Beta
×

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!

TSL Is Dead, Long Live TSL

timothy posted about 11 years ago | from the by-any-other-name dept.

Linux Business 107

Masta writes "Trustix AS, the company behind Trustix Secure Linux filed for bankruptcy on monday. Erlend Midttun and Christian Toldnes, two former employees of Trustix AS and the main developers behind Trustix Secure Linux, founded a new company, named Tawie Technologies AS. They continue the work on TSL, under the new name Tawie Server Linux. All former volunteers and contributors declared their support for the new distribution, so 'TSL is dead, long live TSL.'"

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

Wrong. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102497)

No, BSD is dying you fucking nerds.

Well.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102500)

I, for one, welcome our newly bankrupted TSL overlords.

first ? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102503)

Frist post!

Proclamation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102504)

Know ye timothy, that we of slashdot have deemed ye to be of the vilest sort of editors, descended from the under-races and fathered by lustful perverse acts. So hereby do we recommend you for sexual revision at the GNAA house for anal reeducation. Know that all you understand currently about your anus will be unmade in your psyche, and you will find new and more wondrous uses for your back-end. It is not a rear window, timothy it is a door. Soon, immense phalluses of significant natural pigmentation will burst through that door, and your life will change forever.

Re:Proclamation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102598)

That was surreal. Thank you.

Re:Proclamation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102846)


So hereby do we recommend you for sexual revision at the GNAA house for anal reeducation

Come on, let's be fair with the kid, just because he likes to get fist-fucked and have his intestines exploited it doesn't mean he's gay.

monday? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102509)

Around these parts we capitalize the days of the week. Monday

Trustix Secure Linux: The future is secured (5, Informative)

another misanthrope (688068) | about 11 years ago | (#7102518)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Trustix Secure Linux: The future is secured

Founding father of Trustix Secure Linux, Erlend Midttun, along with Trustix Secure Linux developer, Christian Toldnes now offers development, maintenance and support for community and commercial customers from the newly started company - Tawie Technologies AS.

Trondheim, Norway - 1st October 2003 - Erlend Midttun, a seasoned UNIX and Linux system administrator and the creator of the Trustix Secure Linux distibution, along with Trustix Secure Linux developer Christian Toldnes, founded Tawie Technologies AS as a means to provide full support and services around the Linux operating system in general, and the Tawie Server Linux product in particular.

Erlend Midttun says: "The community and several commercial customers needed someone to guarantee the future of the Trustix Secure Linux product. This move ensures the customers and the community that the future of Trustix Secure Linux is secured. The name of the product is also changed to Tawie Server Linux, to reflect and state what the product is and to avoid any conflicts with trademark ownership. The product will continue to be developed under the GPL".

Tawie Technologies AS not only employs Erlend Midttun, experienced security and software engineer Christian Toldnes was also part of the founding duo. Christian is the current maintainer of SWUP, the automatic software update tool for Tawie Server Linux (TSL).

Christian was instrumental to the release of TSL 2.0 this summer, and says: "We have received several reports of TSL 2.0 installations in several 30+ server environments. Serving Windows and UNIX users, primary DNS, web and e-mail services in Europe, Americas and Asia. Systems administrators rely on the stability and security of TSL, and our move to Tawie Technologies AS now gives us the time and security we need to focus on TSL".

Tawie Server Linux 2.0 provides full cross upgrades from Trustix Secure Linux 2.0. The details for doing this is provided on the Tawie Technologies webpage.

ABOUT Tawie Technologies AS Tawie Technologies AS was founded in 2003 and provides consultancy and service contracts for the Tawie Server Linux. Services are provided world wide, with a wide range of support options available.

For more information about Tawie Technologies AS, see http://www.tawie.com

ABOUT TAWIE SERVER LINUX Tawie Server Linux is a Linux distribution targeted at companies, of all sizes, in need of a low footprint and high security server operating system. Tawie Server Linux includes the open standards based SoftWare UPdater, SWUP, which keeps all software packages up-to-date, resolves library dependancies and integrates public key cryptography to ensure safety and security.

For more information about Tawie Server Linux, see http://www.tawie.net/

PRESS CONTACTS: Jo Uthus,

Linux is trademark Linus Torvalds All other trademarks are the property of their respective holders.

Re:Trustix Secure Linux: The future is secured (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7103349)

It is extremely unlegal to move asset from a company that goes out of business to another company, it's theft.

The companies assets are to be sold to whomever pays the most for it at bancrupt, the money goes to the credit-holders.

So if you move the asset you steal from the people who has claims on you (that you couldn't pay, therefore going bancrupt).

TSL? TSR? (1)

Stargoat (658863) | about 11 years ago | (#7103771)

TSL? TSR? How many folks did a double take on that? I know I did. Hmmm. I thought TSR had "died for our sins" long ago.

Doesn't bother me... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102521)

Microsoft is still going strong.

You see, when you acturally sell your products, you make money. Why can't the OSS folks get that?

Re:Doesn't bother me... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102530)

I, for one, welcome our new Redmond overlords.

Re:Doesn't bother me... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102594)

New business model.

1. Sell product.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

I can't see that ever working.

That's because MS does things right... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102624)

Microsoft is going strong because they present a viable desktop OS that actually works.

The problem with Linux and its many and varied distributions is that there are no standards. What you get when you install Red Hat Linux is different from Yellow Dog is different from Gentoo, etc. KDE? Gnome? Enlightenment? Apart from all looking like high-school DOS-based mode 13h GUI programming projects, they don't even work the same. There is no uniformity in their look and feel. I don't blame people for not adopting Linux when they can't even get a homogeneous experience across the different distributions.

Seriously, it's time for people who want to see Linux to succeed to whittle it down to ONE distribution and make a damn decision on what GUI to ship. Dump KDE or Gnome. Just dump something. If and when Linux becomes as uniform in its user experience as Windows does, then I think you'll start to see it succeed. But not right now.

Re:That's because MS does things right... (1)

jchristo (472245) | about 11 years ago | (#7102750)

I don't think that supporters of Linux need to be concerned about competing with Microsoft, it is not necessary to be concerned with the lack of a unified desktop interface. Microsoft has to worry about providing compatibility across their product line and backwards into their older software for corporate reasons; Linux developers are freed from that.

I rather think that the diversity of choice is rather a healthy thing. People can chose for themselves what interface they like and use it and contribute code into it. There is no corporate mandate to capture market share; there is just the opportunity to use and develop nonproprietary software.

In addition to being a functioning OS, Linux is also a tool for exploring new developments which is in the hands of anyone who is interested. Yes, many efforts will be dead ends, but failure is inherent in any novel venture. It may turn out that the entire Linux development effort will eventually become dead end, but 1) the product will be out there for anyone to inspect at a future time, and 2) the open source movement will move onto whatever new system has developed.

That's entirely backwards (1)

revividus (643168) | about 11 years ago | (#7102827)

If Linux ever came to the point where there was Only One True Distribution, it would cease to be what it is -- as long as it's open source any reasonably ambitious hacker can make his or her own distribution, if they really want to, even if all they do is run through `Linus From Scratch' and customize it lightly. The multidute of distros will NEVER change, and if it did, Linux would cease to be interesting to me, and a lot of other people.

Linux will never become as uniform in look and feel as windows, and it never should. Now, there may come a de facto standard -- Gnome or KDE, or perhaps the Ximian Desktop -- and that is fine. But people will, and should, always be able to run fvwm or whatever else they want.

Have fun.

Re:That's because MS does things right... (1)

Jessta (666101) | about 11 years ago | (#7102843)

Interesting, That's the wonderful difference between windows and linux flavours (lol, I remember that flavour debate). You can only get windows in two forms, NT and 9x, that might be nice and standard, but what if you don't like either of them. With linux you've got a choice between widely differing distros. if you don't like one, then you can try another, all created and supported by different people. That's the whole point of open Source, you can change it to fit your needs and the great 'standard' thing about linux is that most of the linux software will work no matter which flavour you choose to use.

They stole (-1, Offtopic)

TLouden (677335) | about 11 years ago | (#7102523)

my initials. Dortunately most people I know won't confuse my TSL with their TSL.

Re:They stole (1)

grub (11606) | about 11 years ago | (#7102632)


Don't give up so quickly, you should be able to get $699 from each user of TSL's Linux..

OSS Business model (4, Interesting)

Interruach (680347) | about 11 years ago | (#7102525)

If lots of OSS companies start going bust then starting up again, will that shake investor confidence in the other companies (eg, redhat) even though their business model may be sound?

Re:OSS Business model (1)

The Almighty Dave (663959) | about 11 years ago | (#7102584)

Probably not. Look at the world of small business. People start businesses all the time. Sometimes they fail. These same people will start another business.
It is no reflection on other established businesses.

Re:OSS Business model (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 11 years ago | (#7102959)

Indeed, some investors won't even look twice at an Entrepreneur until he's had at least on good failure. Investors know the new ventures are a crapshoot. They want to invest in someone who is going to get back on the horse after it throws him or her.

Anyone who wants a sure bet should stick to stuffing money in a bank account. Mattresses don't accrue interest. For every other investment avenue there is inherent risk. Stocks dive. Bankrupt companies don't pay back bonds. Real-estate is a giant game of hot-potato.

Re:OSS Business model (1)

lanswitch (705539) | about 11 years ago | (#7102675)

Don't think so. Redhat for instance has strong support by important hard- and software vendors. And that's because a lot of people within the major companies recognize the strong points of Linux.

Right now the OSS companies are still experimenting with different business models. The mere fact that one company the size of Trustix goes bankrupt only shows that the companies still have a lot to learn. But they will succeed in the end.

Re:OSS Business model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102699)

Is that problem OSS specific?

branding under GPL (1)

Storebj0rn (692884) | about 11 years ago | (#7102849)

Normally, the brand (in this case, "Trustix") is an important asset when a bankrupcy is declared.

The concept of rebranding the distribution to the new company will probably make some lawyers scratch their heads for a while.

However, most of Trustix' products are standard software (standard as in "you pay for the software but you actually only have a license to use it, blablabla" - just like in the Windoze world), and these products still belong to the bancrupt Trustix and will be part of the assets potentially to be sold on.

Actually, this is precisely the reason they were struggling [www.digi.no] , they had problems selling software the old fashion way to Linux users. Also, the one's that were willing to pay preferred standard stuff like Checkpoint.

IMHO the problem for Trustix was that the number of linux users willing to pay for SW is/was not big enough to sustain them, no matter how good the products.

Depends at how they look at it... (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 11 years ago | (#7105734)

If they see it as a Linux vs. rest of the world, then yes. If they see it as an internal shake-down in the Linux market, no. Then the others have managed to drive a competitor out of business, proving their products, services or solutions superior. (Ok in real world it's not that clear-cut with marketing, FUD, public perception etc., but that's the general idea).

Quite frankly, with the number of distributions competing for the Linux market (yeah yeah, I know they compete in different markets, but do the investors know that?) I don't think they'll take that as a bad sign for Linux. Consolidation happens quite often in a maturing industry.

Kjella

Its good to see TSL live on (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102557)

Its good to see Open Source show its strengths like this. In any other development model, TSL would have died and been sold off in small peices, no longer much use to anyone. TSL is a valuable player in the Linux distribution markets, and many people would be sad to see it go, not to mention, unable to find a suitable replacement! For those that do not know, TSL has a large range of innovative features, many of them innovative even in the Linux market space where innovation is always abundent (Just look at KDE, or Gnome!)

However, one thing still bothers me. Apparently, it is O.K to spend cash like water, rip of your creditors and declare bankruptcy, and then just do a little paperwork and carry on as before? These people have no shame, and the "volunteers" who continue to support these shucksters are fools for trusting a bunch of people who are demonstrated themselves to be crooks. The Government should investigate this immediatly, and freeze the assests of this so-called "new" company until the previous creditors have been paid off in full. Personally I feel it is high time we brough back debtors prison for amoralistic scam artists such as these.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

jagilbertvt (447707) | about 11 years ago | (#7102626)

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this. How can a company declare bankruptcy, and then the ppl involved with that company start a new company and continue on as usual without any repercussions?

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (5, Informative)

tyldis (712367) | about 11 years ago | (#7102641)

However, one thing still bothers me. Apparently, it is O.K to spend cash like water, rip of your creditors and declare bankruptcy, and then just do a little paperwork and carry on as before? These people have no shame, and the "volunteers" who continue to support these shucksters are fools for trusting a bunch of people who are demonstrated themselves to be crooks. The Government should investigate this immediatly, and freeze the assests of this so-called "new" company until the previous creditors have been paid off in full. Personally I feel it is high time we brough back debtors prison for amoralistic scam artists such as these.

If you are referring to Trustix and TSL you are wrong. TSL was one of the products Trustix had (they had so many they went bankrupt). Only the two main men behind the Linux distribution went on to form a new company to support the distro they developed. It is not 'same shit, new wrapping', it is a completely new company with no other relation to Trustix than that they were emplyed there at one point.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

His name cannot be s (16831) | about 11 years ago | (#7102742)

It is not 'same shit, new wrapping', it is a completely new company with no other relation to Trustix than that they were emplyed there at one point.

Pity the headline and blurb didn't explain that. You summed it up in as much text, but made it clear.

but, whatever.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102647)

Do some research. Trustix wasn't a linux distribution company. They made and sold a closed source firewall package for linux. Trustix linux was largely an offshot of their main business and was never used to generate revenue. So their real product, which is what has value, has gone to the creditors as it should.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (3, Interesting)

i_really_dont_care (687272) | about 11 years ago | (#7102743)

However, one thing still bothers me. Apparently, it is O.K to spend cash like water, rip of your creditors and declare bankruptcy, and then just do a little paperwork and carry on as before?

Depends. First, this is the whole idea of having a "business", "company" or whatever: You invest in something, but have a fixed amount of money to loose, because you can go bankrupt and start all over. When you start a bussiness, you can be sure, that if the business goes down, you will typically loose money, but it will not break your neck. This is not different from an investor who will also only give the company some fixed amount, which he may loose, or get back sometime.

The problem is another one here, though. Normally, a company that goes bankrupt, leaves some value. Say, a manufacturing company leaves machines, vehicles and the likes. These are f.e. auctioned, and so the amount of money lost often is kept within a limit. Likewise, a software company normally leaves a bunch of source code (some may call it "intellectual property"), and the rights to this code can be sold to another investor.

With open source, all the source code is public, and there is no point in selling it (except you transfer the copyright, but that's difficult with something that builds upon another GPL'd product, but that's another story). Thus, at any time, the value of the "intellectual property" contained within the open-source company is effectively zero.

That doesn't mean that open source is worthless or companies building their business model on open source are deemed to fail. It just means that investors must be aware of the special "intellectual property" issues that arise in such a scenario.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

Gaijin42 (317411) | about 11 years ago | (#7102774)

The greater impact of this, is that lenders and bond holders and stock holders will be less likely to invest in open source projects, because they know if it goes under, there is nothig to recover.

open-source investments (1)

bizcoach (640439) | about 11 years ago | (#7103803)

Thus, at any time, the value of the "intellectual property" contained within the open-source company is effectively zero.

Apart from the value of brands/trademarks, this is true. That however is not a reson for investors to avoid investing in open source / Free Software companies. Every investor who knows what he's doing will estimate the risks of the various investments (at least how big the worst-case loss is), and the investor will diversify in order to avoid as far as possible the possibility of unacceptably big losses.

If anything, this should make investing in open source / Free Software companies more attractive because for this type of businesses, estimating the worst-case loss is trivial - it's obviously the total investment.

The true problem with investing in open source / Free Software companies is that currently there is so little knowledge and experience on how to successfully run such a business that all such investments are high-risk but at the same time open source / Free Software business does not create any effective monopolies. Without the possibility of creating an effective monopoly, there is not the possibility of a very high ROI, and without this possibility high-risk investments don't make sense.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (5, Informative)

christht (712369) | about 11 years ago | (#7102745)

What bothers you would bother me too. If it where true that is.

Erlend Midttun and I have only been working as developers for Trustix AS, and solely with the open source project TSL. I got laid off the 25 of juli this year, and have been working with the distribution as a volunteer since then. So has Erlend.

We are two developers wanting work with what we love. I'm sorry to experience the consequences of bad managment, and hope we will do better with the support services we offer, than the Trustix AS management did with their commercial products.

Erlend and I have started the new firm with our own savings, and hope it will bring a solid future for the TSL development. We might loose, but please don't compare us with the old owners / managment of Trustix AS.

I just wanted to set things straight. :)

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

Storebj0rn (692884) | about 11 years ago | (#7102965)

First of all: Lykke til!

Second: Didn't your mother teach you never to ruin a perfectly good discussion with facts, of worse, first hand knowledge? Stop reading Slashdot and get back to running your company!

Third: According to the Trustix web site, Jo Uthus is/was still VP [trustix.com] of product marketing, yet you've just (according to the press release above) hired him for the new company. That validates the comparison between the companies. Why would he do a better job for the new company than for the old?

Important Clarification (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102986)

First off, mod him up!

Next: I am relieved to see this was not a bancrupt and restart-job, something the Norwegian law makes quite easy (something I know since where I work pulled the same stunt many years ago and people are still unhappy about what happened)

Thus I sincerely hope you can clarify the issues on your web pages; as it stands it gives me and probably others too a bad feeling.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

hamster foo (697718) | about 11 years ago | (#7102837)

What innovations has TSL made? I'm genuinely curious, and you didn't list any examples of what you are referring to.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

Quarters (18322) | about 11 years ago | (#7102927)

In any other development model, TSL would have died and been sold off in small peices, no longer much use to anyone.

You mean, "no longer much use to anyone who couldn't afford the purchase price", right? Or, do you really believe that when one company buys part (or all) of another company's assets they don't expect to get anything of worth out of the deal?

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (1)

kabocox (199019) | about 11 years ago | (#7103058)

Personally I feel it is high time we brough back debtors prison for amoralistic scam artists such as these.

Yeah, and for those that default on there Credit Card payments and those that have been victims of ID theft, but the Finance Industry would rather right it off as "Credit Loss."

And lets not forget those that are late on those college loans. Those are half way "educated" people that need to be watched before they get ideas into there head.

Re:Its good to see TSL live on (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7104758)

However, one thing still bothers me. Apparently, it is O.K to spend cash like water, rip of your creditors and declare bankruptcy, and then just do a little paperwork and carry on as before?

That's why the new name is Tawdrie Technology - tawdrie by name, tawdrie by nature.

Nice spelling (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102562)

Trustix AS, the company behind Trustix Secure Linux filed for bankruptcy on monday.

Bankruptcy hey? Wonder what that might be that it warrants such a change in distribution.

Oh you meant Bankrupcy.

Slackdot editors slacking as usual.

No entry found for Bankrupcy. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102613)

Did you mean Bankruptcy [reference.com] ?

Re:No entry found for Bankrupcy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102673)

No you fuckin moron I said bankrupcy for a reason.

Re:No entry found for Bankrupcy. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102680)

Would that reason be that you're an illiterate fuck?

Re:Nice spelling (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102653)

HAHAHAHA. A stupid fucking AC who tries to sound intelligent by correcting the spelling of a word in a post only it was spelled correctly in the first place.

That is pretty damn funny.

unprecedented evile nearly disempowered? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102585)

long live the planet/population?

send in the clones?

not yet.

the gnu/hobbyist/dogooders have nearly accomplished their monumental task of providing alternatives to fuddles' payper liesense hostage scams, their efforts will not go unrewarded, just as the whoreabull misdeeds of the felonious corepirate nazi execrable will not go on without raising the badtoll.

Re:unprecedented evile nearly disempowered? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102618)

That was surreal. Thank you.

Great Distribution (1)

Universal Nerd (579391) | about 11 years ago | (#7102610)

I use it for all my small linux machines.

Very streamlined, very well supported (I'm gonna start donating so they will have a little more $incentive$) and just plain small.

A great project!

Re:Great Distribution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102667)

I'm gonna start donating

I assume you are being sarcastic. Pretty funny to donate to a company that shows such fiscal disregard.

Re:Great Distribution (1)

homer_ca (144738) | about 11 years ago | (#7103781)

Agree here. If you want an RPM based server distro without all the bloat, Trustix is great. I wish them the best of luck.

New Business Model (4, Funny)

jagilbertvt (447707) | about 11 years ago | (#7102645)

1. Start new company
2. Create Product
3. Declare Bankruptcy
4. Start new company selling product made by previous company!
5. Profit!
6. Rinse and Repeat!

Re:New Business Model (1)

tyldis (712367) | about 11 years ago | (#7102756)

This is *not* the case for TSL.
Read comment [slashdot.org] and comment [slashdot.org]
This is *not* the case for TSL.

This happens all the time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102840)

What happens is that the initial round of investing is based on over-hyped expectations of a sound product. The product is developed, fielded, and works, but the cash flow doesn't meet the original goals, often because of the cost of the debt incurred.

Solution? Go bankrupt, screw the initial investors, shed the debt, and start over.

Iridium is a good example.

-- ac at work

Re:New Business Model (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 11 years ago | (#7102910)

And think of the tax benefits! If you never make a profit, you never pay taxes on corporate profits.

Re:New Business Model (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7105877)

That looks a LOT like the strategy of one of their competitors, Argus Systems Group. They had a trusted linux, PitBull LX...

and they've done the -bankruptcy/take the intellectual property and start over- thing twice now.

There's no law against it but that doesn't make it right.

Who knew? (0)

gpinzone (531794) | about 11 years ago | (#7102649)

So the answer to #2 in:

1. Make Linux distro.
2. ???
3. Profit!

was "declare bankrupcy." Please tell me, how do I invest in this new startup?

Sad... (1, Interesting)

DrFlex (711207) | about 11 years ago | (#7102685)

This is truly sadening to see an OSS company with a functionnal and viable product go down.

Looking at it from the business perspective, does that mean that there was no demand for the product? Or is the business model that is not viable??? I vote for the second option. Open Source is nice on paper but it struggles in a world driven by profit margins.

It kinda ressembles the Church business model. Have faith and contribute... Some have faith and will contribute. Some have faith but need some proof to be real believers (profit?). And the rest, they just don't care...

Computer Nerds Suck (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102718)

This does not matter. I am not a nerd.

OMFG! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102724)

<rant>This can't be happening! Yet another drama about a superior (aren't they all) linux distro going under, only to be saved by the concerted efforts of open-source superheros! Next thing you know, the Unemployed Guy [slashdot.org] will get tasked to do the screenplay for the made-for-TV miniseries, due to his obviously superior writing skills.</rant>

Come on guys, let's try reporting some real news for a change...

Sad news ... Stephen King dead at 56 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102730)


I just heard some sad news on talk radio - Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

OH MY GOD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102744)

That is so fucked up. I just started reading his books. HOw did he die????????

Re:OH MY GOD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102795)

RTFP, there weren't any more details fuckass.

Re:OH MY GOD! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102803)

It's just so sad, I can't beleive it.

Elegy for Trustix Secure Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102740)

Elegy For Trustix Secure Linux

I am a Trustix user
and I try hard to be brave
That is a tall order
Trustix Secure Linux's foot is in the grave.

I tap at my toy keyboard
and whistle a happy tune
but keeping happy's so hard,
Trustix Secure Linux died so soon.

Each day I wake and softly sob
Nightfall finds me crying
Not only am I a zit faced slob
but Trustix Secure Linux is dying.

Classical failure (1)

Krapangor (533950) | about 11 years ago | (#7102767)

Main rule for business:
You won't succeed if there is a well established, cheaper, reliable Competitor (OpenBSD) out there.

But at least they can truthfully blame Theo for their failure.

Re:Classical failure (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 11 years ago | (#7102989)

You won't succeed in business if there is a well established, cheaper, reliable Competitor [sic] out there.

Explain Microsoft again to me then? Bottled water? 93 Octane gasoline?

Re:Classical failure (1)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | about 11 years ago | (#7103468)

Explain Microsoft again to me then?

Simple, they were there first. Altair BASIC was their first product, and one of the first commercial products available for microcomputers. By the time IBM wanted an OS for their "PC", Microsoft was firmly established.

Re:Classical failure (1)

aelfwyne (262209) | about 11 years ago | (#7103823)

We're forgetting CP/M aren't we?

Re:Classical failure (1)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | about 11 years ago | (#7104219)

According to this page [sbcglobal.net] , MS released their Altair Basic in 1975, while CP/M wasn't released until 1977. The IBM PC wasn't released until 1981.

By the time IBM developed their PC, both DEC and Microsoft were already firmly established companies. For whatever reason, IBM chose Microsoft to develop an OS for their PC, and the rest is history. I wonder if there's a parallel dimension where DEC won that contract, and an updated, graphical version of CP/M rules the market? ;)

Re:Classical failure (1)

secolactico (519805) | about 11 years ago | (#7103557)

Explain Microsoft again to me then?

Unholy business practice [ubersoft.net] ? (I'm only half joking)

Bottled water?

Snobbery? Plus, the tap water at some locations is simply a no-go. Blame it on the local purification authorities or the pipes or whatever. The fact that bottled water is more expensive that a can of coke, however, always baffled me. Do the really ship it from some mountain in Switzerland or wherever?

93 Octane gasoline?

You got me there. I always use 91, since I didn't see a performance difference.

Re:Classical failure - marketing (1)

ekuns (695444) | about 11 years ago | (#7103852)

Explain Microsoft again to me then? Bottled water? 93 Octane gasoline?

Ha!

The answer to all three is marketing.

Many bottled waters just come from the tap in a different city. I have lived in a very few areas where the tap water tastes awful or just has a very high mineral content. By and large, however, tap water is just fine and is no healthier than bottled water.

Where Octane is concerned, consumers believe that higher is better, as with so many other things. Despite studies [consumerreports.org] that reliably show that octane makes no difference as long as your car is not knocking on the octane you're using.

Microsoft? Marketing. Well, plus other "tactics" too. :)

And to the topic parent, who would have thought that Google could arise and compete against such a well established competitor? [yahoo.com] When there is not an artificial barrier to entry, it's not uncommon for a small new company to challenge an established market leader.

Re:Classical failure (1)

caffeineboy (44704) | about 11 years ago | (#7103903)

93 octane gasoline isn't out there because it is 'cool'. It is out there because some engines are built with high compression and require a higher anti-knock index (the amount that you can compress the vapor before it spontaneously ignites).

The idea that a lot of people have, that the 93 is 'more powerful' or in some other way better, is a myth that is perpetuated by oil companies. Indeed many have been sued over advertisements that implies that 93 will boost your engine in some way, when in reality 93 in an engine tuned for 89 is a waste of money. But for an engine with a higher compression ratio, you will have problems if you don't use high octane gasoline.

For more on octane rating, read up at how stuff works [howstuffworks.com] . For more on the lawsuit over false claims, try this description [dpg-law.com] which indicates that the difference is only one of anti-knock rating.

Re:Classical failure (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 11 years ago | (#7104027)

93 octane gasoline isn't out there because it is 'cool'. It is out there because some engines are built with high compression and require a higher anti-knock index (the amount that you can compress the vapor before it spontaneously ignites).


You're obviously an American. I believe the 93 octane comment was made by a European, where 93 octane is the LOWEST normal octane rating available, comparable to 87 octane in the US.
Thus, your comment is exactly the wrong way around -- still valid, but not relevant because of the common erroneous assumption that everything relates to the US.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Classical failure (1)

caffeineboy (44704) | about 11 years ago | (#7104184)

Look at the original comment again; The poster is an american, as he is pointing out 3 things for which there are cheaper, equally reliable solutions that are not more successful.

He was trying to point out 'vanity' products: Microsoft (not cheaper or more reliable that some other server solutions) bottled water (often tap water from somewhere, but it's IN A BOTTLE == fancy) and 93 octane (marketing exists, as I mention, that touts it a more powerful).

Re:Classical failure (1)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 11 years ago | (#7104548)

For clarification, I am an American. And the point I was making was that for most cars 93 octane (the way we measure it here) is a waste of money. If any car has a funky octane requirement, it's usually that it needs 89 instead of 87. (Read your manual, YMMV).

My point is basically that the competition for different grades of gas are right there in front of the consumer. While I have owned cars that needed the 89 octane, 93 is for weird vehicles or folks intent on spending an extra $0.20 a gallon. (About $0.05 / Litre for our European friends.)

And in another twist, I would also like to point out that bottled water usually goes for $1/liter here. Gasoline, at $1.80 for a gallon (3.8 Liters.) You are paying more for bottled water than gasoline people!

Hey there little girl.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102793)

....you know what the only difference between your daddy and me is?????

I"LL FUCK YA!

One of the best there is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7102796)

I really love TSL, I use it mainly among my servers, its a streamline dist, no doubt.

I hope they'll make it in the future.

GPL Software = B Movie Monster (3, Funny)

EvilTwinSkippy (112490) | about 11 years ago | (#7102875)

You can't kill it, not even with armies or nuclear weapons. Despite moving slowly and ploggingly, it somehow overtakes those perky coeds. It's created by lone inventors working at late hours. It has strange power that allow it to do the seemingly impossible. It does not destroy out of passion or design, it just so happens that civilization was in its road.

Bad Business Behaviour (1)

yuri (22724) | about 11 years ago | (#7102922)

Warning: didn't read article, just the post.

Isn't this unethical behaviour. They obviously have debts, i.e. creditors. The creditors get nothing, but the same company has basically started again. These sort of phoenix companies are dangerous to investors and consumers. And when consumers get burnt there is an outrage.

What is different here, except you guys think they are the good guys?

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

FR-lopet (628130) | about 11 years ago | (#7103001)

Those people aren't the owners of the previous company. They are just former employees who start a new company with their own savings.

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

yuri (22724) | about 11 years ago | (#7103680)

"Founding father of Trustix Secure Linux, Erlend Midttun"

from the press release

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

Ola PeK (599004) | about 11 years ago | (#7103572)

So basically what you're saying is; if your company goes down the drain, you should no be allowed to do business ever again?

I look at it this way; maybe a bankrupcy taught you a thing or two, so that you wont make the same mistakes again.

Of course if one person goes bankrupt again and again and again there should be some controlling means, but I would also say there is something wrong with investors who repeatedly bet money on a notorious bankrupcy filer.

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

yuri (22724) | about 11 years ago | (#7103702)

No one of the important ideas of a company is (i forget the economics term) limitation of liability. You don't lose your house because of a company going under. Thats important for corporations.

But phoenix companies, those that go under with debts and immediately start again are dangerous for consumers and future creditors. The guy was the founder of the previous company.

If the old business wasn't profitable and had enough debts to be bankrupt. Why is pretty much the same business going to be better now.

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

MenThal (646459) | about 11 years ago | (#7105361)

The guy was the founder of the previous company.

"Founding father of Trustix Secure Linux" (the linux distro) does not equal "Founding father of Trustix" (the company). (Apologies to Erlend if I have my facts wrong.)

IIRC, Trustix basically used TSL as an underlying open source platform for several other commercial products. I.e. "Let's sell an easily configured [insert service here] on a Linux box. Hmm, what distro to chose? Let's make our own." So TSL was a by-product of the original company, AFAIK. Kinda like Trustix the company was selling cars, while Tawie is just selling the innovative, highly tuned engine that was used in those earlier mentioned cars. Tawie can pick up TSL where they left off because of the GPL, but not so with the commercial products.

Not the same company, not the same business model.

Re:Bad Business Behaviour (1)

ekuns (695444) | about 11 years ago | (#7103693)

Isn't this unethical behaviour. They obviously have debts, i.e. creditors. The creditors get nothing, but the same company has basically started again. [snip] What is different here, except you guys think they are the good guys?

What's different is that it's NOT the same company. Check out in this discussion where one of the two people creating the new companycomments [slashdot.org] on the situation.

The company that went bankrupt (Trustix AS [trustix.com] ) had many products. The two people supporting what was Trustix Linux used to be employees of Trustix but were laid off months ago.

A beautiful thing about open source licensed projects is that if the company creating the program goes under, it's comparatively easy to create a new company (or consortium or whatever) supporting it. With a proprietary program, if the company goes under, the individual developers who worked on it have no rights to continue the project.

Although as some have pointed out, some creditors may prefer the proprietary model because maybe someone will buy the assets of the bankrupt company to get the rights to the proprietary code which will help creditors get more money back.

As long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7103862)

Trustix isn't the name in the copyright notices in the code files and as long as these two gentlemen didn't write the code on company time, they should be in the clear. However, if that's not the case, the bankruptcy proceedings may become very interesting.

Package system? (1)

CausticWindow (632215) | about 11 years ago | (#7103115)

Anybody know what package system TSL uses?

I looked around their website, but couldn't find anything on it. If it's dpkg, then maybe I'll have a go at it.

Re:Package system? (2, Informative)

masta79 (712349) | about 11 years ago | (#7103134)

It's using RPM. For normal maintaince there is a tool called swup (SoftWare UPdater), which brings your system up-to-date or installs packages via ftp/http.

This is normal... (1)

Bendebecker (633126) | about 11 years ago | (#7103127)

As a tree grows, the weaker branches need to be trimmed. The weak perish so that the strong may survive. Not ethical when it comes to people, but when it comes to business its both ethical and true.

Sad, Sad News (1)

banzai75 (310300) | about 11 years ago | (#7103224)

I've always loved The Singing Latvians. Rest in peace my friends.

This is a new company. (1)

Zapdos (70654) | about 11 years ago | (#7103279)

Not the same old company. Two developers started a NEW company. The old company is still bankrupt.

What...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7103423)

What's this "x is dead, long live x" from?
I've heard it used before, but couldn't
quite figure out where it came from.

Re:What...? (1)

fnj (64210) | about 11 years ago | (#7104999)

It comes from "Le roi est mort. Vive le roi!", translated as "The King is dead. Long live the King!". It was used when the monarch died, proving his mortality, to indicate that the monarchy would endure.

bubble burst. (2, Insightful)

GISGEOLOGYGEEK (708023) | about 11 years ago | (#7103631)

soo Linux companies can be scummy shady outfits too it seems.

Obviously their business plan failed, they stuck all the debt and liability with the old company while putting all the assets into the new company and sank the debt into bankrupcy.

look for the new company to be wallowing in debt struggling to survive in a year or two due to the same people making the same mistakes again.

investors should avoid this company like the plague, when times get hard they will just abandon you again.

TSL=Super Swamper Triple Stage Lug (1)

lscotte (450259) | about 11 years ago | (#7103760)

At least that's where my mind was this! Let's go wheelin'...

I'm confused.... (1)

greymond (539980) | about 11 years ago | (#7103800)

So a couple of Developrs started a company making some cool stuff. However the company went under, obviously because not enough other people thought it was cool stuff. BUT these two people are able to get another business loan and/or fund the SAME business AGAIN? Um... Maybe i'm just a fan of successful business practices, but if your business goes under, I wouldn't start another one doing the SAME thing...

Linux is dying (and other troll fallacies) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7103915)

Hopefully Trustix will see the same outcome as
FreeBSD: since the death of BSDi, their user
base has grown, their feature set has improved,
and there are more developers working on it.
Sometimes, the novelty of a corporate entity
associated with an open source software project
-- the focus on profit often distracts from the
focus on proper engineering. Perhaps this
may teach the slashdot trolls a lesson or two
also: companies die, not successful open source
projects.

Linux is Dying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 11 years ago | (#7105150)

It's a fact. Comproved by NetCraft, blablabla! LINUX IS DYING.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?