Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th May 2011 08:19 UTC, submitted by porcel
Thread beginning with comment 472578
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
linux makes no money ? You sure ?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RHT Here I was thinking redhat was fast becoming a billion dollar business and it only sells Linux.. 
linux makes no money ? You sure ?
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RHT Here I was thinking redhat was fast becoming a billion dollar business and it only sells Linux..
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:RHT Here I was thinking redhat was fast becoming a billion dollar business and it only sells Linux..
I should have said, "brings in no money for Skype." I'd be stunned if the income they get from Linux covers its development costs, given the tiny market share and the extreme reluctance of Linux users to spend money in general.
(That said, it's strange that RHT has always been used as the poster child for making money in Linux for most of the last decade. Several other vendors have come and gone, with various levels of implosions. Although RHT is clearly profitable and successful, the lack of peers doesn't support the idea that that the model itself is profitable and successful.)





Member since:
2005-12-04
I can't believe that regulators would insist on support for a platform that is largely unsupported by the commercial software industry, has tiny market share, and brings in no money. At some point regulation is just totally unreasonable.