Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat — Stand Alone Or Get Bought?

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

Red Hat Software 199

head_dunce writes "It seems that this economy has inspired a lot of businesses to move to Linux, with Red Hat posting profits that beat everyone's expectations. There's a dark side to being a highly profitable company in a down economy, though — now there are talks of Citigroup and Oracle wanting to buy Red Hat. For a while now, we've been watching Yahoo fend off Carl Icahn and Steve Ballmer so that they could stay independent, but the fight seems to be a huge distraction for Yahoo, with lots of energy (and money) invested. Will Red Hat stay independent? What potential buyer would make for a good parent company?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367531)

Obama Policies Will Bankrupt USA Tsarkon Reports
(Note: We are not a GOP-sters, Republicans or affiliated with any parties, and as George Washington warned against parties We do not believe in parties and, unlike most people, We evaluate every issue on a case by case basis and do not defer to the judgments of politicians who are corrupted and untrustworthy as a group.)

Obama is controlled by the same people as Bush see The Obama Deception documentary []

Yuan Forwards Show China May Buy Fewer Treasuries, UBS Says []
Anemic Treasury auction effects felt beyond bonds []
The Sherminator Kicks Some Wall Street Ass []
China Angry That Fed Is Deliberately Destroying The Dollar []
China suggests switch from dollar as reserve currency []
What are the reserve currencies? []
Anatomy of a taxpayer giveaway to investors []
Geithner rescue package 'robbery of the American people' []
Geithner just put only the rich in Titanics lifeboats []
Geithner Plan Will Rob US Taxpayers []
A False Choice []
Bargain-hunting house buyers wearing on sellers []
Time to Take the Steering Wheel out of Geithner's Hands []
Socialising and Privatising []
Fannie, Freddie to pay out bonuses []
Fitch Raises Prime Jumbo Loan Loss Estimates Sharply []

Chinas central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund []

- Russia on an new world reserve currency: It is necessary to work out and adopt internationally recognized standards for macroeconomic and budget policy, which are binding for the leading world economies, including the countries issuing reserve currencies - the Kremlin proposals read. []

- President Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is deeply connected to corruption. Rahm Emanuel, his Chief of Staff, is radical authoritarian statist whose father was part of the murderous civilian-killing Israeli terrorist organization known as IRGUN who is obsessed with gun control and compulsory service to the country in a capacity which he has yet to define. (Think brown-shirts.) Barack is intimately connected to disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (Rahm inherited Rod's federal-congress seat). Barack Obama is also connected to William Ayers (who ghost-wrote his books); Ayers is a man who promotes the concept that civilian collateral damage is ok in a war against freedom. Saul Alinsky, a man who made the quote as follows, "From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer," is a man who had much influence on the young Barack Obama. A man who admired Lucifer for gaining his own kingdom in an act of rebellion. Barack also subscribed to Preacher Jeremiah Wright, who is himself a Afro-elitist who wants all the people who largely "pay the freight" to suffer at the hands of angry African-American mobs. There are over 30 million Americans on food stamps, and more blacks are in prison and on food-stamps per capita than anyone else. The problem with Wright is simply this: the facts are "racist." There is no conspiracy against African Americans here by citizens.
- Obama himself is a racist, an AIPAC-bootlicker, corrupted to the bone Chicago-style and a traitor to the US Constitution and a liar whose real "legal" name could very well be Barry Sotero and an Indonesian citizen (The US does not allow plural citizenship) (If you care, not that it matters anymore under a lawless authoritarian totalitarian regime such as Barack Obama's, you can see more here at an aggregator; [] )
- Raytheon lobbyist in Pentagon, many lobbyists getting exemptions even though Obama promised not to have them. This is one of many things Obama has lied about.
- Goldman Sachs insider second in command at Treasury. Bumbling tax cheat idiot Timothy Geithner in "command" of Treasury, with 17 positions unfilled as of late March 2009.
- Obama's cabinet has had several nominees and appointees with multiple tax fraud issues.
- Obama lied about having a new degree of accountability and a "sunshine" period for new laws; Obama has signed bills with little or no time for public review at as promised. In fact, one of the largest spending bills in US history was passed into law with several members of the House and Senate telling the public there was no time to review the bill, let alone the public.
- Pork Spendulus Bill (The Stimulus Bill) contained language that came directly from Tom Daschle (who published a book detailing his machinations to slip healthcare under the radar in some back portion of a budgeting bill). This language included the funding and authority to set up a central database of all medical treatments rendered, and the Stimulus bill also contains language that alters the Medicare-style instructions to doctors: The most economic treatments should now be used, no longer use the treatments with the most efficacy. Rationed health care, courtesy of a disgraced tax cheat, Tom Daschle. When you relatives are dying in a state hospital because their quota was reached, see how you feel.
- Obama appointed a Second-Amendment violating-denying Rich-pardoning treasonist Eric Holder as AG, a man who helped a fugitive evade justice and thinks of Americans and cowardly racists.
- Obama has put no money at all in for a single new nuclear power plant but wants to help bridges and roads - apparently to promote more driving.
- Obama, Blagojevich and Rahm Emanuel have a lot to hide. They literally lived very close to each other, Rahm had (until being Obama's Chief of staff) Blagojevich's old federal congressional seat. Blagojevich helped "The Teleprompter" Obama cheat his way to the Illinois senate by getting other candidates thrown off the ballot in Illinois. Why do you think Blagojevich was so mad? Obama did owe him, big time. Rahm and Obama are preemptively using Blagojevich and trying to publically malign and discredit him because he has information that can bring Obama and Rahm Emanuel down. This is the true face of Obama, ruthless, calculating conniving cheat that will stop at nothing to gain and retain power at any cost breaking any rule.
- Tony Rezko, Iraqi Arms Dealer Nahdmi Auchi, and of course Aiham Alsammarae. Barack "The Teleprompter" Obama is so corrupted it's a joke. He is connected to international arms dealers, shady property dealings and people of ill repute to gain what he needs from them: financial bootstrapping of his campaign to rule America.
- Fools and "useful idiots" twist the US Federal Budget pie charts by leaving welfare, workfare, interest on debt, social security, Medicare and Medicaid out and focusing only on non-whole "discretionary" pie charts.
2007 high level pie chart, Federal Budget, USA []
2009 Pie chart, detailed, Federal Budget, USA []
Now Obama wants to drastically expand the areas of the budget which are getting the most funding by far. There is simply not enough money to fund the obligations made to the public thus far (Unfunded debt obligations which are to pay for the guarantees of social security), let alone Medicare, Medicaid, welfare and other social spending which seeks to guarantee a standard of living to people which is lower what they could gain for themselves. This is an attempt to break the middle class' back so they now need government aid to survive.
- Barack Obama is drastically increasing spending and creating more entitlements that will make the US less competitive (especially against China, India, East Europe/Russia). This will be a huge disaster and "change you can believe in" will strap you, your children and your grandchildren with more debt. "No taxation without representation!" Obama is spending money for the next two-three generations and they can't even vote yet, or even have been born. This is co-opting those who cannot vote to pay for this man's reckless and illegal endeavor to make everyone a feudal serf of the federal government.
- An alternative to the dollar and a forex and a reserve currency came up at the last G20 meeting. The world will not take faith in Obama's liar-socialist spending and welfare state, why should the taxpayers (plebian citizen-slaves of a police state)?
- The spending going on now vastly eclipses all previous spending. In fact, the massive trillion plus debts is a thing of the 80's onwards. Congress signs the checks, remember that year after year, as egregious as the pentagon spending is, that the social spending is completely a waste of money and it is unfunded over the long term. Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, the USA could build a new power infrastructure with this money but instead this money is being pissed into creating more of an entitlement system that is still unfunded, and without massive head-taxes and far more aggressive progressive taxes, could never be funded.
- The budgeting being done today were recently reported by a non-partisan auditing commission will lead to about 10 TRILLION in new debt over the next 10 years. Obama is going to double the national debt while doing nothing to address the unfunded debt obligations of Social Security, or address any of the out of control egregious spending going on today via the budgets, the federal reserve and its taxation via inflation, or by bailouts and stimulus bills. This is the worst, most unintelligent and most hated congress in the history of the United States, and we have a seriously incompetent and potentially dangerous-to-the-free-constitutional-republic Barack Obama rubber stamping this bloody mess.
- Clinton appointed David Walker of the GAO, he recently quit; the unfunded debt obligations have rendered the USA insolvent according to accounting standards. The USA is already broke and cannot conceivably pay its obligations today.
Taxpayers on the hook for $59 trillion []
US Public Debt Unfunded Debt Obligations []
- Most of the world population gets nothing from their governments, or a very bare minimum or services that benefit only the upper echelons of society. However, the liar Barack Obama says the USA needs his universal "state-hospital" rationed health care to be competitive. This is pure folderol and a lie. China and India give nothing, and they are the biggest threat to the American worker. By forcing healthcare and higher taxes, Americans will be less competitive.

- If you think 60% tax rates end to end (income, accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, Medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, excise tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capital gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, airport and FAA taxes and fees, estate tax, misc internet sales tax and many more taxes that I can't recall at the moment) will make the US competitive, along with compulsory programs to provide everyone with health care is going to make the US competitive in the age of India and China, you are incapable of understanding what it takes to build and maintain a successful industrialized republic.

- As the US nationalizes/rations healthcare to the least common denominator of affordability without regard to efficacy, people with money will simply look into medical tourism so those with money can go to medical parks in India and get real health care. Those who have lived in Canada or in the UK can tell you "free" healthcare is not a panacea. If you think this, you are again, a useful idiot. The NHS in the UK has given bad blood and Hepatitis and AIDS infected blood to people, and Jade Goody who just died was misdiagnosed twice resulting in her death (She was "all cleared" twice of the cervical cancer which she just died of). The NHS in the UK is not able to be sued or held accountable. Neither will Obama's rationed health care service for America.
- Sorry to bust the socialist bubble, but support of these types of policies will simply lower the standard of living in the USA, particularly for the middle class. At least at the end of the Eisenhower projects the USA got roads to show for the spending, and with this new spending, the USA could have built power plants that get the USA out of funding the middle east via constant demand for middle-eastern oil, but the age of government for the sake of government is upon us, and the useful idiots line up and believe empty promises.
- The pentagon along with Bechtel, Kroll, Bluewater, Halliburton, etc, could get less than half of what they get today, but that will fix nothing fundamental in terms of government spending. It is simply not enough to make a difference when compared to the Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security entitlements.
See: YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy []
- If Obama thinks its ok to lie to 300 million people about being able to "take care of them" without even being honest about what that care would look like, then being an idiot and believing in Obama is for you.
- The head of the IRS and the head of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is a Tax Cheat
- Lied about no lobbyists - their numbers are growing within Obama's ranks as he issues exemptions.
- The US Government already has over 50% of the budget spent on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security. Socialists: Good job on that one, its working great. Solution to the current near-collapse-due-to-over-spending: add more unfunded entitlements! And this is still a "George Bush" budget. Over half is being spend on Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, workfare and social security.
- This man is such a propagandist that he invented "The Office of the President Elect," the seals, the flags, the podium and that forum was all props and the media never once questioned any of it. It was an invention. This is the power of Obama, technicalities and rules do not apply.
- The Socialist-liars can break my spirit and my financial back to force me to "need" a federal government that is turning this country into a police state and is turning it into a quasi-socialist lie, but I will, I must put up a fight. I have kids to educate and feed, and the stuff the pseudo-socialist authoritarian Obama sells (which is failing to various degrees everywhere else as implemented) is simply forcing a culture of failure on a once great, libertarian free country.
- I will not be complacent with your "change," and there will be a point where civil war will become an option. See how hard you can push before you get it. How much more than half can the truly productive workers in this country afford to pay. Keep pushing to find out how to start a civil war. The scariest thing about Obamabots is the amount of pleasure they derive from completely defying the US Constitution and giving the government non-enumerated non-extant powers to rule over everyone's quality of life.
- The socialist-lie of a plan will not work, its not fundable, it will destroy the currency to fund it, and its really as simple as this: if this insanity is funded by borrowing from the US's economic and military adversaries then Obama and his socialist cabal is not fit to administrate society. Rome fell. Kings who mis-manged their treasuries all fell. Every example of unhinged spending leads to the same result: systemic collapse.
- Obama and his sycophantic lunatics would want to have a civil war to get Obama's way and force the socialist-lie system on my already tax paying law abiding ass. And as far as "no new taxes" for those under 250k, its a lie, the tax is called inflation, which is set to begin just about now that the Chinese wont want the USA's worthless treasuries to fund the socialist-lie fantasy (one that COMMUNIST China doesn't even try and sell to its people!) Also, what Obama fails to mention is the states are now compelled to implement his new rules, and to follow the rules the states must raise taxes. Obama may not tax those under 250k, but every last one of the 50 states will.
- Barack Obama's numbers don't add up. There is a $59 trillion dollar hole (UFDO) in social security alone. AIG $150 billion here, TARP $350 billion there. $800 billion for a highly dubious pork laden stimulus package. Another one on the way. $59 trillion hole in the balance sheet IGNORED. China saying they aren't going to buy treasuries, calling for new reserve currencies, Clinton clamoring to find buyers now. $3.6 trillion dollar budget, potential military action on Mexico, Iran still a "terrorist state" at the behest of the AIPAC, spending up, dollar about to fall, inflation over time since Breton Woods extremely easy to document, yet, the socialist-liars question when the numbers (the Federal Government numbers) simply don't add up to the point where if the US-GOV was a company it would be insolvent.
-How dare the taxpayers question what Barack Obama's drastic spending increases are going to do to the purchasing power of our savings because Barack Obama wants to recklessly spend and try to maintain and American empire AND guarantee a standard of living, and Obama doesn't even want to build a single nuclear power plant to do it? Barack Obama must be a complete and total lunatic moron at best. He is a man child, akin to Michael Jackson, who does not live in the real world. This guy has turned the White House into a Neverland Ranch.
- Obama is either a negligent idiot or an unhinged maniac with delusional fantasies. Meanwhile, Obama's tax dodging Treasury Secretary has 17 unfilled positions, the Treasury Dept. isn't even functioning at this point while the rest of the world steadily loses faith in one of the two things that makes the USA relevant in the world at all: the dollar as a "hard" or reserve currency and the US military.
- "General welfare" in the constitution was, according to the man who wrote it, Madison, meant to be extremely limited in scope. The federal government per the constitution doesn't even have the enumerated POWER to deal with economic messes. A lot of these "POWERS" were created while there is a crisis to dupe the public into accepting an un-constitutional authoritarian regime as the government and to usurp authority over the people.
- The USA is a constitutional republic. A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to eat a sheep. Also a constitutional republic isn't about using a barely-majority or a plurality to stuff your (un-fundable disastrous) crap down the disenfranchised other-half's throat.
- With Obama's authoritarian corrupted criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal in flight of prosecution, Rich case) Eric Holder in charge, we won't have our inalienable and enumerated rights to firearms much longer. For a constitutional law expert, Obama must have never read the federalist papers or he would simply hand himself as a traitor. Already there is talk of banning firearms to help Mexico's fight against the cartels. What they fail to mention is the firearms that are being used there are Mexican Military firearms being used by those who defected from the Mexican Army into the cartels directly! The firearms in question were sold to the Mexican military, over 170,000 soldiers are gone with the guns. And now the US citizens have to give up inalienable and enumerated rights? This is insanity.
- The arbitrary expansion of "general welfare" is not only unconstitutional, it may very well lead to a serious conflict on the issue.
- Here is a debate on general welfare and how stuff like this came to pass, but was clearly no intended by the authors of the document of root law.
In Federalist No. 41, James Madison asked rhetorically: "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" (In reference to the general welfare clause)
So strongly did the founders believe that "general welfare" wouldn't be expanded as written:
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton indirectly confirmed Madison's point. (That the "general welfare" clause was "clearly" not a free pass for government)
Hamilton argued that a bill of rights, which many were clamoring for, would be not only unnecessary, but dangerous. Since the federal government was given only a few specific powers, there was no need to add prohibitions: it was implicitly prohibited by the listed powers. If a proposed law a relief act, for instance wasn't covered by any of these powers, it was unconstitutional.
"why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"
Hamilton goes on to argue that making Amendments (e.g., enumerating Free speech, press and assembly) and enumerating the 'right' would have the following effect:
(A bill of rights) "would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power that is, a power to regulate the press, short of actually shutting it down. "
"With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison [The US Supreme Court has found the meaning of "general welfare" in the Constitution to be much more elastic than did Mr. Madison. But as the "author of the Constitution," what does he know?]
James Madison, when asked if the "general welfare" clause was a grant of power, replied in 1792, in a letter to Henry Lee,

If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment [the Constitution] should be thrown into the fire at once.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security. ...--The Declaration of Independence
- Monetizing failures causes more. Japan showed us this for decades. But hey, Barack Obama is actually dumb enough to think you can fix a problem DECADES in the making with a quick fixer-upper. He is screwed in the head or, more likely, lying to the American public to quickly get done the things he wants to get done before he gets thrown out on his ass.
- The complaints are with the Federal government (in general) since Breton Woods. The Federal Government and Obama's minions STILL didn't listen to David Walker, a Clinton appointee and former head of the GAO. This isn't about political parties anymore- its about spending the future to the point where today collapses. History is replete with examples of fiat currencies and deficit spending leading to collapse.
- Show me a single federal budget that was less than the previous. If this $3.6T budget goes, it is never coming back barring systemic collapse. The only President to ever see the US Public Debt at $0 dollars is Andrew Jackson.
- The United States Federal Government, The United States Federal Reserve, and the banks which were enabled to continue down reckless paths by a quasi government agency known as the Federal Reserve whose actions are not subject to congress and whose members are unelected. This situation is untenable and unconstitutional.
- Every inflationary road taken in history ends in collapse. Keynesian policies are widely regarded as no longer workable. And while Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, David Walker, Nouriel Roubini, Warren Buffet and Jim Rodgers warn about or predict all the failures, people still refuse to listen to the possibility that the US economy may contract for many years, and spending at these levels is something that can give way to a collapse.
- Inflation is a tax: What ignorant tax and spenders don't take into account here is the relative percentages of people's wealth (both net and gross) and the costs of owning and maintaining houses, cars, standards of living.
- Inflation via deficit spending is going to make it such that you will be paying a lot more by percentage of your income to maintain a given standard of living. Obama's arguments are so poorly thought out and seek to blame "Republicans" for the mess, its really simply laughable - this unhinged budgeting and currency management crisis needs cleanup now, not worsening.
- You can't spend your way out of a hole if the creditors (e.g. China) start telling the USA they won't buy. It is that simple. Now America starts to have to collateralize the debt with assets. The USA will be selling off chunks of American assets to back the new debt. One day, it may even be necessary to sell Alaska back to Russia because no one will take greenbacks to prop up a failing version of a modern Rome.
- Ah, here we go with the Matthew Lesko arguments. []
Interest rates were on the rise before the government stepped in with free money for everyone (the fine print of course indicate massive strings attached).
Other economies, for example, India, have the central rates set to far more reasonable/realistic rates (at the moment ~ 8+%), which is still tends to be too low, but shows that if you need someone else capital you need to pay a premium for it, and given that capital is in short supply, it would stand to reason that a premium must be charged for it.
The problem is the unrealistic growth rates of mature economies don't allow for profiting via growth projections (rather than simply earning money). So the government steps in, turns on the free money spigot, gets the interest rates for savings down in the 1-2% range while diluting the value of the whole currency in order to prop up dying companies that ran the business like a Madhoff Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes need new money or they cease to exist. This is why the Federal Reserve is trying to issue more Reserve Notes. Without this fresh input of printed money, the Ponzi scheme will collapse.
- The Republicans aren't solely responsible for the crisis as Obama's minions would have you believe, congress is (no particular congress), the Executive of the US government (no particular one) and the US Federal Reserve System are all at fault.
- Fundamentally, the government is trying to fix the prices of various things to "make it all work." This pulling on the invisible hand is a fools venture. It was predicted long ago the housing collapse (and those, such as myself, in the know, wished while realizing the housing collapse coming that we were wrong for everyone's sake - but the truth is the truth) . It may be that the Austrian (von Mises) economists will ultimately be proven right.
- We are a nation of partially educated whiney grabby idiots, and we got the government that represents this. The Chinese, India and other up and coming nations will show no mercy for this arrogant abuse of our status as the world's forex reserves.
- War and asset sales will continue to be the only option for this scheme until it is corrected at the core. And to say that the government has already averted a depression by doing what they did (most of the monies injected wont be "felt" for some time), is just arrogance and stupidity. Price fixing prolonged the Great Depression. Price-fixing (or attempting to) houses will do the same, but probably worse.
- Obama's minions simply don't care if the US is bankrupted and rendered insolvent, they just want a say in how its done, presumably to "feel safe." Rather selfish.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." AND "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin (Possibly Richard Jackson)

- Everyone better realize that inflation will pay a major role in funding un-fundable fantasies, wiping the savers and the middle class out. The problem is, that other countries are growing tired of making our Federal Reserve notes worth something by buying our debt as treasuries. Obama's minions talk about spending, but in order to "get what YOU want" you will sell debt to potential economic and military adversaries? Real bright. What's really sad is that despite David Walker being an authority on these issues, people refuse to even watch him and listen to what he is saying. Instead of seeing the truth and the bottom line of the unfunded debt obligations, they want HOPE and CHANGE, which are simply concepts which the foolish change into their own personal hopes and changes, but Obama never bothered to outline what to hope for exactly or what he will be changing.
- We have a fraud, a huckster, an empty suit for a President, a Community Organizer. This man does not have the ability to formulate an original thought, or to command action. He is a know nothing that lives in a pretend world just like Michael Jackson ensconced himself in Neverland ranch, he will hide behind those who surround him, which happen to be incompetent people who have no compunction about spending the country into oblivion to achieve personal agendas.
- On the success of Canada and its form of Socialism: A huge country like Canada with massive amounts of uranium and tar sands and natural resources and a huge land mass with a scant 30 million people is an order of magnitude less of a problem to manage than a country with 10x its population, a serious leaky southern border, backfiring aggressive foreign policy, particularly with Iran, and the US is competing with countries like India and China whose middle classes are larger than the US's entire population. The top 5 students in every Indian and Chinese primary school out numbers all the kids in primary school in the US. Canada is a idyllic island, the USA is front and center in an all out economic and political clash of ideologies.
- Cap and trade (and pollution control for solving global problems) will never work unless the top 10 countries in the world (in terms of GDP, manufacturing capacity and population) are on board. Period. end. If the world doesn't quickly move to nuclear now and fusion shortly, it is over. Possibly not if every home on the planet gets a wind vane, but that seems unlikely to happen (since its possible now).
- Keynes calls it "the paradox of thrift" and suggested that policies forcing people not to save is a "good idea." The guy wanted people spending all the time, or if he didn't, he never conveyed that to his protégés well enough for them to not do what they are doing. Right now the plebeians in the US are actually stashing cash, and everyone from Obama to the media is trying to get people to spend spend spend. The best thing for the long term is for people to prepare for the coming hell, not set out with no reserves.
- I have seen Keynes invoked to justify nearly every bad move in the past decade, and its warming up to be a potential currency collapse, the collapse of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve notes, and a collapse of the NYSE. And then they invoke Keynes to suggest the best way out of the mess is to spend out of an already near-critically debt massed black hole.
- A house is run like a town is run like a country or business is run like a state is run like a government. If there are things the government is doing that would either force your home into bankruptcy or into jail via fraud charges, then the government and banks shouldn't be operating in that fashion. A certain degree of stretchy liquidity is in order, but in terms of percent of GDP, there is no way of justifying what they US has now.
- Iceland failed at 850 percent debt to GDP. The US is at 350 and rising. It is not a good thing at all.
- What is happening to the dollar as a forex standard. []
- March 19, 2009 C-SPAN - "Let's Quit Destroying Our Dollar!" []
- HR 1207 (A bill to make the Fed more accountable and to answer questions regarding the dollar policy) []

Title: Obama sidetracked by fiscal mess, but presses on []
"Being heard above the din may prove difficult. Lawmakers are wrangling over taxing people who got big bonuses and worrying the president's budget could generate $9.3 trillion in red ink over the next decade."
- Kremlin to pitch new global currency []
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Question: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367543)

Can any free Java IDE Just Work(tm) with making simple executable .jar files?

Netbeans won't do it. It says it will generate a manifest with a main class but it dosen't. If I manually edit the manifest to point to the main class then Netbeans will magically ignore or overwrite it everytime. The internet forums tell me that it's my fault because I'm not adding layer upon layer of complexity dicking around with ant scripts because I want to show my friends a hello world application without making my friends compile and run it themselves in their own IDE. Many of us have friends who don't know or care what an IDE is.

Eclipse will make executable .jars...sometimes. It takes a few rolls of the dice to find the right version which will do it without asking you to do other arcane unnecessary bullshit. Some versions do it and others(Ganymede included) won't without asking for more redundant bullshit(see: Netbeans).

Can any free Java IDE make their visual editor Just Work(tm)?

The Matisse editor in Netbeans is powerful and full featured. I can tweek every little ass-hair of every little component. Wait - what's all that crap in my source editor? It dosen't look familiar, and to add insult to injury, Netbeans is telling me that I can't edit some code? What the fuck are these imports and variables? Better copy and paste to Eclipse so I can make some sense of this bullshit...

Oh, shit. Not only does Eclipse not recognize half of the pasted code but Eclipse dosen't include a visual editor. No problem, the forums say, because it may be downloaded though Eclipse itself. Oh shit, it won't work with Ganymede. Once again, with Eclipse, it's time to roll the dice to discover which version actually works with the visual editor without broken dependency warnings and other bullshit.

It's a brilliant strategy to discourage inexperienced folks whose time matters(the operative phrase since we don't have 20 hours a day to roll dice trying to get things to work) from studying computer science.

It's also a brilliant strategy to discourage inexperienced folks whose time matters(see above) from using open source solutions since Netbeans and Eclipse are so concerned with filling your raster with bloat instead of making things Just Work(tm). In Soviet Russia, open source copies Microsoft.

Re:Question: (1, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367797)

Java has been taken over by the corporate world. The way I see it, every time someone had a problem with it, they said "I know, I just add some XML, and name it with a 4 letter acronym or some cute coffee-inspired pun."

If you want quick and easy, try Qt. Even Eclipse plays nice with that.

Re:Question: (0, Offtopic)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367897)

Can any free Java IDE Just Work(tm) with making simple executable .jar files?

I know you're a troll but out of curiosity I just went into the dist directory of one of my projects and typed jarfile.jar at the command line and the application started.

I didn't do anything special to make that happen and since I always run it from within the IDE I never bothered to do anything special to set it up. I took a look at the in the archive and it automatically added the correct info.

You must have done something wrong.

The Matisse editor in Netbeans is powerful and full featured. I can tweek every little ass-hair of every little component. Wait - what's all that crap in my source editor? It dosen't look familiar, and to add insult to injury, Netbeans is telling me that I can't edit some code?

Some parts of the code are tied into the visual editor so it doesn't make sense to edit them by hand. Some of the methods, like for actions, may be confusing to people who aren't experienced with swing, but it all starts to make sense after a while.

There are a ton of great Netbeans examples [] on the Netbeans site.

It's a brilliant strategy to discourage inexperienced folks whose time matters(the operative phrase since we don't have 20 hours a day to roll dice trying to get things to work) from studying computer science.

A tool can't make you a programmer, it can only help you be a more effective programmer. If you don't know how to fix cars, the best tool set in the world won't teach you how to replace a timing belt.

I guess you could muddle through some easy stuff that "Just works" like the good old VB, but don't get me started on that.

Re:Question: (1)

trickyD1ck (1313117) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368893)

regarding executable jars, try the Fat Jar plugin for Eclipse (

Re:Question: (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27369233)


There's your problem. Try a real language.

What potential buyer would make for a good parent (0)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367573)

Red Flag Linux [] ....the PRC, of course.

Why is redhat worth so much? (0, Troll)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367587)

I have to admit i've always been at a total loss as to why redhat could have the same sort of market cap as someone like Sun (at least pre-takeover rumours).

I suppose it's certainly more profitable to take other people's work and package it up, but what does that offer to a buyer?

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (4, Funny)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367601)

Support. It's a lot easier to call a vendor and bitch than it is to post your bitch on Slashdot. No wait...

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (0, Troll)

grahamsz (150076) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367647)

I feel like i've heard a lot of grumbling about the quality of redhats support. Ultimately they are supporting something they didn't build so I find it hard to believe they can provide the same level of enterprise support as someone like ibm or sun would provide (though plenty grumble about their support level)

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367829)

Don't IBM and Sun also offer linux support?

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367839)

I think you underestimate how involved Red Hat is paying employees to contribute significantly to project components up and down the software stack that makes up the linux ecosystem. I don't think you can really say that all Red Hat does is support stuff they don't build. Their employees are there in the trenches impacting the roadmaps of a lot of components from the kernel on up. Sure Red Hat doesn't do it all, but no one can argue that don't do their fair share of the work in upstream project development.

They succeed as a business model exactly because they can position their development involvement in upstream projects as a value proposition for customers who need critical support services.

There are always going to be complaints about support, nothing is perfect. In fact I doubt one support model fits all possible customer needs..and that's fine. The proof is in the pudding. Red Hat is consistently retaining customer subscriptions in large enough numbers to sustain their business and more importantly for the larger open ecosystem taking that financial support and using it to paying for manhours to sustain the development of open technologies across a broad front of technologies...from the kernel on up.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (2, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368807)

Would you ask the troll if it would like a dessort, or perhaps some coffee?

FRAUD? Consider the sources. (4, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368891)

This Slashdot story was posted by a Slashdot editor who calls himself "Souls kill". The story was suggested to Slashdot by someone who calls himself "Head Dunce". A dunce is "a person regarded as stupid". (Please note, I'm not suggesting that the Slashdot editor "kills souls", he is suggesting that. I'm not calling the person who wrote the story a dunce, he is calling himself that.)

The Slashdot story links to an article in Forbes Magazine. Will Forbes and other "financial" publications continue to pretend to offer useful financial advice when they did NOTHING to stop the corruption of big U.S. banks taking on debt 20 to 60 times their assets?

The Forbes article was written by someone named "Ruthie".

The "takeover" talk appears to be completely fraud, in my opinion:

1) Citigroup is not thinking of buying Red Hat. Yes, the Slashdot story suggests that, but the stories to which Slashdot links don't suggest that.

2) Citigroup has been extraordinarily destructive; it helped cause the present job loss throughout the United States. The article implies that Citigroup has a lot of Red Hat stock and is trying to manipulate the price.

3) The Slashdot story links to a Reuters story that says, "Linux software maker Red Hat Inc (RHT.N) reported profit ahead of Street projections on Wednesday , helped by cost cuts and a stock buyback, sending shares up 8 percent." Someone is apparently manipulating the price of Red Hat stock, because "22 cents vs Street view 20 cents" is certainly not news that should cause people to value Red Hat stock so highly that the shares go up 8 per cent.

4) The Reuters story only says that some un-named people on "the Street" predicted something, and Red Hat did a tiny bit better. Remember that "the Street" is responsible for the present job loss throughout the United States. They are, in my opinion, vicious crooks [] , who stole from and are stealing from the taxpayers because corrupt politicians believe they are "too big to fail".

If you aren't a full time stock investor with plenty of inside information, you should not be buying stocks. Those with little experience just lost 40% of their money!

We deserve better leaders than "Souls kill", "Head Dunce", Forbes, Ruthie, Citigroup, "the Street", and politicians manipulated by those who don't know any better way to make money than by paying to corrupt their own government.

Further comment: A note about "Ruthie". (0)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368999)

Every language has a way of expressing that something is small or cute, or cute and small, called the diminutive. In English, the diminutive is formed by adding -y or -ie. In Thai, it is formed by using a one-syllable name, like "Nok" for the name of a girl; those who want to be considered responsible adults use multi-syllable names. In Japanese the diminutive is formed by adding -ko, as in the name of a friend of mine, a grown woman, Noriko. In Portuguese, the diminutive is formed by adding -inha or -inho.

So the author Ruthie Ackerman is an adult who has chosen to continue using a childhood name, a name that suggests that she is small and cute. That tends in the direction of causing me to have less confidence in her judgment.

Re:Further comment: A note about "Ruthie". (4, Funny)

mopower70 (250015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369309)

The parent Slashdot comment was posted by someone who calls themselves FuturePower (R), with the parenthesized 'R' suggesting a registered trademark.

So the comment author is a person who believes that a name chosen for a technology forum is a potential basis for self promotion and gain through civil lawsuits and has therefore allied themselves with the likes of the RIAA and MPIAA. That tends in the direction of causing me to have less confidence in her judgement.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368143)

I know people that actually PAY for RedHat support and none of them have a problem with it.

The free support is no better than the free support anywhere else.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367695)

Support. It's a lot easier to call a vendor and bitch than it is to post your bitch on Slashdot. No wait...

I would say it is much easier to post your bitch on Slashdot, but calling a vendor might be more productive.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (4, Insightful)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368019)

It's even easier not post at all, here's your answer "it's open source, fix it yourself" :) But seriously, licensing costs are lumped into the total cost and no one cares how the software's developed. Companies pay for support, quality, and brand reputation. Red Hat has been able to compete in all three areas.

If RH produces their product for less than Microsoft they have a competitive advantage. It's not just Windows vs Linux, JBOSS is also doing well against IBM MQ.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367821)

The software maker has started a "free-to-pay" marketing campaign to persuade businesses that they would save money by subscribing to its services because they would not have to hire as many Linux programmers.

They're using the Microsoft Argument. I wonder if they mentioned TCO.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1)

Zeio (325157) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368653)

The support is quite dodgy, really. I carry licenses for RHEL so I can get help with CENTOS via that licensed RedHat if I need it. I've done a lot of work with RedHat OSes in the past, and have used RedHat "EL" since 6.2EE when I was helping out with running OpenMail on Linux. I've had about 3 cases on my $2600 or so / year premium RedHat license and they never fixed anything in a timely fashion (if at all). I ended up fixing a problem with a module they load that crashed the machine by using install in modprobe.conf, there was a bug for crashdumps which "resolved itself", the case I filed was never resolved but some kernel that was 14 months newer finally fixed it magically, and I had a few problems with udev, etc. I'm so fed up with RedHat EL support I don't think I'll be buying another year, they are really the bottom of the barrel for one-off customers. You will get next to nothing for $2600/year IMHO.

Oh, when my subscription to the EL5 channel ran out on RHN, the case they never solved kept constantly emailing me but I could no longer log into support to close the case to have it stop emailing me all the time. Frustrating, and a lot of the service offering is "half assed" - you might think the same if you paid $2600 per year for something and get as little return on the scant number of bugs I filed cases for.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368945)

On the other hand, the folk who hang out on the CentOS forums are bunch of very helpful people.

My big problem with RedHat is that if some bureaucratic mishap (or malice) stops the payment of your RedHat subscription, you suddenly have a bunch of unpatchable insecure boxes. Sure, you can point yum at the CentOS repos, but if you're going to do that, why pay RedHat in the first place?

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (4, Interesting)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367799)

If Sun and IBM combined with Oracle and RedHat, that would really make a powerhouse corporation in terms of offering Linux+Java based solutions. It would probably allow for a portfolio to truly compete against MS on most fronts even. I don't necessarily like the idea myself, and am not a big fan of Java itself. But the thought is compelling.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (2, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368857)

Big companies stagnate easily. I wouldn't want them to fall into that trap.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (5, Insightful)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367849)

I have to admit i've always been at a total loss as to why redhat could have the same sort of market cap as someone like Sun (at least pre-takeover rumours).

I suppose it's certainly more profitable to take other people's work and package it up, but what does that offer to a buyer?

RedHat is the leading corporate contributor to the Linux Kernel [] .

What they do for the buyer is make sure that their distro will work with certain software so that ISV's can certify the platform.

For example... You want to run SAP CRM. Maybe you can get it to work on Debian or Ubuntu, but SAP won't support it, and you likely need SAP support. They have certified it to run on RedHat Enterprise Linux so you can use that.

That's what most people care about. ISV support. If all you're doing is running a LAMP stack, then you probably don't care and will run CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu Server, etc. In fact, I believe a lot of hosting companies have been switching to CentOS ever since RedHat no longer provided a free version other than fedora.

They also have other products that run on RHEL.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368103)

Sun is a leading corporate contributor to solaris.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27369265)

Sun was also a leading contributor to the lawsuit brought by SCO against IBM, and their customers.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369111)

Most companies care about having support available, but will never actually use it...
Because most of their customers never actually use it, the support is rather lousy.

The people making the purchasing decisions seem more concerned about being able to blame someone else if something goes wrong, rather than trying to minimize the risks of something going bad, and trying to mitigate the damage that could result.

Blaming someone else is not going to help the business.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (4, Insightful)

SEE (7681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368011)

I suppose it's certainly more profitable to take other people's work and package it up, but what does that offer to a buyer?

1) Assuming by buyer you mean "end consumer":

Nobody asks, when they buy a copy of a board game, who invented the game or who made this copy. They worry about price, and how much enjoyment they will get out of it, and such. If they like chess more than Risk, they'll buy chess, even though nobody has a copyright on it. If you point out they could make their own chess set instead of buying one, they'll point out that they'd rather buy one than spend the time and effort, thanks. If they'd rather spend the time and effort, they'd have already started making their own.

So, go ask the buyers of Red Hat product what value they're getting. Buyers don't generally give a damn who did the work, as long as they're getting something they value for their money.

2) Assuming by "buyer" you mean "stock purchaser":

The reason for business is to make money, not to own technology. Since the buyer of the stock is interested in making money, he buys stock in companies that make money, and doesn't in companies that don't. He only cares about a company having unique technology insofar as the unique technology allows the company to make money. The same applies to every other feature of the company.

The reason to buy Red Hat, then, is that you expect Red Hat to make lots of money. The reason to not buy Sun is that you expect Sun will not. This applies whether you're buying just one share, or buying the whole company.

Very, very occasionally, a company with marketable technology will have utterly miserable, incompetent management. In those cases, there may be a realizable profit if you buy the mismanaged company or their technology and put new, competent people in charge. In general, this very rarely happens. Like pretty much anything, quality of management follows a bell-curve distribution, and you'll usually swap managers in the middle of the curve with experience for new managers in the middle of the curve who then have to learn new stuff.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (3, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368623)

The reason to buy Red Hat, then, is that you expect Red Hat to make lots of money. The reason to not buy Sun is that you expect Sun will not. This applies whether you're buying just one share, or buying the whole company.

there is another reason to buy a company... if it's eating into your own market then you buy it so you can shut it down and strip out anything worth keeping thus preserving your own market.

Re:Why is redhat worth so much? (4, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368659)

I have to admit i've always been at a total loss as to why redhat could have the same sort of market cap as someone like Sun (at least pre-takeover rumours).

Ahahaha, RedHat has been ridiculously priced from day 1, but this guy is a 'troll' for asking a perfectly reasonable question.

To answer, Linux is perceived as a growth market, and Intel and others have invested a ton of money in RedHat to insure that they are in a strategically dominant position in the Linux ecosystem. There is only one organization that can coordinate changes on every level of the Linux stack, and that's RedHat.

However the actual value of that position in terms of revenue is still an open question.

RedHat for the people (1)

deets101 (1290744) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367593)

That belongs to the tax payers now, right? That means we will ALL own RedHat!

Re:RedHat for the people (4, Informative)

Mockingbird99 (657214) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367629)

Citigroup does not want to buy red hat and will not buy them. The citigroup analyst is speculating that now is a good time for some one else (Oracle, IBM, Sun) to buy them.

Re:RedHat for the people (2, Insightful)

rackserverdeals (1503561) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367809)

Citi also had the idea to push for less bank regulation [] and was a big player in subprime and CDOs [] .

How could you not take their advice?

Re:RedHat for the people (3, Funny)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367653)

Since Citigroup got all that money they could call it "Stimulix"

Re:RedHat for the people (4, Funny)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367741)

Since Citigroup got all that money they could call it "Stimulix"

If it involves Citigroup and Oracle, they should call it "GreedyPrix".

JBoss... (3, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367605)

Whereas I'm not too concerned about Red Hat Linux (especially since Oracle already has a version of it they brand as their own), my *real* concern is for JBoss, one of the best app servers out there.

If Oracle had not bought BEA, I'd think they'd buy up RH and replace oc4j/App server with JBoss, but since they *did* buy BEA, they now have WebLogic and JRockit; they'd probably just put JBoss out to pasture, which would leave a lot of folks who have deployed JBoss high-n-dry.

Yes, they wouldn't do it right away and yes, there's always the possibility of a fork, but it would make it that much harder of a sell to the boss who wanted to go with JBoss because it was a lot cheaper than what Oracle wanted for their app server.

Re:JBoss... (3, Interesting)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367747)

they'd probably just put JBoss out to pasture, which would leave a lot of folks who have deployed JBoss high-n-dry.

Just before they sold themselves to Compaq, DEC sold it's self-written DBMSs (the relational Rdb and DBMS, a CODASYL system) to Oracle.

We all thought that Big O would quickly force us all to migrate to RDBMS, but too many Important Customers doing Important Things rely on Rdb/OpenVMS, so 12 years later it's still under active development. (Of course, mostly by greybeards who have been working on it since the 80s...)

Oracle 11g on Linux, though, is winning lots of converts, so I wouldn't be surprised if it "soon" goes into maintenance mode, coasting along another decade until HP finally puts VMS out to pasture.

Re:JBoss... (3, Insightful)

upside (574799) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368939)

I am worried. RedHat has embarked on a patenting strategy and the company may be bought by someone with less scruples.

Re:JBoss... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369315)

I'm more concerned for the employees. I work for a company that was recently assimilated by a very big three letter company. I have never seen so much incompetence and selfishness in all my life. They come in promising roses, but really they want to screw every last employee of the company.

I would like to see RedHat stay independent (4, Interesting)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367609)

I can't think of a good match. Maybe IBM just because IBM's service arm seems to be doing really well, but then that would be bad for the whole industry for IBM to own an enterprise Linux distro.

It would be kinda funny if Microsoft bought them and actually tried to make money off Red Hat Enterprise Linux, though....

Re:I would like to see RedHat stay independent (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367625)

but then that would be bad for the whole industry for IBM to own an enterprise Linux distro.

You do realize that there isn't much preventing IBM from spinning their own, right?

Re:I would like to see RedHat stay independent (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367659)

I'm surprised that IBM doesn't have their own edition of Linux, but it's probably a very complicated set of considerations that they must weigh.

Re:I would like to see RedHat stay independent (2, Insightful)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367933)

They want to be agnostic, sell you support for everything. They don't care what you run, they have some non-native english speaker somewhere that can help you with it.

Re:I would like to see RedHat stay independent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368499)

IBM has already SuSE Linux. IBM owns part of Novell.

Re:I would like to see RedHat stay independent (2, Insightful)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368607)

There is no good match. There isn't a company that would be willing to buy them that has also had the commitment to open source that Red Hat has. Losing Red Hat would, IMHO, be a big blow to Linux for years to come, even if it was lost to a buyout to an company like IBM.

oh noes. (4, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367631)

Does this mean we're going to have those "What's in YOUR wallet" commercials switch to "What's in YOUR computer?" I can see it now...

"Hi, I'm a Mac."

"Hi, I'm a PC."

"Hi, I'm a viking maurader. Bleeeeaaarrrgh!"

Red Hat Linux: Sneak attack, bitches.

Re:oh noes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367661)

It's better than any of the other pathetic "I'm Linux" commercials I've been seeing.

Seriously, I love linux as much as the next slashdotter, but those videos were an embarassment.

Re:oh noes. (2, Interesting)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368637)

Thats because you need an AD campaign not random people talking about random facts with random corporate image from random media at random targets.

For a successful AD ampaign you need:

Creative Team:
A team of people dedicated to the product and the corporation, design guy, copy guy, planning guy and a blue collar guy preventing too much pot smoking and facing the corporate overlords.

Message Personality:
a unified tone of communication: imagine what kind of person would be Linux and how he will sell itself (I know, would be weird, tron guy anyone?)

Corporate image
so that joe sixpack, Juan Perez and Jou Hoa Ling can distinguish Linux from the rest and remember all the Message just looking at a single piece of advertising.

You need to have a media strategy to select which media will go before and after, what media is looking your target Etc.

The target or the future user: what they want and what they think, their expectations and socio economic variables.

As far as I know theres certain bad rap (justified) about marketing people in the IT community thats why I see it so hard for Linux to have the media relevance it deserves but believe me, the random strategy do more harm than good. What you're are trying to create are memes not messages to sell the idea that it's Linux.

If Linux starts to earn market share theres only one option, to advertise. Before the competitors starts to be worried and just dump shitloads of money in PR waiting for the humble penguin to fall in the trap of the n00b. Someone should take responsibility about it and try too create a team of Advertising people "that happens to like linux" and put that shit together once and for all.

I can reaz your mindz and you askz "why should we pay this potsmokers for advertising when no one pays the developers?" Money? you don't need money for Advertising unless you are going for mass media, Guerrilla marketing anyone? I'd volunteer to it and I know theres plenty of other people that would do it. Once theres an strategy set anyone and their uncle can try to make the Ad there will be filters and debug as in the developer world, is not so different.

It's an idea that have been around my head since I first meet Linux and fucking hurts to be so far from the action : (

Re:oh noes. (1)

Arkofjoy (1489545) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368961)

It is easy really. Every time one of your friends who uses Windows get yet another Virus you tell them that your Linux system NEVER gets viruses and offer to burn them a disk of your favorite version. Or just hand them the disk. Not everybody takes me up on this and many are still losing Data to viruses but every time they do I suggest they change over to Linux and remind them again it NEVER get viruses. Eventually they get the message. Who needs advertising. You are the best possible advertising for Linux. They know you and trust you and have NEVER heard you complaining about you system being destroyed by some stuff you got from an Email your Mother sent you

Re:oh noes. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369127)

People stupid enough to get they Windows boxes repeatedly owned by viruses would still be stupid enough to let trojans onto their Linux boxes.. and good advertising for the masses wouldn't simply about "it doesn't get viruses" - that is important, but it's still incredibly geeky and uninteresting to most if it also means running a "second rate" OS.

Re:oh noes. (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367817)

That would so own... seriously.

SCO (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367633)

SCO is the obvious choice.

Re:SCO (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367913)

SCO is the obvious choice.

Yep.. I can just picture Daryl trying to get his head around GPL..

Buying Red Hat? (5, Insightful)

Lorien_the_first_one (1178397) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367691)

So Oracle and Citigroup are thinking of buying Red Hat, eh? Perhaps they envy the freedom that Red Hat possesses. Perhaps they wish to control Red Hat in a way that no others could. Did they hear a whisper from Microsoft?

I think that the worst possible thing is for Red Hat to be consumed by a larger company such as Citigroup or Oracle. Their statements and actions demonstrate little understanding or regard for the culture in Red Hat.

Their wish to buy Red Hat is akin to the wish to put a flowing river in a bucket. Once the water is in the bucket, it is no longer flowing.

To put it differently, to derive the benefits of Red Hat, they would either just buy the software they produce and use it, or buy their stock and sit on it. But as soon as they try to control it at their own whim, that which was free and living, will squirm away, somewhere else.

Imagine what will happen to all the customers, developers and channel resellers who trust Red Hat now. It will simply not be the same with a new master.

I hope Red Hat can maintain their indepence for the sake of everyone who depends on them.

Re:Buying Red Hat? (1)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367975)

Oracle already takes RedHat's work and rebrands it. Buying RH itself and paying for those developers out of its own pocket makes little sense when they already have what they need from RH without spending a dime. The only thing RH can do for Oracle at this point is reduce their profit margin.

I suppose they could buy it just to bury the brand, but that seems like an awfully big expense to bury a company that's not really doing a ton of damage to Oracle's business anyway.

A couple of years back, the "Oracle wants to buy RedHat" rumor turned out to be sort of true: Oracle wanted to take RH's software and sell it as its own, but it certainly didn't want to actually buy the company. Given Ellison's comments in the past about why he thinks buying open source companies is silly (because if he wanted what they had, he would just take it), I wouldn't expect Oracle to make a play for RH.

Re:Buying Red Hat? (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368373)

I think the idea here is that a large company would want to buy RH not for any technological reason, but rather so that they can take credit for RH's profits. The technological pros and cons don't enter into it, what's much more important to them is that the analysts are happy, so that their share price stays up while the economy tanks.

Re:Buying Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368627)

The other aspect is that CTOs only have so many golf slots per week. Especially in this economy! If you take out a competitor, you get that many more rounds to sell 'complete solutions'

Re:Buying Red Hat? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368895)

Worse: managing developers and getting them to play well together is tricky. When one team freewheels well, another has a micromanaging leader who is really _good_ at it, and another is using Agile programming, getting them all under the same corporate umbreall is awkward. It's compounded by merging in-house technologies: employment listings, accounting systems, webpages, Active Directory versus LDAP, CIFS versus NFS versus local storage and backup for file sharing, Perforce versus Bitkeeper versus CVS for source control, etc., all mount up surprisingly in lost productivity for doing a merge.

I've worked in a company that bought out a small company in a related field: it was an amiable purchase, the products were a good fit, and the developers became pretty thrilled with the fiscal benefit and their stock options. But the new location stank for them, they got split up to different groups, and small companies are far more flexible for new technologies.) So most of them drifted away over the next few years, and their former, exciting product leadership was lost entirely.

Re:Buying Red Hat? (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369015)

So Oracle and Citigroup are thinking of buying Red Hat, eh?

No. The article summary is totally fubar.

Citigroup analysts think Oracle might want to buy Redhat. That's it.
Citigroup is a finance company, them acquiring Redhat would be like Bank of America buying Microsoft.

RedHat is a dead end (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367697)

I know they look attractive right now because buying Canonical is out of the question but I just don't see them lasting much longer with their current Linux distribution. Ubuntu is based on a better design and is already overrunning RedHat.

I foresee a RedHat flavored Ubuntu being released... Either that or RedHat is going to crash and burn.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367743)


Remind me, which company is currently turning a profit, Red Hat, or Canonical?

You are clearly not very familar with Red Hat at all so I'll let you in on a little secret. Red Hat is not making their money on desktop installs.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (3, Interesting)

L7_ (645377) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367795)

The problem is that people like me install Ubuntu on thier home desktop machine. I understand apt and all of the debian specific configuration file locations.

When I go into work and have to work on the RHEL servers, I can mostly get yum and rpms to work for the server configuration that I want, but god damn if it isn't like pulling teeth.

Now that I have enough power, and I have to make a decision on which distro to get support from, do I go with something that I know (Debian/Ubuntu and Canonical?) or something that is similiar yet foreign (Redhat/RHEL)?

The last 3 servers that I've been in control of have been Ubuntu.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367893)

When I go into work and have to work on the RHEL servers, I can mostly get yum and rpms to work for the server configuration that I want, but god damn if it isn't like pulling teeth.

Since you're getting paid for it, I suggest you should not be satisfied with "mostly". It just sounds like you blame RH for not doing your job right.

Do you suggest every sysadmin should take their favorite distro to work? Well, I like Gentoo.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367953)

Nothing wrong with that, I've seen places run well with Gentoo. But Ubuntu is no different then running a Debian shop and alot of company where or are debian shops. Red Hat is a great choice in many cases and learning it is a good thing. If only fo for the fact that the enterprise software industry standardizes on it. I'm an apt/dpkg fan but yum/rpm can handle itself fine. Now if someone would standardize /etc locations of config file, that be great.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368447)

Very good comeback.

I'm trying to aim for RHCT, and I'm failing terribly. That I blame on my own ability to learn.

Good for you for using Gentoo! I heard how difficult it is.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368005)

IBM doesn't support Debian-based distros on their servers.

Every version of Red Hat is LTS, not just every other like with Ubuntu.

Red Hat owns and has tons of expertise in JBoss, which is a benefit in the enterprise.

Red Hat support IBM Power chips, Intel Itanium2 and IBM Mainframes, though Ubuntu supports Sparc. Those SunFires tempt me...

Last year I finished a gig at a telco that deployed over 9,000 IBM Blade Servers all running Red Hat.

It works both ways. I cut my teeth on Red Hat, so RPM is second nature to me while Debian's dpkg and apt took some fumbling. I have Ubuntu-EEE at home but run either CentOS or RHEL on servers.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27369321)

You missed the parents point, totally. You are where the puck is. He is going where it's going to be. IOW, new users install ubuntu, not fedora. Ie, the redhat potential userbase is _shrinking_ while the ubuntu/debian one is _growing_.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (3, Insightful)

shinzawai (964083) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368741)

People like me install Fedora on their home desktop machine. I understand rpm/yum and all of the Red Hat specific configuration file locations. When I work on the Debian/Ubuntu servers, I can mostly get apt and dpks to work for the server configuration that I want, but science damn if it isn't like pulling teeth. Now that I have enough power, and I have to make a decision on which distro to get support from, do I go with something that I know (Centos and Red Hat) or something that is similiar yet foreign (Debian/Ubuntu)? The last 3 servers that I've been in control of have been ESX with CentOS VM's. Wow .... does that mean Debian and Canonical are dead-ends ?

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

jernejk (984031) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368801)

Generally, I also prefer Ubuntu over RHEL/OEL, but Oracle database and WLS are not supported on Ubuntu.
Also, database did work for us on Ubuntu, but WLS had some strange problems, so we decided to switch our Oracle servers to OEL, and that works really good.
I think Oracle buying Redhat would be a good thing. I think it was quite amazing how quickly they merged BEA into their Fusion Middleware. Dropping your own app server in favor of another in a few months is not a small thing to do. Jdeveloper 11g TPs was still using what was supposed to be OC4J 11g...
They also don't drop existing brands. They'd probably call it Oracle RedHat linux and drop their own unbreakable linux. From an enterprise point of view, probably a good thing.
What I don't know is how is Oracle going to respond to IBM/Sun merger. Java is THE platform Oracle put all their strategy in. If somehow Java is not as open as it is any more, Oracle looses big time. So... how about Oracle buying Sun?

Re:RedHat is a dead end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27369261)

I run Ubuntu at home and admin Redhat & some Suse at work. I have no problems switching between the two. This is possibly because I'm not an idiot, and I know how to do my job correctly.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367869)

Red Hat also managed to boost revenue by persuading existing customers to expand the size of their contracts.

Which may or may not come out right in the long term.

Re:RedHat is a dead end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367929)

how so? the server market is quite profitable since support is generally needed more. you won't make much money unless you secure sales to oem deals (which canonical managed with dell). That being said, inroads for linux in desktop will be slow at best (face it, micrsoft may be old but it's like trying to go over an adult mammoth that is still alive).

In this market, buying a company that is profitable now and probably will stay one for a good amount of time is better then one that is STILL losing money though is pretty close to breaking even (which isn't something people wanna buy where profit can go either way).

Re:RedHat is a dead end (1)

KermitJunior (674269) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367993)

And you're clearly not very familiar with long term strategy. Microsoft isn't making any money on their desktop installs either. Ask a few questions... how long has Red Hat been working at this? Now, how long has Canonical been working at it? Which one has more Momentum? Canonical is moving extremely fast and it's more important to look at where they have come from up to now to see where they are going. They're getting ready to blow past Red Hat and leave them in the dust. Why? Because they will own the Linux Desktop market in many ways (not 100% or even 50%, but the majority of Linux installs) and that will lead to the business side. Just wait and see.

One Ring to Bind Them All??? (2, Funny)

cybscryb (530482) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367729)

It wouldn't surprise me to see IBM end up owning Sun, Red Hat and Microsoft in the end.

Re:One Ring to Bind Them All??? (1)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368671)

what? IBM owning Microsoft Sun and RH? IMHO Not that easy. Maybe IBM owning SUN and RH and the new team p0wning Microsoft it's more than likely.

This thinkpad spin up the fans in joy.

Actually (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367761)

The problem with buying a company like Red Hat is very simple: you end up with nothing. It's a company basically of, by, and for open-source near-zealots.

If you buy it and try to control it, the talent leaves and you bought a client list.

How about IBM? (1)

nerdville (1517591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367785)

I was wondering of there is a play now for IBM and Sun to take Red Hat under their wing as they move to the "Open Cloud"... That could set up IBM/Sun vs. Microsoft/Amazon/Yahoo?! Background info: []

Intel, please (4, Insightful)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367787)

When I was at Red Hat, I assumed the scenario would be that Oracle would make a hostile takeover bid, as they are wont to do, and then IBM would come to the rescue with a competing offer that wouldn't gut the soul of the company quite as badly. Now that IBM is in talks with Sun, that seems less likely, unless the IBM/Sun deal falls through, in which case it's a no-brainer for IBM.

Failing that, the next best candidate, in terms of the good of the community, would be Intel. I mean no disrespect to AMD in this regard, because it's not really about hardware, but rather Intel's role as a technology mutual fund that happens to have CPU, chipset, and networking hardware in its portfolio. Adding a Linux vendor would further establish them as a developer of core computing technologies, in a role as a partner rather than a competitor to Oracle and IBM. Intel has a long history of working well with the open source community, which has certainly played a role in their acquisition of some top Red Hat talent over the past few years.

With all due respect to the many dedicated Linux engineers at Oracle, I don't trust Larry Ellison as far as I can throw him. Nor do I trust the Red Hat shareholders, who are overwhelmingly financial institutions on the brink of bankruptcy, to take any sort of long term view when considering competing offers, which is why I would not be shocked to see them cash out to Oracle, even knowing full well how the company would be gutted, because they so desperately need the money right now just to stay solvent. I just hope that when Oracle makes the move, which seems all but certain if the IBM/Sun deal goes through, that there's someone else around with a genuine commitment to the community and deep enough pockets to make a cash offer, since a stock deal under terms typical for large acquisitions wouldn't give the institutional shareholders the liquidity they need.

Re:Intel, please (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367949)

And how would Microsoft react to such a deal? Can Microsoft side with AMD and not hurt itself as much as it would hurt Intel, if it so chose?

Let them be bought... (-1, Offtopic)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367823)

...for this will breathe life into the issue of making KDE the default desktop on Redhat. But as of now, the idea of KDE on Redhat (as default) is always dead on arrival.

Re:Let them be bought... (0, Flamebait)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367959)

Good, KDE sucks.

Re:Let them be bought... (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368259)

I agree.

The current bug party with screen garbage is absolutely UGLY, as well as being a security risk.

KDE's beta testing dropped the ball, because a bug this atrocious should not have made it past the testers.

Re:Let them be bought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368711)

Hint: Is this a compulsion of yours, bringing KDE to every discussion? I remember you doing the same in the Windows 7 discussion...

Re:Let them be bought... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368993)

How is the default DE relevant for this discussion?

Nonono. Citi is not interested in buying Red Hat. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27367835)

That should be made clear.

It was only a Citi analyst that raised the possibility of Red Hat being a takeover target.

I have a lot of respect for Red Hat (1)

VanderJagt (833197) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367875)

I've been impressed by Red Hat's ability to consistently make money and perform well. They were one of the few profitable companies during the big .com bubble burst at the turn of the century, and it's good to see them repeat this success story.

For that reason, I think that Red Hat just won't be very appealing to a buyer who wants to interfere. I think the two most likely interested buyers would be squatters who just want a secure investment and therefore won't interfere or truly enlightened people who know the real power of a principled open-source support company.

I think they're likely to stay independent for some time, though, so long as they can stay under the radar of the government of the United Socialists of America.

And the winner is... (5, Interesting)

MrWin2kMan (918702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27367955)

Larry Ellison and Oracle are beginning to lust heavily over Red Hat...I fear most of the best parts of RH would get lost in the catacombs of Oracle and never see the light of day again... Sun seems to be busy playing coquette to IBM (although HP would be a better fit). Novell would be a logical choice and would (finally) promote some consolidation in the Linux realm. Apple already has an OS based on a (flamebait acknowledged) superior Unix derivative. I would instead look to Cisco or Dell. Cisco has no in-house OS (other than IOS of course) and with their recent entry into the server hardware market it would be a smart buy, although not necessarily for RH. Dell would be an ideal combination, as Michael Dell is already a Linux proponent, although of a slightly different flavor. Dell isn't as integrated as their main competitors and has no real software presence, however their close association with Redmond might be a giant monkey wrench. If Dell wanted to grow up and really play with the big boys (the ones who are left anyway), they would grow a pair and go bold. Who else has $4-6 Billion in cash lying around looking for more software presence...Adobe? Google?

Economic Nonsense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368279)

There is no such thing as a hostile takeover. If you offer enough money that the majority of shareholders sell to you, what's hostile about that?

If Red Hat wants to stay independent maybe they should buy back their stock from the market, that way no one can buy them.

Would be good new for Ubuntu if ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368603)

Oracle was to buy RedHat, which makes a lot of sense to their overall business model, because Fedora would be the first to go. Linux on the desktop doesn't make any money, as the CEO of RedHat recently said. Any potential buyer wants the profitable support business. The desktop is a waste of resources as far as they are concerned. Remember people, public companies exist solely to make money for their shareholders NOT to support the OSS community at large.

Typical Slashdot misunderstanding (5, Insightful)

OlivierB (709839) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368759)

in TFA there is no mention of Citigroup looking to buy Redhat; just a mention that a Citigroup stock analyst upgraded his target share price to $17 and kept the recommendation to "hold".
Once again everybody on ./ has gone and commented on how Oracle culture would be compared to Citigroup's whereas that's not even the point..
Sheesh people, the linked article is probably under 250 words. Could you not have given it a read? Did it not strike you as something strange that a bank would want to buy a software vendor?

Re:Typical Slashdot misunderstanding (2, Interesting)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368871)

the linked article is probably under 250 words. Could you not have given it a read?

New here?

Who? (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368921)

I can't imagine RedHat has any particular value to any existing software vendors. A hardware vendor might make sense, but it would have to be a huge one. Anyone outside of the IT industry would be insane to purchase RedHat.

Clearly it would be beneficial to get a hold of RedHat's patent portfolio.

Also it would make sense to acquire a competitor, though I'm not sure who that would be. Microsoft would encounter regulatory roadblocks, Sun is on the verge of being bought-out itself. IBM doesn't see RedHat as any kind of threat; and I don't think they make enough on Linux services to want to buy a Linux vendor solely as a hedge.

Oracle seems to be a natural choice. RedHat has been pushing it's database and application server stuff for a while as a cheaper alternative to Oracle. Like another poster said, it would be beneficial for Oracle to absorb RedHat to support it's database products and eliminate a competitor. But it's not as though Oracle would be in any type of position to capitalize on any of RedHat's other markets. And it's not as though RedHat is much of a threat to Oracle anyways, since their products are in completely different price-ranges.

It would be interesting to see a company like Cisco buy RedHat. They could marry a rack of servers with the Cisco logo with a pared-down, remote-terminal type RedHat desktop that would run on a company's existing desktop hardware, only with much higher security and easier management. No anti-virus needed. No more time-consuming desktop patch management. Higher performance, more flexibility, and the latest buzz-word, Linux! It would be an easy way to jump into the server, desktop, and cloud markets all at once. And it would be an easy sell in a down economy, to companies that are weary of upgrading to Vista. Merge the Windows server and Cisco network admins. Outsource to a hosted Exchange service if you really need that, otherwise run a basic cross-platform groupware service on your new Cisco servers. It could work.

I'll start worrying when they buy Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27368957)

Red Hat is just a company. Let Oracle buy it if they want. Debian is another matter. When that goes, Linux is doomed.

That's worth bearing in mind.

Re:I'll start worrying when they buy Debian (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368981)

Debian can't be bought, it is not a company with shareholders. You would need to convince the Debian maintainers that they ought to be part of Oracle -- I know some of these guys, hell would freeze over first.

shoulder surfing (1)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 5 years ago | (#27368969)

If i were Redhat I would be saying no to potential shoulder surfer owners looking to maximise profit without regard for the clientelle.

What would RH employees think ? (4, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369035)

With a technology company its value is made up of:
  • Intellectual Property - I, stuff that other people cannot use without a license - everything that RH is open source. Some management/internal s/ware might not have been published
  • Intellectual Property - II, Patents - RH has a few for defensive purposes. I don't know how new owners could use them against other FLOSS users: if they wanted to
  • Contracts & customer good will, if you piss off your customers this can evaporate quickly
  • Good staff/employees. In a few months the good ones could leave.
  • Bank account, buildings, computers, etc.

The most important of the above is the RH staff. If citigroup/... were to buy RH and do the ''wrong'' things the staff would simply decamp, create another company ('BlueBoot'), take a copy of all the source code (its all GPL remember) and the RH customers would follow the staff for their support.

Any clueful potential purchaser would realise the risk that what they bought could just evaporate.

Contradiction in terms (1)

Kynde (324134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27369215)

A good buyer for RedHat? I can't see one, because anyone big enough to buy that, imho, is not suitable to control it.

Any company some involved with computers/sw will have vested interests in steering it towards their own goals and in the towards damnation. Any company totally unrelated to computers would be in it for the money and we know how that story usually ends.

A good owner for RedHat? I'd say Torvalds or Cox, but I don't see either one on the potential buyers list...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?