edoc wrote:
>
> It is boilerplate to state unequivocally that NO Open Source company
> has a successful business model? (Or in Microsoft's case that NO
> Closed-Source company has a successful business model?)
Pretty much.
> Why did RH feel the need to make any statement whatsoever about
> their fellow Open Source companies? That is hardly "boilerplate"
> stuff, it sounds more like editorial content.
>
> Question stands, "who wrote that awful tripe"?
Remember, this is from RedHat's IPO documentation, which happened quite
some time ago now. Then, there really were no public companies who's
business model was solely based on selling open-source software as
RedHat was claiming to be at the time. Yeah, there were companies who
sold software and support and services and etc, but none who were trying
to be purely software companies. Of course, now RedHat also is not a
pure software company.
At the time, it was entirely accurate. Now that RedHat is nearly
profitable, it's not. If another OSS company went IPO in the next six
months or so, their version would probably read "Very few companies have
been successful..."
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;$t=255;@t=map
{$_%16or$t^=$c^=($m=(11,10,116,100,11,122,20,100)[$_/16%8])&110;
$t^=(72,@z=(64,72,$a^=12*($_%16-2?0:$m&17)),$b^=$_%64?12:0,@z)
[$_%8]}(16..271);if((@a=unx"C*",$_)[20]&48){$h=5;$_=unxb24,join
"",@b=map{xB8,unxb8,chr($_^$a[--$h+84])}@ARGV;s/...$/1$&/;$d=
unxV,xb25,$_;$e=256|(ord$b[4])<<9|ord$b[3];$d=$d>>8^($f=$t&($d
>>12^$d>>4^$d^$d/8))<<17,$e=$e>>8^($t&($g=($q=$e>>14&7^$e)^$q*
8^$q<<6))<<9,$_=$t[$_]^(($h>>=8)+=$f+(~$g&$t))for@a[128..$#a]}
print+x"C*",@a}';s/x/pack+/g;eval
usage: qrpff 153 2 8 105 225 < /mnt/dvd/VOB_FILENAME \
| extract_mpeg2 | mpeg2dec -
http://www.eff.org/ http://www.opendvd.org/
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:27:15 EDT