5 ms·
Red Hat Is Now a $2B Open-Source Baby
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ausjke 11y agoI somehow feel canonical/ubuntu should be valued more, at least not too far from Redhat, they have decent software, probably just need a "better" CEO/CFO to monetize what it has so far. Meanwhile that will drive many freemium users back to Debian when revenue becomes the priority, as what Redhat did in the past.
- cwyers 11y agoValuation is based on revenue, not some abstract notion of their software quality.
- cyphar 11y agoSUSE is also another company in this space, and I believe we are incredibly focused on being a part of the OpenSUSE community. And we also have decent software, almost all of which is under free licenses. :D
- justinclift 11y agoUnlike Red Hat, Canonical are a bad company (ethics wise), mostly sponging off Open Source projects. :( Very few in the Open Source Community would cry if they were to disappear.
- jcastro 11y agoPlease. Canonical has written millions of lines of Free Software code.
- justinclift 11y agoAnd they've being unethical many times as well. I have personal experience of this. :(
- EGreg 11y agoSo what is the code of ethics for this industry? And which large organization upholds it the best?
- xemoka 11y agoCare to share your experiences?
- justinclift 11y agoI'd rather not get sued. :( Can discuss privately though, if it's relevant to you and you're not employed/contracted/related to Canonical.
- ausjke 11y agoI don't know how bad it is, however I use Ubuntu on my desktop daily for free and I appreciate that, I don't see Redhat provides that though(ever since Redhat dumped Desktop users after Redhat 8/9 release many years back).
- lmz 11y ago
- tariqali34 11y agoActually, since Red Hat is a public company, its "market cap" valuation is actually at $13.28 billion. The article merely claims says Red Hat has made $2 billion in revenue. That being said, the company does seems overvalued (P/E ratio is 70.62). It has a positive EPS of 1.03, which is another point in its favor (it means it's actually turning a profit). Source: http://fortune.com/company/rht/ http://fortune.com/company/rht/
- bogomipz 11y agoAnother link to fortune.com where I can't view content because I have adblock installed. Next.
- justinclift 11y agoSeems to work ok with Ublock Origin.
- DanGarcia595 11y agoReally? I'm on chrome with uBlock and it hasn't blocked me.
- wodenokoto 11y agoThen it seems to be working out for both of you. You avoid the ads and fortune.com avoids serving content without ads.
- Hydraulix989 11y agoWhat exactly is their business model? Call me naive (after all, I'm just an engineer), but I am shocked that they are managing to sell something that's free.
- justinclift 11y agoStability of software, targeted at those who need it (eg enterprise). With a large supporting ecosystem around that.
- oliwarner 11y agoA guarantee that somebody is responsible for the software in some way. Aka "support". It's not [just] tech support, it's providing provenance for things. Enterprise goes mad for that stuff. It also happens to be Microsoft's core business model.
- slgeorge 11y agoA good way to understand RH is to think of the savings they provide to a CTO. With a RH stack you can have storage, core OS, Java and virtualization - so they provide all of the key pieces of architecture an enterprise needs. Fundamentally, the business model is that all their bits work with other enterprise vendors - if you're an enterprise CTO then you have SAP, and Oracle and Windows ... so interoperability is key. They're a really strong engineering outfit that's been consistent in pushing FOSS forward! But as importantly, they understand the challenges Fortune 500 customers have - and those aren't free!