Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Red Hat Software Inc. (Nasdq-RHAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Wells who wrote (1065)	9/8/1999 4:28:00 PM
From: Eric Sandeen	Respond to of 1794

...I think that a better model will have to be developed to compensate these developers for their contributions to Linux. I'm sure there must be some developers out there that have contributed to Linux that are feeling a bit "left out" in that they don't have any Red Hat shares and cannot participate in the current investor mania over the stock. I absolutely agree. I think this may change the face of Linux more than anything - people who wrote significant parts of the Linux system watching some guy build a multi-billion dollar company based on his code, and getting disgusted with the whole thing. I don't know what the outcome of that scenario would be.

To: Eric Wells who wrote (1065)	9/9/1999 6:12:00 PM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1794

I don't you can deny that NT has been a success Actually, I disagree. NT has been a great mind share success- everybody seems to think its taking over the world. But the reality is that its sales are not at the same level as its perception of penetration. This isn't like DOS where you have %80 of the intel box category running one OS. NT is a minority, and unix is still the vast majority of server software. While NT has been a success at going from %0 market share 10 years ago, Linux has already beaten that penetration rate and it has been around (in viable form) for much less time. I don't see where the open source system necessarily doesn't have a "team with a dedicated leader" as you advocate. That is the model all the open source projects I know about follow, just as the closed source ones as well. I think that you don't fully understand how an open source project works, and I think this is because you probably haven't been exposed to one. To some extent it seems counterintuitive. But give nthat we both have a common background in closed source product development, I think you should go out and look at how it works for open source- pick a project and join the email lists and watch how things are developed. Telling you about it is like trying to describe a piece of music. You have to hear it. Only becuase we have a common background in closed source can we even talk about what its like to develop closed source. Here's the crux- name a single software developer who loves microsoft who's got a choice. I've never met one, with the exception of people working for microsoft who were worth millions in microsoft stock From the CIO perspective, NT is not stable but more importantly, Microsoft will NOT take responsibility when things go wrong. Certainly not in my experience. Or course microsoft will throw money at the problem- and the only reason linux is viable is that no amount of money can defeat it- a great example is netscape- it didn't take much moeny for microsoft to defeat them... but that's not the case with linux.