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 : Corel Corp. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: caveat who wrote (8340)	12/24/1999 6:24:00 PM
From: Kashish King	Respond to of 9798

Red Hat Linux had a lot of momentum as early as 1996, just as Java was getting off the ground. There were several dozen Linux distributions with wide followings by 1998, not to mention dozens of not-so-ubiquitous distributions. Moreover, there was nothing unique about UNIX for PC hardware since it has been around since 1985, including a freebie called Minux I had to use in an operating systems class during that time. (Note to newbies: Distributions are simply customized configurations of the freely available software called Linux. You can have your own distribution, even a few children have slapped together distributions.) Now, considering some average kids are doing it, would we assume that Corel could have their own distribution too? Sure they could, but they don't. They not only didn't have anything to do with the development of Linux, they don't even have their own distribution, per se. They have simply taken somebody else's, stripped it down and put their name on it. No, they didn't take some kid's distibution, they used Debian's and presumably they have permission to do so. Corel could best be described as a johnny-come-lately wannabee who uses somebody else's product and puts a Corel sticker on the box. They also ported their office bloatware (also something they bought) to Linux. Now, contrast the facts to the fiction being regurgitated by Corel's CEO that "they have the most Linux technology" and you can see why I've again given up on this company every becoming a credible, let alone successful, shrinkwrapper. Make no mistake about that, operating a shrinkwrapping machine is about the extent of their technological expertise -- that and telling tall tales to gullable people. Get rid of Cowpland? Not a chance. Anybody who can keep a company like this going on the fumes of some 80s bloatware should not be tossed aside. I won't invest because honesty and integrity are high on my list of criteria for CEOs and I'm not seeing evidence of that here. Granted, that's just my opinion and what do I know.