What is Digg?46 Comments
- pype, on 10/12/2007, -8/+29They can acquire MY boss for only $35...
- shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Good thing Red Hat bought JBoss instead. I think Oracle would have ruined it as it competes with Oracle software.
This move makes a lot of sense for Red Hat. They want to deliver a full server application stack. They've tried in the past to include high-performance HTTP servers and MySQL database, but that ultimately failed as it's a low-end solution in a high-end world. Right now they offer a JOnAS server, but JBoss makes more sense here and I assume it will become their go-to application server. They will be able to do some really tight integration and give their customers and out-of-the-box J2EE solution that should perform really well.
JBoss also provides a very rich set of applications, from their J2EE server to their portal, development IDE, transaction management, etc. This gives Red Hat a middleware stack that rivals, and perhaps beats, what IBM offers (Websphere), but for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars less. Go look up the pricing for Websphere, its portal server, ecommerce suite, DB2 UDB, etc and it's easily six figures. Red Hat can provide that with their enterprise distro and optimized for the OS (Websphere is a hog on any OS). - TokenUser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Java is proprietary? Oh, the Sun connection ... hmm ... what about C (AT&T - Bell Labs) ... x86 assembler (Intel + AMD extesnions) ... etc. Java might be controlled by Sun, but the language is defined/extended by an open standards committee.
- brhad56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+71) Steal Underpants
2) ???
3) Profit!
And if that fails..
1) Sell Support
2) Sell Additional Services (such Linspire's Click N' Run)
3) Collect Donations
4) Profit! - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Is $350MM the same as .35 meters?
Or is it $350,000,000,000,000? - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope they didn't pay him (or her) much.
- tapo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't know Chris, but the moment Microsoft was tried - and convicted - of abusing their monopoly, may have been when they deserved to be called an evil corporation.
But hey, that's just me. - brhad56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"based on a proprietary language"
Try a little research next time. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Donations. Selling tech support, servers, etc.
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like how the press webcast for RedHat is presented in Real Player (wtf) and Windows Media formats. Where's OGG or MPEG4? (not that I'm a fan of ogg)
- Zlatty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4holy crap
i just attended a presentation over jboss and open source on thursday
the speaker said that this was not likely to happen ... - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I've been thinking RedHat would be an awesome tech stock to invest in, lately. I'm sure they'll go up a few points at this press release. Well done, though, it aims at the hearts of those who believe there is an impending economic correction and RedHat has positioned themselves to be prepared and even capitalize on it (the release seems to have undertones of how this is a counter-cyclical type of investment.)
Just look where Linux is today, with the SCO case finished, Unbuntu really breaking the mold for linux on the desktop, RedHat makes a great story. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11you can't honestly compare redhat to microsoft. Your a moron if you cannot see why.
- joephish, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4JBoss make their money by selling support... hence the documentation available for free isn't particularly detailed
- salaamul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I LOVE RED HAT !!
They are proving that an open source business can generate $350M
Red Hat is my favourite brand.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Mayby it's just me being stupid, but how does a Open source software company makes profit?
That's just one of the things that i have to wonder over in the WWW (world-wide-world). - drn666, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3JBoss is an open source J2EE server implementation. Apache is developing their own (Geronimo), but otherwise, JBoss is really the only open source, full feature J2EE stack. At least, until Sun gets around to opening S1AS.
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Open source != FREE. Companies can develop products and sell them as they like. Just the source code is open. So, if you, for example, can think of a better way to do stuff with that code, you build your own product and sell it too. The market (and sadly marketing) decides which is better. You still have to keep your code open for anyone to see what changes you made and why is your code better. If someone else can do a better job they do it. And the cycle continues.
- drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Wow big news in enterprise software world. JBoss has been a great tool, Smart move for Red Hat to get more serious in drawing enterprise software business. I figured Google would have bought them up after buying Sun, then years later being bought by MS as a Microsoft plan all along to get around anti-trust laws. Google is the rebranding of Microsoft (j/k).
- kazsymonds, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Yeah its hypocritical for people to call microsoft greedy, its human nature, its not microsofts fault they are good at it, if other peoples businesses and software werent so god damn ***** then ms wouldnt do so well would they
- Crazen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good product, and well known to have a CEO that's a prick. Wonder if Red Hat is going to keep him?
- deBSefyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What happened to Oracle buying JBoss?
- drawkbox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Althougn Larry Page DID go to the William Gates building at Stanford to learn his genius Google plan doo,dee..doo,dee (poor attempt at twilight zone theme)
- GeekyGirl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think that Red Hat is a much better fit for JBoss than Oracle would have been. I suspect that Oracle would have tried to exercise too much control over JBoss (this might have been why the Oracle deal fell through).
Red Hat & JBoss have similar business models, and Red Hat is intimately familiar with the tools and infrastructure market (Cygnus / GCC, for example). It will be interesting to see how the two corporate cultures come together. - macewan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2huh? thought oracle was snatching up jboss.
- Zlatty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no they did not ... he presented for free
- Crazen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Enterprise class application server. Meaning it makes things easier to scale and adds some necessary functionality without too much overhead.
- security
- transaction management
- management/administration
- load balancing
- logging
- profiling
- messeging
- etc....
Basically if you're builging a real system that manages any type of complex workflow, want maturity and you don't want vendor lock-in use this type of arc. Otherwise build your home page out of one of the "P" (or R) scripting languages in LAMP - deBSefyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, this is definitely better... it's just the last I heard was that Oracle-JBoss deal was [almost] final.
http://java.sys-con.com/read/182119.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060209_810527.htm
I'm a little surprised (in a good way). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know what? Source Forge is my favourite...erh, company. They provide the whole wide world with free, cool, useful, useless software!
- databasecowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, actually according to Newton's Law of Arbitrage, RedHat, the company doing the buying, should drop in stock value and the company being bought, in this case a privately held entity, would rise in value.
In light of this generalization, the fact that RHAT has rocketed about 10% in value with fairly substantial volume on this news illustrates that the street is pretty darn keen on this acquisition to defy these fairly fundamental gravitational laws of arbitrage.
While it would have been great to get in on RHAT a year ago when it was trading at roughly a third of the current price, I'd be pretty cautious at jumping in now as their P/E is solidly north of 70 and the near term outlook for JBOSS adding to the company's bottom line short term are negligible.
The pop is already slowing down. I'd wait for the dust to settle and look at picking it up when it's not so hot and the day traders have made their profits and moved on to something else. - info, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ditto for Red Hat.
- detroitsux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good for Red Hat! I don't use RH, but I'm digging this story only because Oracle DIDN'T get it.
BTW, donations are for churches and shareware. Income should come from solid sales and investors. You can't be considered an enterprise solution if you rely on donations - it will only further the negative image that people have on the open source/linux community. - masterfuol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"you can't honestly compare redhat to microsoft. Your a moron if you cannot see why."
I agree. Get a brain moran! - hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because as part of the GPL, open source products remain open source products. Red Hat can tack on some stuff to JBoss and sell it as an enhanced version of JBoss, but the core JBoss software would still remain open source which would be accessible to anyone who needs access to the source code. However, when MS buys a company, they don't open up the source code and even the provided API's are more often than not very inadequate.
- gnomeuser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I filed a bug with Jesse Keating a while back to ensure that all communication to the community is available in open formats, hopefully they will work on the issue.
- ThirdPrize, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So, will JBoss still be Open Source?
- alchemista, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Great, so now not just JBoss a-holes, but rich JBoss a-holes...
- big_daddy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can understand the thinking behind the idea that buying support is paying for proper doucmentation. However I believe this is the lowest common denominator type of model. Educating their users about the features, and uses of their product would only increase the value of buying support. Why I hear you ask? The easier a product is to learn and use, the more you will use it (of course assuming it is right for the project). This should surely lead to more use, and more demand for the re-assurance that companies get from support contracts. They get immediate help when they encounter bugs (which they probably encounter becuase they use more of the features, having learned about them through the fantasic documentation).
- detroitsux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good for Red Hat! I don't use RH, but I'm digging this story only because Oracle DIDN'T get it.
- dbr_onix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Forgive me for being an idiot a second : What is JBoss..?
- Ben - chris4404, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8Why is it OK for an open source Company to buy another company, yet when Microsoft does it their an Evil corporation?
- Crazen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why would you take the time to post and not just:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=What+is+JBoss - zonk3r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1sure would be nice if the article poster would tell us what jboss is for the uninitiated... interesting nonetheless though.
- dextius, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4I don't get it. Redhat, buying an open source company, based on a proprietary language... :-(
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Portuguese / Brazilian : http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=468
---------------------------------------------------
http://www.htk.com.br/ - big_daddy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1He he he, poor Redhat. I love JBoss products, but their docs suck donkey balls.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is