Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : WTF is up with Mandrakesoft?!
cage47
05-22-2001, 09:41 AM
If you haven't heard yet, Mandrakesoft has fired their entire upper management staff. What the hell is going on here. First Slack is bought and basically cut loose (I never used it but had respect for it's longevity) Corel has basically neutered their distro (well, no big loss there) Easel shuts down. And from what I read they were getting some good stuff going there. But MANDRAKE! :eek:
I mean they just came out with 8.0 which kicks *** and is a good competitor for Windows 2000. And they just announced their large market share of the desktop market. I mean is this all spin? What the hell is going on there? How are we going to get linux into the mainstream when the big guns keep shooting themselves in the foot. Well, something better happen or Debian...here I come.
cage47
05-22-2001, 10:08 AM
As an addendum. It seemed strange that yesterday I jumped on Freezerburn to notice a change there too. They used to be Mandrake-centric. Not that I think this is a good/bad thing. But a day before Mandrake makes cuts, Freezerburn makes major changes. Don't tell me Sensei was a Mandrake guy too? (being feceious there)
Sorry, I'm just in panic mode and sounding alarm. It seems the Linux community in general is taking some hefty hits. And I'll be damned if I'll go back to micro****. I think I'd rather keep my old 3.1 running for ever before I'll buy a new windows.
JasonC
05-22-2001, 10:26 AM
A guess would be that there are too many distros and some are losing. Seems logical that some have to fall for Linux as a product to survive. As it stands now, the money is spread too thin.
YaRness
05-22-2001, 10:55 AM
natural selection and all that. there will be jumbling around prolly for a while (and to some degree, eternally for open source sutff) until the good stuff that stays usable and funded floats to the top.
Mandrake (http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/pr-deny.php3)
Straight from the horse's mouth.
[ 22 May 2001: Message edited by: cga ]
I really don't see how any company can make money by selling Linux distributions. The only way they can make money is off of technical support and other services such as consulting, but even then I don't know of any company that's made it all work yet.
I'm not trying to cast a picture of doom and gloom. But like it or not here's the financial profiles of the "best" examples corporate Linux has to offer. That's not to say that there's no hope for the future, but there's no denying the present.
Show Me The Money?
RedHat (http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/financials.asp?symbols=RHAT&currticker=RHAT)
VA Linux (http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/financials.asp?symbols=LNUX&currticker=LNUX)
[ 22 May 2001: Message edited by: Droo ]
On a side note, I will be curious to see how Progeny does. I'm very intrigued by a company with extremely non-commercial roots that is focusing on a services model.
Hmm...According to this (http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/05/22/1754212&mode=thread), Mandrake is making good money off their distro. I guess that broadband is so expensive in Europe, that it's still cheaper to order a CD rather than download an .iso?
webbcite
05-23-2001, 02:17 PM
Like it or not, it takes money to keep a company running.
When given the choice between "free" or "pay" the majority of people will choose "free". As connection speeds to the internet get faster for everyone, the companies that "give" their wares away will not survive. IMHO.
Would you work 40hours/week for no pay? How would you pay your bills?
It will be very interesting to see what will happen with a lot of the distro's...
Sweede
05-23-2001, 02:42 PM
another example of Microsofts report on why an Open Source business model is NOT an intellegent idea.
For what it's worth here's (http://www.linux.com/polls/index.phtml?pid=58&printable=yes) a linux.com poll that relates to this subject.
This poll was done a year ago and only 75 people responded so I wouldn't take it all to heart, but it goes to show that this topic isn't a new subject and yet it won't go away any time soon.
[ 23 May 2001: Message edited by: Droo ]
It's amazing how money often influences the big picture...
It's sort of like a good person who wants to change the world and therefore decides to enter the world of politics. But to get into a powerful political office, you tend to need lots of money. And once you get lots of money, strangely enough deals have to get made, and principles tend to get compromised.
Yep, cage47, you might want to make that run to the Debian border. :)
cage47
05-23-2001, 03:27 PM
Nope, now I'm actually looking to buy the boxed version. I mean I've got the cheapbytes cd's but I might get the box and sell someone my other cd's. I'd like to have the extra cd's w/ the extra software. Mostly Star Office in rpm format. It's no biggie but it'd save me having to run the bin file and I could unload another cd. I dunno. Maybe just pick up the debian cd's for the backup computer to mess with. But Mandrake is staying my #1 for now.
Well, IMHO Debian is more important to the future of Linux than Mandrake or Redhat...
another example of Microsofts report on why an Open Source business model is NOT an intellegent idea.
Microsoft's "report" on open source is a thinly veiled effort to discredit a potential source of competition that they can not attack through their normal practices. Don't be so naive as to believe otherwise.
That said, however, I agree that relying solely on an open source product as a source of income is not a well thought out business strategy, which is why Mandrake is moving in the direction of generating revenue from a number of value added services and products as well as selling the boxed sets of their product. They have some pretty good ideas, and I am waiting to see how they pan out.
Dave Anderson
05-23-2001, 11:18 PM
Selling in retail really takes a tole too. Company I used to work for almost went bankrupt trying to get their product into retail stores. You hardly make a profit in the retail environment.
The problem is that Microsoft, or pretty much any traditional software company, views its code as "intellectual property" that must be protected.
With open source, the code is basically community property, if "property" is even the right word to use.
Therefore, I agree that basing a commercial company on an open source model does require a different business model. The deeper question to me is whether or not the core principles of open source and free software have to be compromised in order to stay in business. I hope not, but we'll see how things pan out...
[ 23 May 2001: Message edited by: Droo ]
Therefore, I agree that basing a commercial company on an open source model does require a different business model. The deeper question to me is whether or not the core principles of open source and free software have to be compromised in order to stay in business. I hope not, but we'll see how things pan out...
I think that it largely depends on being able to combine more traditional revenue streams with work on open source; selling support and consulting services, paid subscription services, charging access fees for secure FTP sites, fee training programs and so forth.
The GPL does not preclude a company from charging for down loads either, though I am sure the die-hard FSF folks will squeal like stuck pigs when someone tries to implement a fee for download service.
Yes, building a successful open source business is not going to be easy, but I don't think that it is impossible. The GPL does not really address business concerns. It is more like the idea of peer review and openness in scientific research, another area where these very same issues come into play. Many who work in the sciences in the private sector encounter this dichotomy between the open sharing of research and the protection of proprietary company data and methodology. Often times, compromise must be reached. I think that ultimately the commercial open source community will move in this direction as well and that we will see companies develop a mixture of GPL and propriety software and services in order to survive.
The GPL does not preclude a company from charging for down loads either, though I am sure the die-hard FSF folks will squeal like stuck pigs when someone tries to implement a fee for download service.
I agree with what you said except for the 2nd half of that blurb. Call me harsh or flat out wrong, but I think there's a decent sized crowd of people who don't know much or care about Linux, but do like computers and think it's cool to go against the Microsoft grain and dowload lots of free (beer) software.
IMHO, it's these people who somehow think of free (beer) software as an entitlement who would complain about companies who charge for software. But you're definitely right in that the GPL is about challenging the traditional concept of intellectual property, not if or how to charge for software.
cga--You're also right in that a hybrid model of traditional business and open source could also do well and I didn't mean to sound as if traditional business practices would be thrown out the window.
[ 24 May 2001: Message edited by: Droo ]
Hmm...
Speak of the devil... (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010524/tc/a_third_way_for_software_development_1.html)