109

Our subscriptions mostly pay for the salesmen and the ads. They sell ads first, IT second. So I'm not gonna cry for RedHat. The image of the poor developers working in a cave, struggling to make money is only in our mind. They had a perfectly functional model but decided to sabotage some of it to try to squeeze even more money.

Operating expense, in thousands (2019,2018):

Sales and marketing 1,378,278 1,195,286

Research and development 668,542 578,330

General and administrative 304,766 239,316

Total operating expense 2,351,586 2,012,932

Let's stop talking about Fedora/redhat, we are literally doing their job for them, for free.

Oh, btw, their gross profit is mentioned here.

Gross profit (thousands) 2,863,818 2,488,664

Net income (thousands) 433,988 261,851

That's why I had such bad support experience, because they chose to hire sales people instead of engineers. You have a better chance of being hired by redhat if you are a salesman. It's as Steve Jobs said, when the sales people take the power in the company.

"If you were a ‘product person’ at IBM or Xerox: so you make a better copier or better computer. So what? When you have a monopoly market-share, the company’s not any more successful. So the people who make the company more successful are the sales and marketing people, and they end up running the companies. And the ‘product people’ get run out of the decision-making forums."


The core of their business is made by the open source community. If they need our help for something, it's from saving them from drowning into money.

We need to jump ship from redhat just like we did from reddit. This is also the perfect opportunity to think about technical solutions on how to use the fediverse to finance the developers of the open source community.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

RedHat is probably the biggest Linux contributor across the whole ecosystem

They contribute more to the advertisement and sales industry than to the kernel. The point is the efficiency of the money spent on them for the open source ecosystem. If you think that on $4 given to redhat only $1 should go to the devs then we have a fundamental disagreement.

I did pay money for their subscription, I already had to deal with them. I won't do it anymore, I prefer to give my money to the people doing the hard work. But you've already said before that the "reactions are overblown" and they decision makes sense. So your opinion was already made anyway.

[-] fr0g@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The point is the efficiency of the money spent on them for the open source ecosystem

Hence my question about SUSE and Canonical. I have exactly zero context for being able to determine that these expenses are excessive. They very well might, but "this number is bigger than the other one" without any industry context whatsoever just doesn't strike me as a meaningful argument.

That being said, if one's primary goal is to support open source development, the best way to spend one's money is obviously to donate to software projects directly. If one needs server support AND wants to spend money in a way that does most for development, the question still stands whether any direct competitors do any better.

Edit: seems like the post from Celestial kinda settles the matter anyways
https://kbin.social/m/linux/t/107420/Reminder-that-RedHat-makes-A-LOT-of-money-already-The#entry-comment-432567

[-] staticlifetime@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

You may prefer to give directly, but donations don't typically pay the bills of an open source developer.

this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2023
109 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

58 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago