On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Paul Gear wrote: >> Such an argument would be specious which is probably why I haven't seen >> it brought forth anywhere in these forums before. I wonder what messages >> you have been reading that I haven't? > >Nearly everyone who has tried to justify it has done so by saying that >RHL was not a profitable product, and assumed that the boxed set and OS >were tied to each other. Being a publically traded company, our quarterly financial results are publically available, and one curious as to Red Hat's profitability merely need to hop on Google or their favourite financial site and investigate the truth rather than fabricate things hypothetically. >> The argument that is incontestible is that RH needed to concentrate >> on the bottom line before it was too late. > >If you say so. I think it's funny that Red Hat often took the >time previously to say that they were profitable (certainly >every time i went to a presentation i heard this), and now >they're saying that they weren't then but they will be now... This is bogus. Red Hat financial profitability is public information. It's not subject to opinion really. Just go look at public records. I don't see anywhere that we have said we are not a profitable company. Quite the opposite in fact, and our public records should show this quarterly. >A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. >Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? Now that is classic! I love it! ;o) -- Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
