Red Hat up, Oracle down
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
languishes <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/195124677.shtml>.
And I get to say "I told you so"
<http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/e4377e0b76111a18>.
impossible
news:fskrm4$vrn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Red Hat enjoying 30% growth, while Oracle's knockoff "Unbreakable Linux"
> languishes <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/195124677.shtml>.
>
LOL. You should stick to script-writing and leave business developments to
people who know what they're talking about. Oracle isn't trying to compete
with RedHat -- it's trying to take it over -- and that propsect remains very
much in play. RedHat's earnings figures have long been a disappointment to
Wall Street. Profits, not sales, are what matter -- and RedHat hasn't
demonstrated to anyone that it can consistently turn a solid profit in the
face of even meager competition. Over the past two years, since Oracle first
went after RedHat, RedHat's share price has fallen 25-30% -- well below the
Dow and Nasdaq performance averages. During that same time period, Oracle's
share price has **increased** by 50%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=RHT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ORCL&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI
At the current price, apparently IBM, Sun, and Google are also interested in
snapping up RedHat, so it could be interesting.
Enkidu
>
> At the current price, apparently IBM, Sun, and Google are also
> interested in snapping up RedHat, so it could be interesting.
>
Cheers,
Cliff
--
Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Further confirmation I was right: Oracle's Linux customer base falls short
of Red Hat's by a couple of orders of magnitude
<http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1307296,00.htm>.
impossible
>
> Further confirmation I was right: Oracle's Linux customer base falls short
> of Red Hat's by a couple of orders of magnitude
> <http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1307296,00.htm>.
Still whistling past the graveyard? RedHat has been selling Linux contracts
for 15 years -- Oracle has been doing it for just 15 months and already it's
become a major player, snatching most of its 2000 customers directly away
from RedHat. Clearly, you're worried , because you swore such a thing could
never happen.
http://groups.google.co.nz/group/nz.comp/msg/4a234c53bb99f24d
Anyway, as I've repeatedly explained to you, Oracle isn't trying to compete
with RedHat -- it's trying to take it over -- and that prospect remains very
much in play. RedHat's earnings figures have long been a disappointment to
Wall Street. Profits, not sales, are what matter -- and RedHat hasn't
demonstrated to anyone that it can consistently turn a solid profit in the
face of even meager competition. Over the past two years, since Oracle first
went after RedHat, RedHat's share price has fallen 25-30% -- well below the
Dow and Nasdaq performance averages. During that same time period, Oracle's
share price has **increased** by 50%.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=RHT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ORCL&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI
At the current price, apparently IBM, Sun, and Google are also interested in
thingy
Faulty assumptions....and pretty much shows up your bias, terminally so.
When RH IPO'd wall street got greedy and over priced it by a huge
margin, since then the share value has trended downward to what it
should be for the amount of profit they are making. Its not RH's fault
if greedy, ignorant and short sighted ppl bought in at an inflated
price...and got their fingers burned.
Oracle has sold diddly Oracle Linux, its a non-event. Most sensible
organisations realise Oracle's support is in-different and over-priced
so they would have to be nuts to move...unless Oracle was doing an end
to end and the customer didnt care about the $ cost, and there are not
many of those.
RH is pretty much making a decent profit and expanding, and often the
profit is being plowed back into that expansion, so no fat cheques for
the lazies so they run.
So to sum up, to compare an established business share price like
Oracle's to a startup is plain silly, troll.
regards
Thing
thingy
RH's v Oracle's customer support........
"As for customer support, Red Hat has topped CIO Insight's annual vendor
value study for three years in a row, Kazmierski said. By contrast, in
2006 Oracle ranked 30th; and in 2007, it ranked 29th she said."
Pretty much sums up Oracle's chances....2000 customers running RAC, I
wonder if any are non-oracle uses...
regards
thing
impossible
"thingy" <thi...@not.here.commy> wrote in message
news:1ad5c5-...@news.vuw.ac.nz...
> impossible wrote:
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
>> news:fskrm4$vrn$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> Red Hat enjoying 30% growth, while Oracle's knockoff "Unbreakable Linux"
>>> languishes <http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/195124677.shtml>.
>>>
>>
>> LOL. You should stick to script-writing and leave business developments
>> to people who know what they're talking about. Oracle isn't trying to
>> compete with RedHat -- it's trying to take it over -- and that propsect
>> remains very much in play. RedHat's earnings figures have long been a
>> disappointment to Wall Street. Profits, not sales, are what matter -- and
>> RedHat hasn't demonstrated to anyone that it can consistently turn a
>> solid profit in the face of even meager competition. Over the past two
>> years, since Oracle first went after RedHat, RedHat's share price has
>> fallen 25-30% -- well below the Dow and Nasdaq performance averages.
>> During that same time period, Oracle's share price has **increased** by
>> 50%.
>>
>> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=RHT&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ORCL&c=%5EIXIC&c=%5EDJI
>>
>> At the current price, apparently IBM, Sun, and Google are also interested
>> in snapping up RedHat, so it could be interesting.
>
> Faulty assumptions....and pretty much shows up your bias, terminally so.
>
I've made no assumptions whatsoever here. Facts are facts, and I've
documented everything. Let's see if you can do half as well.
> When RH IPO'd wall street got greedy and over priced it by a huge margin,
> since then the share value has trended downward to what it should be for
> the amount of profit they are making. Its not RH's fault if greedy,
> ignorant and short sighted ppl bought in at an inflated price...and got
> their fingers burned.
>
Well, that's just dead wrong. When you revise the chart of RedHat's share
price to include the IP, yes, there was a collapse from 2000 to 2001 that
largely corresponded to to the docom bust. But then RedHat hit its boom
years when the share price moved steadily up. Only after Oracle's launch of
its own Linux product did RedHat's share price start to free-fall again --
just as I showed previously.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RHT&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=ORCL,%5EIXIC,%5EDJI
Your sentimental attachment to RedHat seems to be getting the best of you.
Surely, investors have every right to a meximum return on their investment.
If RedHat's business model is under-performing, then something has to
change.
> Oracle has sold diddly Oracle Linux, its a non-event. Most sensible
> organisations realise Oracle's support is in-different and over-priced so
> they would have to be nuts to move...unless Oracle was doing an end to end
> and the customer didnt care about the $ cost, and there are not many of
> those.
>
2000 new Oracle customers say differntly. In any case, why are you so
blindly loyal to RedHat and so bitterly opposed to Oracle? This makes no
sense. I thought the whole idea of open-source development was to give
customer's a choice. Surely if RedHat isn't meeting a customer's need,
they'll be turning to Suse or Ubuntu or Oracle.... and vice-versa of course.
Is there a problem here?
> RH is pretty much making a decent profit and expanding, and often the
> profit is being plowed back into that expansion, so no fat cheques for the
> lazies so they run.
>
Yes, they do. When a company's share price goes down, that's an indication
that it's performance is poor relative to investment opportunities
elsewhere. Investors arte not interested in sustaining some tech's favorite
hobby -- either RedHat management gets the job done in a way that earn's at
least average profits or soomeone else will.
> So to sum up, to compare an established business share price like Oracle's
> to a startup is plain silly, troll.
..
Did you miss the class on how tro read graphs? The ones I referenced are
plus-minus performance graphs measured in percent of share-price change. It
makes no difference what the "established" price of RedHat or Oracle was
when Oracle launched its Linux products. Since that time, RedHat has simply
performed worse -- both relative to its own previous performance and
relative to Oracle's. The market has spoken, even if you are ideologically
indisposed to see that.