the OSS world has leached tons of stuff from commercial companies in such a way that commercial companies have seen their profits very damaged. Take Web application servers for example. You can't sell one anymore because OSS has leeached all the ideas and copied them. Take ReactOS. It's an attempt to clone Windows because people are too cheap to pay for Windows. (I still predict ReactOS gets sued out of existence if they ever get to the point where Microsoft considers them a threat).
No, they would not. And that has been more than proven. Again, look at Web application servers. The commercial servers offer more features because so far, OSS has not been ablee to clone everything. Only a subset. But guess which ones people are using? The OSS ones. Because they are cheaper / free. And many of the once large application server vendors are barely making it anymore because of open source leaching.
Which is false; Websphere is selling quite nicely, SAP's application server is still growing at a great pace; so where is this cannibalisation which you claim is occuring by the OSS community?
As for ReactOS, why would they get sued? I doubt ReactOS will EVER get even CLOSE to compatibility with Windows 2000 let alone get Windows XP compatibility; its a nice proof of concept project for the wine developers to look upon, but I doubt it'll go beyond that.
Oh, and going by your logic, Microsoft has killed off Webservers because they include it with Windows, or Microsoft killed off payed-for media players because of the inclusion of Mediaplayer with Windows, or Microsoft killed off TCP/IP stack makers like Trumpet software, because they included it with Windows.
Please, those companies who go under, go under because they have no vision, no imagination, and crap marketing; those companies who are successful are able to carve out a niche, even in a market full of free software - Microsoft seems to be able to do it with their software, people are still purchasing Windows for servers, even though FreeBSD + JBoss could do the same thing.
All that is happening now, customers are now demanding MORE from their software vendors, demanding that software vendors JUSTIFY the prices they charge their customers via better customer support, more feature rich products, better response times to security and updates.
I don't know about you, but I love this new competition, its keeping companies on their toes, constantly looking over their shoulders, making sure that they're investing sufficient funds in ensuring that the software they're selling has compelling enough features to make people purchase it.
I'm sorry, but the vendors who do sell software, sell it for MASSIVE prices; do I care? nope; too long these companies have leeched us consumers for more and more money each year, demanding that we upgrade for a massive fee simply to get one or two crummy half baked features.
I'm sorry, but consumers like me have had enough; we aren't going to be price gouged and demanded to pay $800-$1200 for office suites, graphics suites and the like; I'm not going to pay Microsoft $699-$999 for a copy of Microsoft Office 2004 when a cheaper alternative like iWork is available, I'm not going to pay IBM $100,000+ for Websphere when JBoss or SUN Application Server can do the same thing, when including setup costs, 1/10000 the price of which IBM is charging.
You may like to get price gouged, and mini-monopolies setup on each technology to allow people to exploit their very jubious claims of innovation, but I for one, are not going to be lead down the garden path of the Microsoft enspired bullshit that opensource is destroying commercial software - as you claim.
Edited 2006-07-02 01:11