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!

Red Hat to Acquire JBoss

CmdrTaco posted more than 8 years ago | from the i'm-sure-that's-important-to-someone dept.

159

tecker writes "Redhat.com has a banner and press release that states that it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought. The press release states "the world's leading provider of open source solutions to the enterprise, today announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire JBoss, the global leader in open source middleware. By acquiring JBoss, Red Hat expects to accelerate the shift to service-oriented architectures (SOA), by enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform." Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?"

cancel ×

159 comments

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

OH GN0ES!!! WILLIAM WALLASE WAHNTS TEH FREE SOURCE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098816)


jboss (1, Insightful)

msh104 (620136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098821)

why would redhat buy this?
it already was open source right...
can't they just... contribute to it.

Re:jboss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098838)

It's because Linux people are idiots lol

Re:jboss (2, Insightful)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098843)

Why contribute when you can control.

Re:jboss (5, Insightful)

ajakk (29927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098872)

Red Hat wants the support contracts that JBoss has. That is where these companies are trying to make money. I bet that Red Hat will start offering a consolidated support contract that will offer support for both JBoss and Red Hat when you are running JBoss on Red Hat. People who are paying money for JBoss support will be more than willing to push out a couple of bucks for Red Hat support as well.

Red Hat couldn't create their own support group for the JBoss application server because of the complexity of the technology and the lack (and cost of acquiring)of people with the Java skills to understand it in-depth. Also, Red Hat didn't have the reputation of providing world-class support for Java. Now it will.

I hope you're right! (2, Informative)

The Waxed Yak (548771) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099553)

"I bet that Red Hat will start offering a consolidated support contract that will offer support for both JBoss and Red Hat when you are running JBoss on Red Hat."

"Official Support" has been one of my biggest obstacles trying to sell OSS as a consultant. I work on whatever platform my customer dictates, but I always try to make a strong pitch for OSS. 90% of the time, the customer refuses. Why? It is *always* support.

Yes, yes, I know that you can buy support for just about any major OSS application, but I think consolidation can be the key. At least a few of my past "inflexible" customers would have accepted an OS/AppServer/DB combination if it all came in a nice supported package. (Think "Redhat/JBoss/RedHatDB")

Re:jboss (1)

Slash Veteran (561542) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098894)

they want to make it suck, make it more difficult to keep up-to-date, add a couple of security holes that are enabled by default, ship released versions with known bugs, and dumb it down a little bit

Re:jboss (0, Troll)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099043)

you don't really have to buy jboss to get the results that you pointed out.

  an overbloated linux distro company buys an overbloated java application server. sounds logical, especially if redhat is going to get all the $$$ from the jboss support.

  jboss was a clever business idea, but this is probably the last line that we see of it as it is right now, the next releases will start to scare people off, hopefully towards the more open and free implementation of the same thing, the geronimo.

  i have to admit i never liked jbosses model, give the users a nice piece of [censored] without proper documentation and then charge for the books and support. the software itself was great when i had the look at it, but the fact that you had to hack around german forums to find out some nice tricks for free, wasn't so tempting.

  Choose http://geronimo.apache.org/ [apache.org] or any other implementation unless you're all for the red hats.

Re:jboss (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099189)

"i have to admit i never liked jbosses model, give the users a nice piece of [censored] without proper documentation and then charge for the books and support. the software itself was great when i had the look at it, but the fact that you had to hack around german forums to find out some nice tricks for free, wasn't so tempting."

Exactly what piece of open source sofware have you found that has really well writen documention?

For that matter what piece of closed source software have you found that comes with really good documentation?

Oreilly makes most of it's money by documenting other peoples software.
I don't see any real difference. Heck I spent a good part of friday looking for a fix for Asterisk@home. I found it on a forum on sourceforge after a few hours of searching.
Of course I added it to the wiki but WTH didn't anyone else?

You show me any program that comes with complete documentation, tutorials, and troubleshooting guides please? I would love to see it.

Re:jboss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099593)

Visual Studio

Re:jboss (1)

Krimszon (815968) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099653)

We just bought Visual Studio 2005, it came with three CD's of MSDN documentation including a special documentation browser that integrates on-disk and on-line documentation.

Re:jboss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098919)

If they won't buy it... someone else will.

Re:jboss (4, Insightful)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098956)

Red Hat has a good history of doing nice things for open source projects, or proprietary projects that they bought and made open source. If a big supporter of open source didn't pick up JBoss, Oracle would have killed the project eventually (they have experience doing these things). One cool thing about this is that Red Hat develops GCJ (Gnu Compiler for Java) and they've got it compiling Eclipse and the Java portions of OpenOffice.Org, so I'd venture to guess that this increases the chance of JBoss running natively too which would be interesting.
Regards,
Steve

Re:jboss (1)

platypus (18156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099028)

You know, they have to make money. And buying JBoss is a very good move, IMO. Because if they offer bundled support contracts, there is a big opportunity for JBoss to gain market share.

And their reference to SOA is right on, there's a big move forward in the Enterprise to put Application Servers as a SOA glue layer in front of legacy application. And that is one thing where open source is very strong.

What about impact on LAMP and RUBY? (1, Interesting)

mrops (927562) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099113)

Being a Java developer I am looking at this as good news. However I am wondering how this impacts the momentum LAMP and RoR are gaining in recent time, both of these use Linux as their prime deployment platform, infact L in LAMP is Linux. Will this pull some potential projects to JBoss/J2EE, projects that some decided they will do using LAMP because they do not want the hassle of configuring JBoss and or Tomcat? Further are we going to see more Hosting services providing support for JBoss as they do today for python,php etc.

Re:jboss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099290)

They are trying to force the inferior GNU Java down peoples throats.

But what are the terms? (5, Interesting)

liliafan (454080) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098823)

Although I think this is an important development for java developers, I can't really see it really being a rival to Server 2003 and ASP, don't get me wrong I hate ASP and M$, but the simple fact is they have a huge market share, that just doesn't want to move, additionally they have legacy.

I would be interested to know more about the terms of the takeover, I remember reading recently that Marc let the Oracle deal drop because if/when he sold out he wanted his terms and conditions to be met.

Re:But what are the terms? (3, Interesting)

ajakk (29927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098849)

Having been burnt on his first startup, I suspect that Marc got pretty good terms on the deal. JBoss has been running in the black, and their connections with some big clients could help Red Hat get more service contracts. I think that the acquisition makes sense, because it will help push Red Hat into the high end service area even more (i.e. where the real money is). I do wonder how well Red Hat will be able to manage the diverse group of people working for JBoss. I am sure that not all of them will be happy with the buyout. Considering the international nature of JBoss workforce, I suspect the Red Hat might have some difficulties managing them.

Re:But what are the terms? (3, Insightful)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098850)

PHP has an even bigger market share, by your logic they should have bought Zend. Well designed systems that are harder to master, like Rails, JBoss and ASP.Net won't drive the trivially easy web languages like ASP and PHP out of business, but there's room for everyone.

Re:But what are the terms? (2, Interesting)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098876)

Hell, if they only wanted the code, they could just fork it, and work on their own fork. But a company is not source code. They don't just want middleware source code, they want middleware developers to take that middleware to the places they want it to go. Thus, it makes more sense to buy both the source (which they could get for free) and the developers (which they can't) in one go.

But don't worry, if you don't like the direction RedHat are taking JBoss, you can fork from their version at any point.

Or you can piss and moan about it, take the moral high ground, denounce RedHat, but do nothing and contribute nothing yourself.

Re:But what are the terms? (2, Interesting)

jforest1 (966315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098891)

"Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?" Redhat has long since won the battle in our 5000-server datacenter.

Re:But what are the terms? (2, Interesting)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099267)

I think this move is about competing with IBM just as much, if not more, as it is about competing with MS.

integrating acquisitions usually issue for RHAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099629)

Red Hat doesn't have a great history WRT buy-outs: just use google, to see the companies that have been "eaten" and then pooped out.

Here we go again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098825)

Unsubstantiated, unspecific and blatantly unfair comparisons between Red Hat and Microsoft in 5..4..3...2..1...

Redhat to aquire JBoss (5, Funny)

vv2 (671799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098828)

So they are not buying Oracle then - settling for JBoss must be a bit of a dissapointment.

Re:Redhat to aquire JBoss (1)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099030)

And it was so hard to be unambiguous.

Maybe something like "JBoss will be acquired by Red Hat and not by Oracle as previously thought."

Editors, try harder.

Wow (1, Funny)

phil-trick (24853) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098830)

I didn't know RedHat was going to buy oracle....... ;)

Re:Wow (1)

mozkill (58658) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099286)

it was probably just a cover so that nobody would know about their 'actual intention' of acquiring JBoss.... on the other hand, I heard about the JBoss thing last year sometime... but i dont remember from what news source it was...

What does this mean for Mono? (2, Interesting)

Epeeist (2682) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098832)

Given that the biggest Linux vendor is going with a J2EE application server are there any implications for Mono and its associated application stack?

In another topic it was pointed out that Novell are not doing particularly well with Linux. Given that they employ a number of Mono hackers are there any implications for Novell and said hackers?

Mono and Java integrate nicely (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098848)

IKVM http://www.ikvm.net/ [ikvm.net] is all you need

help this girl... http://oneluckyboy.com/ [oneluckyboy.com]

Re:Mono and Java integrate nicely (1)

msh104 (620136) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098882)

all you need is a little "over the edge"
AWT and Swing aren't even there at all.
It's java implementation is not complete either.

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (0, Redundant)

philipmather (864521) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098870)

Nothing until netcraft confirm it.

Sorry, TBH I don't think Mono ever developed enough momentum just like Novell really. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Mono or Novell aren't good or competitive or whatever but there's fashionably late and then there's Mono.

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098898)

It will mean competition. Both platforms will get better at a tremendous rate in different directions. However since the code is open sourced other people will merge the basic infrastructure of the two. Most of the difference will be on the bleeding edge and the underlying technologies will converge towards what works best for either project.

    Michael

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098944)

Given that the biggest Linux vendor is going with a J2EE application server are there any implications for Mono and its associated application stack?


Yes, the implications are that Mono will remain a bastard child that nobody wants to use for real business. It will continue to be seen as a stupid idea.

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098945)

To answer your questions what will happen to the Linux and Mono hackers at Novell?

Answer: they will be laid off

There's no money in open source software. Besides, Mono isn't a community project anymore. Its a Novell project. Unless you're a Novell employee or someone working at a well-known company, then your contributions are spat upon.

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098949)

It is not only servers, jboss has much more to offer, I am just saying Hibernate, JBoss embedded and Seam.

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098975)

Despite the Mono associations, Novell relies quite a bit on Java. ConsoleOne, Groupwise client (Mac/Linux), many OES services, etc. Although I'd love to see some of these Java apps converted to Mono (w /GTK#).

-matthew

Re:What does this mean for Mono? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099314)

Mono is not something that would challenge JBoss in the corporate web application server area that Red Hat is aiming for. Not trying to troll/flame, but Mono is simply not there yet, and it may never get there. Large companies that want to use .NET will just use Microsoft's products; they wouldn't be using Mono, even if Novell is backing it. For Novell to compete with Red Hat, they may have to go the J2EE route also.

I just don't see Mono having much of a future besides a few minor end-user desktop apps like Beagle, and even then a lot of Linux users will always view Mono's association with Microsoft's .NET as a stigma and never use it.

Grammer Nazi (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098834)

that states that it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought.

I read this, and thought there was speculation that Red Hat was considering purchasing Oracle. Now THAT would have been front page-worthy news.

Spelling Nazi (0, Offtopic)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098842)

It is 'Grammar', not 'Grammer'. If you are going to correct others' mistakes, please take the time to proof your own ramblings.

Thank You.

Would it... (3, Insightful)

Natrone (174754) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098837)

... give RedHat an instant "in" on the application server market so coveted by BEA and IBM? This seems like it could be an intersting fit, and would certainly save JBoss from extinction by Oracle (as seems to be the trend).

Re:Would it... (2, Interesting)

Coppertone (10332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098871)

I think there is a market for this. The company I am working for uses Redhat and Tomcat on x86-64 for internal application rather then full blown application server. Now that Redhat owns JBoss I can see a copy of JBoss AS included and pre-configurated on each copy of RHAS, which means that we can just install RHAS and start deploying our JSP and servlets to it.

The only piece of jigsaw missing for Redhat is of course a good quality JVM, and hopefully if they put enough people at it GCJ should be good enough in a few years time. Right now Redhat bundles a copy IBM's/BEA's JVM with RHAS, which I am more then happy with.

Hope they make it really Open Source... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098840)

... and put a lid on Fluery

5-day Stock Chart (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098855)

5-day Chart for RedHat [yahoo.com] . Someone is happy about the news :)

And? (1)

Excelsior (164338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098857)

How does this change anything? Red Hat could have packaged JBoss in Red Hat without purchasing it. Why do two open source products need to be owned by a single company to "rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP"?

Are they now going to benefit from being able to control the direction of JBoss? No. JBoss is an implementation of the J2EE standard.

The only advantage I can see is that they will now have JBoss experts who can tightly integrate the server with the OS (like IIS). But I have to think they could've done that by paying someone to do it for a far cry of the price of purchasing JBoss.

Re:And? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098901)

it changes things a great deal, most corporations want SUPPORTED software, and they will pay for that support as it's a miniscule part of any service implementation.

Re:And? (1)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098916)

They could have forked it, but then they could not have gotten the developers (which are kickass, some of the most well known guys in the j2ee world work there) and the customer base.

Re:And? (1)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098932)

It's probably just a gimmick to boost Red Hat's stock price. The tweaking that Red Hat does to Linux is rather abstract for most investors to appreciate, but buying another company makes it sound like something new is going on.

Re:And? (2, Interesting)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098979)

Companies need support, and now Red Hat gets JBoss's support contracts. This software isn't just made for free ya know, there is money made from it because it takes money to develop it. That's just how business works. Also, if a bigger fish didn't buy JBoss, it is well known that Oracle had its sights on it to kill it off, which would have been bad.
Regards,
Steve

Re:And?//Why JBoss and not Geronimo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099310)

I agree. This doesn't seem like such a big win to me. I have used JBoss for multiple applications, but I'm in the mood to switch to Geronimo in the future.

I knew it! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098875)

It totally sucks. JBoss sucks. Java sucks. And now RedHat...

But don't fear... We can always cheer for the little Linux guys...

Sounds like a good deal. (1)

ameoba (173803) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098887)

Sounds like money well spent. The site's not even linked from TFA yet jboss.org [jboss.org] won't respond to page loads. Very confidences inpiring from a web technology company.

Re:Sounds like a good deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098996)

I think what happened is that all the jboss guys are out getting plastered right now, and nobody was left to mind the shop. ;)

Re:Sounds like a good deal. (1)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099231)

my guess is that the site is getting WallStreet-dotted, probably a lot of financial sites are carrying this somewhere at the bottom of their news lineup

Re:Sounds like a good deal. (1)

twocents (310492) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099532)

Would it make more sense to invest money into supporting server load that is probably going to happen one time?

It's a good day for RHAT (2, Interesting)

t35t0r (751958) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098893)

..well at least a good day if you own RHAT stock, it is up nearly 10% (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=rhat [yahoo.com] ). Let's see what happens at the end of the day.

Makes sense for a service organization to do this (4, Informative)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098904)

Red Hat already had some enterprise Java stuff, but the middleware component just puts the icing on the cake. I think Red Hat is simply using this purchase to officially add this to their portfolio. By portfolio, I don't mean "software products", I mean their service offerings. The software has been, and will continue to be, free. It's the brains behind the operation that cost companies money. In fact, Red Hat probably already had engineers who were paid to support customers running Jboss, but now they are the "unofficial official" place to go when you want enterprise, corporate support for Jboss.

It's past time to stop looking at Red Hat as a software company and start looking at them as a service organization. This isn't surprising considering the success their RTP neighbor, Cisco, had as a service organization (and you probably thought they were a network hardware vendor all this time).

Re:Makes sense for a service organization to do th (1)

honor, not armor (904095) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099316)

Red Hat is not in RTP exactly, it is on NC State University's Centennial Campus.

/nitpick

ibm (1)

raffe (28595) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098912)

would be the company that doesnt like this the most. Hp will not care that much, but going up against websphere......

SOA, the 2.0 silver bullet (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098915)

By acquiring JBoss, Red Hat expects to accelerate the shift to service-oriented architectures (SOA), by enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform.

Ack, buzz word overload. By SOA let's assume the writer really means SOAP services. Microsoft's offering for these is ASP.Net and the WSE extensions, ASP simply isn't that good at generating or consuming SOAP. And once you open up your applications to everyone by using a SOAP service then all lock in is gone, and this works both ways. No longer do corporates have to stick to Java or ASP.Net, they can mix and match. You'd hope that this would enable people to concentrate on the best way to do things, but no, it'll just end up in a language pissing match again, thus ensuring the lovely ideals behind SOA go out the window.

Re:SOA, the 2.0 silver bullet (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15098977)

> By SOA let's assume the writer really means SOAP services

Uh, no - what they mean is Service Orientated Architecture (as it says in the article)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-oriented_arch itecture [wikipedia.org]

Try reading the article.

Re:SOA, the 2.0 silver bullet (1)

Mr Pippin (659094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098983)

Agreed. Even so, SOA encompasses a lot more than just "Web Services". A lot of other required products are missing if this is a keystone in leveraging an "SOA" portfolio.

JBoss Microsoft Agreement (4, Interesting)

ajakk (29927) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098918)

I wonder how this will play with the JBoss and Microsoft [com.com] agreement that was made in September. That deal was for Microsoft to work with JBoss so that JBoss can run better on MS servers. Clearly, having JBoss run better on Microsoft servers is against the interests of Red Hat.

Re:JBoss Microsoft Agreement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099049)

Clearly, having JBoss run better on Microsoft servers is against the interests of Red Hat.
I wouldn't say "clearly". By picking up a "JBoss on Windows" user Red Hat loses a Linux licensee but gains a JBoss customer. I would safely guess that JBoss support contracts bring considerably higher revenues than an OS license.

Good for Java technologies? (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098920)

With Redhat being pretty much the leader in the corporate Linux world, this will hurt Oracle and boost JBoss... it's time for me to start reading up on JBoss [tinyurl.com] . Could this be the start of the re-emergence of Java technologies at the forefront?

Re:Good for Java technologies? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099025)

For any serious application, Java has been at the forefront for a long, long time.

Get with the times, my friend.

Who will trust it? (1)

ma11achy (150206) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098926)

It may well emerge as a product to rival ASP and Microsoft's Windows Server 2003,
but the big question is, who will place their trust in it?

The product may be excellent, but it needs to be tried, tested and verified in the field before [INSERT MAJOR CORPORATION] will even consider integrating it into their [INSERT ERP/MIS/Whatever] system.

Re:Who will trust it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099318)

HUH?

PHP rivals ASP pretty damn hard. I know of many ASP jockeys that wish they were exposed to PHP a lot earlier simply because it's faster, better and easier.

This is very different that ASP.

Bill Grates (1)

rob101 (809157) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098928)

... Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge ...

Who knows, perhaps at some point in the future we might find microsoft complaining about anti-trust?

Re:Bill Grates (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098984)

They already do.

$350m (1)

raffe (28595) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098937)

According to this [silicon.com] "Linux distributor Red Hat said on Monday that it signed an agreement to buy open source company JBoss for at least $350m, a move that expands Red Hat's product line and adds to its growth potential."

$350m sounds alot! Altough 40 per cent cash and 60 per cent Red Hat stock!

Re:$350m (3, Insightful)

tppublic (899574) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099039)

Actually, $350M isn't all that much. A financial analysis looks something like this:

Assume JBoss is growing at a rate equivalent to the S&P 500 (10.5%) - I'm trying to be conservative here and not get overblown about growth (since values are very sensitive to growth).

Assume RHAT wants to at least maintain its return on equity of it's stock, currently 19%. So the earnings rate on the purchase is 19% - 10.5% = 8.5%

At $350M, that means JBoss has at least $30M in profit ($350M * .085) for this to make sense.

If JBoss is growing at 20% per year and you want a 5% risk premium (accounting for uncertainty in the future of the market for middleware), then the earnings rate becomes 4% (19% + 5% - 20%), which means $14M in current income at JBoss to have it make sense for RHAT.

You can see how growth causes leverage in a price ... since:
value = earnings / (required return rate - growth rate)
... this division is part of the reason why stocks who have high growth expectations are very hard to value (at least using this method, especially when the denominator becomes negative) and why they fall so quickly from high stock prices when their earnings slow. This is why other (more complicated) models may use a higher growth rate in close years, but force the growth rate to slow in later years to the market rate - it helps to avoid the crazy value multiplication that can occur in the simple models.

That's still quite a bit of cash... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099146)

Even if it's stock funny-money, it's still valuation- and it still is largely spendable, just not in the ways most people think of it. Sure you can't sell it all off right away, but you can sell it off in installments as it's typically common shares and it can be used as collateral for loans on other things like houses or new business ventures. It's not like the RHAT shares are worthless, you know.

Basic English (1, Informative)

Cranky Weasel (946893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098938)

Okay, I know I'm going to have to rebuild some karma here, but it's got to be said.

""Redhat.com has a banner and press release that states that it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought.

I agree when people say that basic problems with grammar and spelling are not a big deal on a place like slashdot. But when faulty grammar leads to a complete misinterpretation of the situation, you have to fix it.

This line says that somebody thought Red Hat was going to buy Oracle.

When your grammar becomes an impediment to understanding, it's time to work on it.

Re:Basic English (0, Troll)

sabat (23293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098965)

You are absolutely right; Slashdot's editors (hah! editors!) do not care about communication. This is one reason Digg is killing Slashdot.

Re:Basic English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099050)

Then again, all the totally uninsightful comments with homophobic slurs that get modded up on Digg send me right back to slashdot.

Re:Basic English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099426)

Indeed. If the gp thinks Digg is so great, why is he reading /. posts?

Re:Basic English (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099034)

Since I haven't got an account yet it's harder for me to lose karma over this, so easier for me to post :)

I think it is fairly clear what is meant. Otherwise it would be 'Red Hat will buy JBoss and not Oracle.' If you interpret 'it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle' as Red Hat wanted to buy Oracle but decided to go for JBoss after all, the sentence isn't finished yet. The 'it will be' implies that some other 'it' won't be. That other 'it' should be specified as well.
If one uses the exact same construction in another sentence, e.g. 'it will be John who goes out with Jane, not Jake', nobody finds it confusing. Not even if John and Jake are gay and one of em is going out with Jack (instead of Jane). (This to stop people from replying that it's clear from context that they both wanna go out with a girl) So you can hardly argue that there's something wrong with the grammar.

Have all people that misinterpreted this ever thought about the fact that it was probably you, and not the submitter/poster who made a mistake? At least he didn't write thrown instead of throne!

Re:Basic English (2, Insightful)

stuntpope (19736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099040)

This line says that somebody thought Red Hat was going to buy Oracle.

While the sentence is confusing and could be better, it states "it will be Red Hat that will buy JBoss and not Oracle as previously thought."

Who will buy JBoss? RedHat, or Oracle? It will be RedHat. Not Oracle.

Re:Basic English (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099500)

It will be Red Hat and not Oracle that will buy JBoss.

MOD ME DOWN PLEASE. REALLY. (2, Informative)

Cranky Weasel (946893) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099078)

My grammar-nazi post above should be modded out of visibility. An anonymous coward above made an excellent point. I don't know why I thought there were grammar problems with the original - it's fine. It might seem a little unclear, but there's nothing wrong with it.

I don't usually stoop to picking on grammar and/or spelling. You have my apology.

Missing Link (2, Interesting)

DeaderMeat (534833) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098980)

In order to run JBoss on RHEL you'll typically have to install someone's JDK - Sun's or IBM's (or even BEA's JRockit). Cue long discussion regarding open sourcing Java... I wonder how they intend to handle that gap when it comes to packaging and support.

I think this is a better result for JBoss and it's users than Oracle would have been. Still, I think Red Hat will have fun coping with some of the personalities in the JBoss line-up - I wish them luck!

Hmm, doesn't look like I'll be able to get to the JBoss forums today.

Re:Missing Link (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099194)

Cue long discussion regarding open sourcing Java...
AT&T didn't opensource C/C++ - the "community" wrote GCC. Why can't the "community" write and use a Java implementation instead of demanding the free-as-in-beer implementation should be opened up?

Re:Missing Link (1)

Forbman (794277) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099405)

Because the community can't/won't pay for getting it certified by Sun.

Re:Missing Link (1)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099502)

Red Hat develops GCJ (in addition to the majority of GCC in general), which is the Gnu compiler for java. It allows you to compile java code natively and they've already had it compiling Eclipse and the java portions of Open Office for over a year now. Red Hat wants a free java implementation and they've been working on it for quite some time. Its pretty good, I use it often. (It comes with Fedora Core)
Regards,
Steve

gcj (4, Insightful)

Micah (278) | more than 8 years ago | (#15098987)

I assume this is good news for GCJ and/or Classpath, given Red Hat's committment to free software. Surely they will now devote many resources to making JBoss work reliably on Free Java, then we all win!

No, it can't... (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099013)

Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?

No it won't. They are two very different things. ASP classic was "for dummies" and ASP.NET is all about the framework (Web Forms) and the tools. (Visual Studio) On top of that, JBoss is .com terretory while .NET is the darling of the enterprise. There is some overlap, but I think that it's a pretty good generalisation of the markets.

Don't get we wrong, ASP.NET is very capable in good hands, but at the same time, "dummies" can work with it too. The same can't be said about J2EE/EJB or even straight JSP.

Sigh... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099206)

This old saw has been the bane of the IT industry since it's beginning.

The reality is, that every time they make something for "dummies" (Namely BASIC, COBOL, etc...) they end
up creating a tool that invariably ends up being used properly by few but actual programmers or causes no
end to pain in security problems (VBA, anyone?). If you don't understand how to ask a computer what you
want it to do, you honestly shouldn't be trying to program one- period. Learn how to, or ask someone who
does to do the work for you. All of this trying to make things for "dummies" is an attempt to relegate
the work to someone they can just hire off the street for far less than a professional would do the work
for- and it still doesn't work after 50 years worth of trying.

This sounds elitist, I know. And, it probably is. But, I do happen to have loads of proof to back it up
that all one has to do is look at the history of things to see what I'm getting at. Trying to dumb down
programming tools of any kind is like trying to dumb down an arc welder or a metal lathe- you can only go
so far before you cause serious problems with safety anyway or make it worthless for the application in
question.

Re:Sigh... (1)

daBass (56811) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099367)

Agree completely. My company works as consultant programmers at investment banks. The most common scenario: traders or analysts (smart guys, but not programmers) need something and they start of in Access (if you are lucky) or, usually, Excel. They write some code in VBA, but then need a web service so switch to VB6 and compile a dll they can use in ASP classic page that runs on their workstation.

Then when it all blows up we are brought in to "fix" it. Of course the only way to "fix" it is scrapping it and starting from scratch, but we can't because that "would take too long" (quite the contrary, but they don't know that) or we simply have to re-use it all because the "programmer" is too proud of the work and doesn't want to see it binned. And as traders call the shots in banks... Sigh indeed.

Re:No, it can't... (1)

rjshields (719665) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099229)

ASP.NET ... "dummies" can work with it too.


Very true, judging by the number of .Net guys banging on about "exposing" and "consuming" APIs.

Java? (1)

labratuk (204918) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099014)

enabling the next generation of web-enabled applications running on a low-cost, open source platform.

Unless it's running on gcj, kaffe, sablevm or the likes, then it's not really an open source platform, is it? And potentially not low-cost in the future.

Re:Java? (1)

RPoet (20693) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099219)

Red Hat is investing rather hugely into free java, employing several of the key developers of GNU Classpath and related technologies, as I understand it. So I wouldn't worry about that.

Wait, wait, wait, wait... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15099018)

We're talking about a Java company right? Um, wake me up when some real software news comes in. Bloated piece of shit software from a piece of shit company does not news make.

I am both happy and disappointed (1)

YooHoo2U2 (944651) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099123)

Happy that RH and not Oracle is buying JBoss, but disappointed that if you want to listen to RH's webcast of the press conference (going on right now, BTW), you must have either....wait for it....WiMP or Real Player! To add insult to injury, here's the company that's hosting the web cast: HEAD http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ [corporate-ir.net] 200 OK Cache-Control: private Connection: close Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:36:06 GMT Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0 Content-Length: 14287 Content-Type: text/html Client-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:36:06 GMT X-Powered-By: ASP.NET *sigh*

RedHat trying to squeeze out Novell (2, Interesting)

attackenn (645057) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099167)

Looks like RedHat is trying to do Novell one better. And maybe now that Novell-JBoss partnership arrangement won't get renewed?

http://www.novell.com/products/support/jboss/ [novell.com]
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843829,00.as p [eweek.com]

Re:RedHat trying to squeeze out Novell (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099326)

"Looks like RedHat is trying to do Novell one better. And maybe now that Novell-JBoss partnership arrangement won't get renewed?" Oh it will get renewed at some insane price. This looks like, and I always felt it would happen, Red Hat is becoming the Microsoft of Open Source

Answers (1)

jbellows_20 (913680) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099256)

Could it be that a one company server package that will rival Microsoft's Windows Server 2003 and ASP will finally emerge?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Yes. It is going to take a lot more than the purchase of one relatively small company (when compared to the size of Microsoft). I believe it's a long road ahead before Microsoft will be debunked. I do believe that one day it'll happen, just not as fast as some might hope.

Slashdot-Enabled Comment (1)

justindz (253847) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099549)

Can we ease up on "enabled" or at least restrict it to one use per sentence.

In the name of knowledgeably reading replies... (1)

Odin_Tiger (585113) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099552)

What, exactly, is JBoss?

Will JBoss go the way of CCVS (2, Informative)

Locutus (9039) | more than 8 years ago | (#15099596)

http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/ccvs/ [redhat.com]

JBoss might be a different product and different market but it makes me wonder if JBoss with end up like CCVS. Red Hat purchased another opensource project/product a while ago called CCVS( Credit Card Verification System ) and converted it to their proprietary license before later killing the product couple years later. They told their existing customers they'd be supported til the end of their contract by a 3rd party( mainstreetsoftworks.com ) and that MainStreet Works had a replacement product( also proprietary ).

If you've ever looked for GNU/Linux based CC processing software, you know how long and unsuccessful the search was/is.

There's definately a larger market for JBoss but the results could be the same in the long run if Red Hat can't market the product to profits. They are not a friend to Open Source when they do these kinds of things and it also shows/helps Microsoft when they do this... IMO.

LoB
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?