Stas said:
> BTW, any reason for taking this off the list?
That would be "because I missed the Reply-to-All button" :-)
OK, list, your input: is it too soon to claim ActiveState and
Covalent as "successful" examples of open source businesses?
What's the measure? I favor a financially conservative approach -
a successful business is one that has demonstrated profitable
operations over a significant period of time. Using my definition,
Red Hat doesn't pass the test either.
Stas Bekman said:
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Jason W. May wrote:
>
> > Stas, you said:
> > >
> > > Some companies go even further, they hire these super experts
> > > to develop
> > > the open source technologies and they know that when they
> > > need something
> > > that's not available in the used technology, it'll be added
> > > on the same
> > > day when needed, since the experts are in house. You don't
> > > have to go far
> > > away, ActiveState and Covalent do this *very* successfully.
> > >
> >
> > Which companies are these (that hire super-experts)? I'm not
> > familiar with any.
>
> ActiveState and Covalent :)
>
> ActiveState has Gurusamy and other major developers in house.
> Covalent has
> half the ASF members and core Apache developers in house.
>
> > I'm not so such that ActiveState and Covalent should be labeled as
> > successful just yet. These are both very young firms, and as far as
> > I'm aware, neither of them are profitable. I'd be thrilled
> to know if
> > I'm wrong here.
>
> Really? I thought that these companies were successful ones :(
>
> BTW, any reason for taking this off the list?
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
> http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://apachetoday.com http://eXtropia.com/
> http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/
>
>
>
