Linuxcare Reincarnated as Levanta

ches_grin writes "BusinessWeek is running a nice profile on Levanta, the former dot-com poster child once known as Linuxcare. From the article: 'It's not that Matt Mosman has an easy job. As Linux continues its march deeper into Corporate America's racks and racks of servers, his small Silicon Valley company, Levanta, is one of many trying to help companies install and manage all those servers--a big, complex problem that's not being solved very well right now. Still, Mosman has one thing going for him: He can't do much worse than his predecessors.'"

Jesus.

[Frosty Piss]

This happens quite often, and I'm always scratching my head, why would they take a perfictly reasonable and understandable company name and "synergize" it in to something stupid. Case in point, "Linuxcare" changed to "Levanta". I would avoid them based on that stupidity alone.

Re:"Levanta" is Portuguese

[Moby Cock]

If his company was based in Sao Paulo or Lisbon that'd be great, but in San Jose nobody is going to get it.

Re:Jesus.

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, there's probably a few reasons in this case.

1. They don't want to get sued by Linus over the use of the 'Linux trademark.
   
2. They don't want to get pigeonholed into doing just 'Linux' support. They're probably already doing some level of application support, and they might want to expand into *BSD, OpenSolaris, etc. later.
   
3. To a suit, 'Levanta' probably just sounds cooler than 'LinuxCare.' LinuxCare sounds utilitarian, while 'Levanta' sounds like it could be the next acid blocker medication, right along side Nexium, Zantac, Pecid and Tazac.
   

Re:Jesus.

[Syberghost]

Because "Linuxcare" is mentally associated with suckage and failure, and the "Hi! I know we went out of business, but we're back, PLEASE hire us!" sales pitch wasn't working out.

I'm not saying it's right to associate them with that, it's not entirely their fault they fell apart, but that's a perception that many hold regarding them. The name needed to change.

Re:Jesus.

[morgan_greywolf]

Anecdotal evidence to support this assertion is my own business. It languished on the edge of bankruptcy while trying to "sell" free software and services. I was never able to get anyone interested in free software. However, as soon as I removed the free software references from my website and started pitching Microsoft centric solutions two things happened.

As if it mattered whether or not it was a Microsoft-centric approach.

Most customers don't actually care as much what the solution consists of -- Microsoft, Open Source, "Free" Software, whatever -- what they want are the following:

1. It solves the problem. It does what the customer needs it to do, meeting all of the customer's functionality requirements.
   
2. Performance is adequate for the task at hand. Performance isn't top of the list for most customers, but they also don't want to spend too much time waiting on the system, either.
   
3. The system has good usability and minimizes the cost of training.
   
4. Compatbility with the customer's existing systems and infrastructure. If it doesn't work with what they've already got, they won't touch it.
   
5. The solution comes with good support for every aspect of the system. If they can't get it fixed by someone other than you, the solution is useless to them.
   
6. The cost to install and maintain the system is within their budget. If they can't afford it, they just won't do it.
   
7. The consultant designing or implementing the system demonstrates that he or she is knowledgeable and has good business communication skills. The consultant needs to understand the customer's project, budget, and business requirements on a deep level.
   
   
   If you have these things covered, it won't matter to the vast majority of customers what vendor(s) you use. Linux, Windows, Mac, whatever -- as long as it does what the customer needs and fits the above criteria, customers will flock to your solutions and pay you well.
   

Re:Jesus.

[DaveV1.0]

You are right in that it should work like that. If only it worked that way in the real world. What I have seen is:

1. Many small businesses (SBs) start off using Microsoft-centric solutions because that is what comes installed on the computers they bought from (insert vendor here). It is real easy to get a turn key business computer, complete with MS Office, Project, Quickbooks, etc installed and ready to go.
   
2. "No one has ever been fired for going with Microsoft."
   
3. Most managers and SBs don't like change.
   
4. Most managers and SBs don't like things they have never heard of.
   
5. Managers and SBs believe "You get what you pay for."
   
6. Managers and SBs want a person or company behind a product. They want someone they can turn to when they have questions and need help. They don't see that in the FLOSS community.
   

The last one is the major stumbling block in a number of cases. After all, what do they do when you go away? In their minds, it is a custom solution and they don't have anyone to call but you. It can be a standard LAMP project that many people can work on easily, but, who do they call for Linux if it is not Redhat or Novell? What is the 800 number for Apache? How many MySQL certified DBAs are there? Who certifies PHP developers, or Perl developers, or what ever?

That is what the SB owners and managers care about. In business, it is about covering your own ass first and saving money second.

After all, what good does it do to save a company US$10,000.00 only to be fired when a problem develops?