4 ms·

Yeah, Red Hat is really bleeding money from the all the lost sales caused by CentOS. I can't believe they only made a puny 1.53 billion dollar in revenue last y

by zapt02 11y ago

Yeah, Red Hat is really bleeding money from the all the lost sales caused by CentOS. I can't believe they only made a puny 1.53 billion dollar in revenue last year.. </sarcasm> http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm http://investors.redhat.com/financials-statements.cfm

corysama 11y ago
Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.
- yellowapple 11y ago
  The parent comment, however, was actually relevant to the point being discussed (whether or not the ability to fork a free-as-in-speech but not free-as-in-beer program is a significant risk to one's business model). Sarcasm or no, it's a valid point, and thus I feel trying to spout off admonitions in the name of the "HN community" is inappropriate in this context.
  - corysama 11y ago
    Yeah, this was iffy. I totally agree with the comment. But, when it comes to maintaining a community, it doesn't matter if you are right if you are a jerk about it. For the discussion: I recently paid for the Synergy software KVM even though it is GPL. Synergy's purchase process is very smooth. Paying $10 for the installers was much easier than compiling it myself. And, I was already had confidence that Synergy was useful, good quality, well-maintained software. So, I was happy to support it as long as doing so was convenient.
cookiecaper 11y ago
Red Hat has never made money because of its GPL software. People want to buy their support and consulting services, which Red Hat incidentally only offers for RHEL, necessitating users buy a license if they are to get the product they actually want. People who try to sell GPL software as a standalone product do not fare well.
sp332 11y ago
VA Linux Systems set a record for largest IPO and then tanked. The vast majority of Free-software based businesses have tanked too. RedHat is really the exception.
- baldfat 11y ago
  VA Linux Systems was a Hardware Company so your comparison fails in terms of speaking about Free Software Success Stories. Red Hat is far from being an exception. Actually old school closed source software companies are more difficult to start up today in my opinion. Financial Success Stories abound all around. MySQL, WordPress, Drupal, Mozilla (FireFox), Android, etc.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    None of those make money selling GPL software. The GPL software undergirds the product they sell, but it is not the product itself. MySQL: Fancy proprietary version with non-GPL features makes money, GPL version sits there doing nothing. Used to make money from a traditionalist dual-license model before Oracle took over, now they just neglect the GPL version. WordPress: Makes money from hosting and consulting, not from its software. Drupal: ibid. Firefox: makes money from search affiliate deals and charitable donations. This is closer because they make money by getting brands in front of Firefox's installed base, which is sort of close to making money from software, but still indirect. Android: Google does not make money from Android directly except insofar as they negotiate licensing deals with phone providers for their closed-source "Google Apps" suite and/or for "Google Play Edition" or other official branding on a phone. In these cases, they are selling a collection of Android apps and/or Google branding, not the GPL software that runs on the phone. I don't know of any case where a company sustained itself on the sales of actual GPL software. Every open-source company lives off ancillary services or licensing deals (dual-licensing like MySQL or branding deals like Google).

by zapt02 11y ago

corysama 11y ago

Please note that the HN community takes a rather strict approach when moderating comments that contribute noise to the conversation. "Nice article!" comments are routinely downvoted. As is sarcasm, witticisms, memes, references and other styles of comments that occur frequently but do not contribute to the discussion. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to hold back the flood of noise that covers Reddit.

yellowapple 11y ago
The parent comment, however, was actually relevant to the point being discussed (whether or not the ability to fork a free-as-in-speech but not free-as-in-beer program is a significant risk to one's business model). Sarcasm or no, it's a valid point, and thus I feel trying to spout off admonitions in the name of the "HN community" is inappropriate in this context.
- corysama 11y ago
  Yeah, this was iffy. I totally agree with the comment. But, when it comes to maintaining a community, it doesn't matter if you are right if you are a jerk about it. For the discussion: I recently paid for the Synergy software KVM even though it is GPL. Synergy's purchase process is very smooth. Paying $10 for the installers was much easier than compiling it myself. And, I was already had confidence that Synergy was useful, good quality, well-maintained software. So, I was happy to support it as long as doing so was convenient.

cookiecaper 11y ago

Red Hat has never made money because of its GPL software. People want to buy their support and consulting services, which Red Hat incidentally only offers for RHEL, necessitating users buy a license if they are to get the product they actually want. People who try to sell GPL software as a standalone product do not fare well.

sp332 11y ago

VA Linux Systems set a record for largest IPO and then tanked. The vast majority of Free-software based businesses have tanked too. RedHat is really the exception.

baldfat 11y ago
VA Linux Systems was a Hardware Company so your comparison fails in terms of speaking about Free Software Success Stories. Red Hat is far from being an exception. Actually old school closed source software companies are more difficult to start up today in my opinion. Financial Success Stories abound all around. MySQL, WordPress, Drupal, Mozilla (FireFox), Android, etc.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  None of those make money selling GPL software. The GPL software undergirds the product they sell, but it is not the product itself. MySQL: Fancy proprietary version with non-GPL features makes money, GPL version sits there doing nothing. Used to make money from a traditionalist dual-license model before Oracle took over, now they just neglect the GPL version. WordPress: Makes money from hosting and consulting, not from its software. Drupal: ibid. Firefox: makes money from search affiliate deals and charitable donations. This is closer because they make money by getting brands in front of Firefox's installed base, which is sort of close to making money from software, but still indirect. Android: Google does not make money from Android directly except insofar as they negotiate licensing deals with phone providers for their closed-source "Google Apps" suite and/or for "Google Play Edition" or other official branding on a phone. In these cases, they are selling a collection of Android apps and/or Google branding, not the GPL software that runs on the phone. I don't know of any case where a company sustained itself on the sales of actual GPL software. Every open-source company lives off ancillary services or licensing deals (dual-licensing like MySQL or branding deals like Google).