I'm here today with some fantastic friends I got Zuko kick-ass and up and running Musician here in Portland, Maine and he brought some friends with us today. Is that correct? Yes? That's right. Yeah, okay. Yeah, okay. Paulo. How did you create this trifecta of fame? How did that happen? It was actually it's a perfect fit I've known Sato for a couple years through school, and he's always been on top of like videography he's always been on like he's been known for that for a while and Yo, Kai Apollo I met him through Sato when we met up to shoot a music video Then we just started realizing that we work really good together Just stick from there. So before you guys started working together Zuko you you were in a choir when you were younger That's kind of strange to go from choir to rap musician Like that's a big turn of events right there My parents got divorced when I was little and my dad remarried to a musician a piano teacher when I was five I was in choirs. I actually did find enjoyment in it actually and Choirs have helped me learn to sing and be able to do vocals. I've been able to learn like breath control a lot easier It's helped me significantly recording music. And so Really, I've always liked to rap and I can't say that I've necessarily enjoyed choir music But I do it because I knew I was improving my skills of what I wanted to use later So when it comes to your guys approach One thing you have talked about is non-conformity. What is it specifically about whether you're video making or you're beat making? Or your lyrics? What makes you guys non-conformist for me at least it's not that non-conformity. It's just I've always been different I'm African-American growing up in one of the whitest states Been that black kid in all the classes So it's really just being myself, which was always me just not conforming I just don't want to be another person. I just I don't want to have to make up Excuses to try to be like somebody else when I can just be myself I feel like conformity is just everybody trying to be the same like it's you can just be yourself for real Like it's not that hard just be yourself. If people don't like it. They don't like you How do you do that with film? I feel a lot the same just the way I grown up, you know, I don't fit in. I'm Japanese I'm American and a lot of the way that I got judged here was unfair So it forced me to think outside the box try different things and I was gonna get scrutinized anyway So might as well try something different. Yeah, um, obviously I'm white, so We'll try to not hold that against you, I don't have any struggle racially I've always had a deep love for hip-hop because Growing up I had a lot of struggles with my parents Getting divorced and my mom moving away always was like super hyper Didn't have many friends ever I have to be on like medication for anxiety and I like, you know I'm just a super anxious guy and I never really quite fit in exactly so like I guess it's just kind of naturally What happened and I just Got I was able to be comfortable on my own skin and I've realized that that's the most valuable thing You couldn't help it. You had to become a nominee. Yeah when you think about Portland as a city What do you think? is needed most here in order to support local musicians diversity 100% not just like When people think of diversity, they usually think like racial diversity That also but also like most people in Maine are older So I feel like more young people. Um, I'd say studio space We need some studio space. It is extremely hard in Portland to find a place where you can rent out a studio So when you say Space recording space recording venues. I mean, there are multiple recording venues. I could I could name Is it the price of to rent a studio space? Is it do they not have the appropriate equipment? Is it they they don't they're not supporting you? I've been in like, I'm gonna just keep it real I've been in the majority of like the studio spaces and a lot of them. It's not that they don't like rap music or They're just they don't want to give their space to the public They kind of want to pick and choose Who they want to be in their studio like as in hip-hop as a hip-hop artist like I've gotten a lot of Denial in places. I didn't think I would when I'm offering to pay a full price because I've heard of other artists that I've done like pop music And same group of people same crowd like estimation and they'll charge us like 200 dollars more Because of damage costs. There's been like a bad reputation with hip-hop artists And aren't being like that genre because certain artists have like destroyed venues So it puts a bad representation on us.  This is one thing. I I love asking most people this question is Let's say you make no money. You're still doing it. Aren't you exactly why I love it. It's like I get to be creative every day. I am constantly hustling I'm I like working hard. I get to make music and that like Doesn't matter what day the week it is doesn't matter what I have coming up. I always have music no matter what It's like a therapist. It's like you're talking It's like it's like you're bringing the deepest darkest stuff from your soul and talking to the mic And letting other people know that you're not alone I've kind of gone back and forth on types of therapy on you know creatively, you know Everything I do creatively is therapy for me. It helps me cope with life. There's no boredom for me That's just all I gotta say. There's no moment where I'm bored when it's open It's like that's how I cope Just live life make beats You know make music videos have more ideas and execute All right, so I'm super happy you guys could be here. You can find everything you want to know about Uh, Zuko kickass. He's on apple music itunes spotify YouTube he's got instagram. Do you got a twitter account as well? Um, I should hop on it I should hop on the twitter. Wow, but thank you guys so much. I'm excited to hear about this magazine I'd love to learn more about it. I'd love to see your own EP. Let's let's make that big too, my man You can also find me on all the platforms your compound. Just search that up. Absolutely. I'm there


We're back with the breakfast and plus TV Africa. Let's look at the second conversation for the second leg. Our concern is about police neutrality and the 2023 elections. President Mohamed Abouhari has charged security agencies engaged with various support services in the 2023 elections to remain apolitical and maintain a high sense of professionalism and assist from behavior that would bring or disrupt these services. The president gave the charge of the commissioning of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the DIA in Abuja. Mohamed Abouhari urged the agency to handle the distribution and monitoring of classified materials and other logistics professionally and in accordance with standard operational procedures. But over time there's been reports of police involvement and compromising the election process in Nigeria. Now fast forward to now. The presidential candidate of the African Action Congress had said that to overcome election regain and violence in Nigeria there should be more focus on security agencies than the political parties. So we're appointed that there was no election regain or valence in Nigeria that happens without the connive night, without the collaboration of security agencies. Now in 2019 the situation presented itself with a tendency to compromise security personnel. Two days before the elections, Nigerian election that was postponed, there was announcement, thousands of police officers traveled from their duty stations to their posting across the country to ensure that security of voters and sensitive election materials were in order. Not a week later, officers remained in the field without stupends for food and accommodation. That's very compromising, right? We have Dr. Omosola, Deji, who's a political scientist, who's in the studio with us this morning and we'll just try to understand if there's a possibility of having police neutrality, if the police can be apolitical in our elections, especially with the injunction that has been given by the president, but not necessarily the police, but you know our security agencies. Dr. Omosola, thank you so much for being part of the show this morning. Good morning. Thank you for having me. Yes, it's a good thing that you are a political scientist. I'd like to ask you, what have you observed so far? What are your thoughts and perception of the elections? Few moments were already there February 2023. Well, by February 2023, general election is going to commence and the political terrain is getting heated up gradually. The campaign has not been on point as I wish. The issues pertaining to the people has not much been addressed. I wish that the candidates can do more in terms of addressing the issues that concerns Nigerians and moving from what to how. Most of the candidates have mostly been saying what they would do to Nigerians, which usually realize that they are still the basics. We have a repetition of the 2019 campaign promise. The 27 campaign promise will provide electricity, will pay salaries regularly. The campaign still remains the basics. Despite that, I expect that even if it is the basic, we should be moving from the what to the how. You are going to make Nigeria from a consumption economy to a production economy. How do you intend to achieve that? You are going to provide electricity. How do you intend to achieve that? I believe that the politicians should move away from saying just what they want to do to how they want to achieve it. I think that starts by citizens themselves asking the right questions, asking for more engagement. I think when this is done, election would be what it truly should be, which is testing the popularity of the candidate and according to their programs and how well they can perform and achieve eradicating the suffering of Nigerians based on the mandate given to them. So far to me, the political terrain has not been quite interesting. What we've had largely is more of stakeholders engagement. The politicians are trying to win who they think is strategic and can influence vote to their side like political leaders, religious leaders, traditional rulers, but the engagement on the part of the people who would go to the poll to cast their vote has not really been as interesting as it should be. And one would think that the long time that we have now for campaign will create room for rigorous campaign will create room for ideological perspective or now to curb security or now to boost the economy or now to eradicate unemployment or now to reduce inflation. Largely, this has not been seen. So, but it's a good thing that you have also mentioned security, which is a major concern. I mean, before we just hit the nail on the head as regards, you know, the statement by the president to security agencies, but there are lots been happening, a lot's been happening, especially with the attacks on, you know, the umpire's office in different parts of the country, mostly in the south is, do you think that this in any way would truncate the election? We've also seen an attack as a recent development, and that's on, you know, the headquarters of the police in a number of states. All of this, do you think that that has any implication for the elections? Well, if the attacks are too many, definitely too many, if the attacks get too many, definitely it will have impact on the outcome of the election because it will affect our next strategy, mobilization, and the delivery of materials on time, the equipment that they're going to use. But I think the attack itself shouldn't have happened. Election is coming up. The security agencies are aware from the first attack on an INEC office, the security agencies ought to have identified INEC offices across the country, most especially in the southeast, where they are secessionist movement. They should have identified those INEC offices as outspot, and adequate security should have been provided in those offices. But if there is an attack on an INEC office, and the rest INEC offices are not protected, definitely I would finger the lack of responsibility on the part of the security agencies, or they are not proactive because as I say, a city in time saves money. If an attack is done to a particular INEC office, that should send signal that how many attacks have they planned to other INEC offices and offer adequate protection. It is not until two to three days to election that we now say we've deployed 30,000, 50,000 policemen. That shouldn't be the case unless we forget this is a general election. Definitely you can deploy SS manpower to a state because every state meets that particular manpower for the electoral process. Even if there is no gubernatorial election in some state, based on court judgment, they are still going to elect their legislators. They are still elect people to other platforms. So you can't deploy SS manpower. So I think that the security agencies need to be proactive to foster all these attacks on INEC facilities. We have the manpower. The DSS are there to gather intelligence, and the police are there to offer protection. But in a case where they are also being attacked, how do they become proactive? You mean the police? Yes, of course. We have seen if you have followed two years down the line, there was hashtag answers. The fact that Nigerians took to the street to protest police brutality, and this was across different parts of the country.  So it's a lot. But my point here is with the recent development, they attack on the headquarters of the police in Anambara state. These are, they're supposed to protect us. They're supposed to protect the people. Now that they are being attacked, how do they become even proactive? Well, I think the answers protest is a bit different from attack on the facilities, because this No, you said, you said that the police or the security agencies, I'm always quick to say the please. And that's because it is their responsibility. They are saddled with the responsibility of ensuring peace and order in a civil society. The military has no business, you know, that's not why they were created. But over time, we can't argue that the military has not been involved, you know, in governance and policing of our states. We should not be. But you are saying that they should be proactive. And I'm saying that how can they be proactive when they're also being attacked? They have been overwhelmed. So how you can't give what you don't have? I think Nigerian security agencies, if they really want to work, they will work. Look at the secessionist threat in the southeast. Look at how they undo the case of Nandikano. Look at how they undo the case of Sunday ago. So I believe that Nigerian security agencies, if they really want to do their job, they will do their job in terms of protecting both their own facilities and Nigerians as well. But there are different factors that make the police not to be able to kind of like deliver their mandate. There are political factors. There are social factors. There are economic factors. But regardless, despite these factors, I believe that if the Nigerian police really want to achieve something which is providing Nigerians a free, free and credible election, for example, how do you attack a police facility in Anambra State where there are police officers on ground and there is a lot of cash of arms? How do you carry that out successfully? For me, I don't see it as realistic if there is no fifth columnist, perhaps in the police itself, perhaps for the aspect of politicians and general ineffectiveness of the Nigerian agencies or system. But I believe that as regards the election, police can really be proactive. For example, we get large results in UB and all these places where there are Boko Haram during elections. How do they achieve that? And if you look at the terrain of those areas, these are areas that are difficult to man.  If you can achieve that in Yobi, in Borneo, why can't you achieve that in areas that are experiencing less security threats? I don't think that if the police are well determined that some Udlums can successfully attack a top police facility, I don't believe so. I believe that there may be some fifth columnists in the police itself or the police itself is not proactive. Maybe they don't have enough facilities to deter the crime, intelligence, and in fairness to the police, the police is overstretch. We have 400,000 personnel to man 200 million people in a vast terrain like Nigeria. And if you minus those that are being attacked, those that died in the course of service, those that died out of natural causes, the numbers are reducing daily. So I think that when there is perhaps state police, local government police, then the stress on the federal police would reduce. And it will help them to focus more on specific mandate. We could use the federal police for elections. We could use the federal police to prosecute terrorists, man terrorism, and all that. But if it is the same police that if they steal your phone, it is they that you would run to. If you have a fight with your neighbor, it is they that you will run to. Definitely they are overstretch. They have a lot on their hands. So I think we should find a way of reducing the level of work that we have given to the federal police itself. This will enable them to focus on the right thing and to man their facilities and deliver a good credible election for Nigerians. The 2020 election will most likely be successful on what the police does or failed to do. Okay, so I'd like to share your thoughts on we're getting straight to the statement being made by the president. Let's not forget that the president had promised Nigerians that he would ensure a free credible elections in 2023. Now, the involvement on the police in our election process or security agencies, I like to just always stay with security agencies. Feels like I'm limited to the police, but what do you make of it generally? The fact that we have security agents being involved in the electoral process in Nigeria. Don't forget that so many persons have also queried that action saying elections have been militarized. You have uniform men of different quarters everywhere when you're on the day of the elections. What do you think of that really? Well, first, the president must have made the statement he made based on- No, I'm not talking about the statement. I'm just talking about the fact that we have security agencies or agents involved in the election process. That has been our practice over time, especially when we moved from a military era to a democratic dispensation. The notion of having elections with the presence of security agents, what are your thoughts? What do you make of this particular action and behavior? The presence of the security agencies is justified, but unnecessary if the right things are done. Justified in the sense that in a society where we have bandits, kidnapping, high rates of crime, and most especially when the premium we place on politics is very high. Everybody wants to become a politician. Everybody wants to get into political office. So the stakes are high. Because the stakes are high and the democratic process itself, it's not super credible. Then you would see that the politician would try to see how they can cash in on the lapses of the electoral system itself. And that's where the police comes in. If the electoral process is credible, maybe we wouldn't have much police involvement or let's say the involvement of the security agencies that much. That's where the justification comes in. But if the system itself, for example, in other climes, you wouldn't have much involvement of the police because there's a structured system and you cannot breach the system. It's impossible for you. Look at what happened in the United States, Donald Trump. He tried to manoeuvre his way despite losing the election. But he was unable to do that, to achieve that, because there is a structured system. But if it were to be in Nigeria, our system is different. We have this command and control system. If a police officer, a senior police officer, issues a command to his subordinate, even if it is against the law, the kind of system we operate, that police officer, that, you know, police officer will be effaced.  If a politician at the further level, an influential politician, calls a security personnel for maybe assistance or issue and other, because the policeman is seeking one favor of the other. At that point in time, the word of that politician is the law. Look at the ushering election, not the immediate person, the other one, where we have allegations of remote control, one strange phone call, and all that. So you can imagine a system that operates that way. If we remove the involvement of the security agencies, I'm not sure that our election will be credible, because even before the election itself, I think violence in our electoral process comes in two ways, the inter-party and the intra-party. If the the way candidates emerge are not credible, there will be some members that are aggrieved that will even work against the success of the candidate of their party. They will also have the inter, whereby each party wants to win. So in a situation like that whereby people are desperate for power, definitely the involvement of the security agencies is necessary. I think what we should advocate for, which may be difficult, but it's not impossible, is for the security agencies to be non-partisan. They should not be double standard. We've seen situations whereby- So I mean that's what we're getting to now. That's the conversation we're getting to. But I also like to share thoughts on it. I stated that the president, of course, that's what he said, that he will ensure a credible election. And do you think that with this recent order or command or tax or whatever it is you want to call it, two security agencies, do you think that this is his commitment to ensuring a connection with the promise that he has made to Nigerians that he would ensure the free, fair and credible elections in 2023? In all fairness to the president, I think he has been working the talk on ensuring free, fair and credible elections. Why did I say so? The election is not yet here, but from the actions that he has taken, I can say that he is committed to ensuring free, fair and credible elections. For example, the APC primary. People thought that the president is going to impose a candidate, is going to unpick a candidate, but he stayed neutral and let the process evolve. And he has said it on the different forums that anybody that wins, it's fine by him. I think that is commendable. And I think that he has laid a foundation for people to reference in such a way that anybody that wins the election, if that person wants to impose a candidate, people can easily reference President Mahmoud Bari's action of not imposing a candidate. And for him to come out and say that the security agencies should go all out to ensure free, credible election, I think his words has been matched with action because in the course of the electoral process, he has not really get himself so involved in a partisan manner. He has been facing his duties as the president and commander-in-chief of the further Republic of Nigeria. Most people do not expect that. They would have expected that he would go all out, like when President Tobas Ogil was leaving office and he was to install late President Umaru Musa Yara Dua. He went all out. But in this case, the president has, I wouldn't say stay away, but has maintained a matured ground. And this has given people confidence that if this trend continued, definitely we would have a credible election. The body language of the president matters a lot in terms of the action of the security agencies. If the president stays away from the process and let the process evolve itself. If the security agencies are appointed by the president, do not see the desperation on the part of their commander-in-chief to install a particular person as his successor. That will go a long way in helping them to carry out their duties effectively as expected by Nigerians and as empowered on them by the constitution. So are you saying that, you know, for every other time that the security agencies in Nigeria have been involved? Because, I mean, there are several cases of their involvement and Shorah has actually stated that there's no violence. There's no rigging that happens in, you know, our election process without the involvement of our security agencies. So are you saying that every other time this happens that, you know, those, whoever is the president at the time, you know, it's like they're taking a lead from, it's an endorsement? Is that what you're saying? Well, I agree with Shorah and I have course to disagree with him in the sense that- But is that what you're saying? Because you said that the body language of Mr. President, it's a signal to the security agencies or agents, however, you know, the cases.   What I'm saying is the body language of the president helps. It helps. It's not like the final criteria. The president will not be at each state and at the polling stations. No, it's the officers that are there that will use that discretion. But the body language of the commander-in-chief, it helps a lot. If the president is desperate to install and he gives marching orders to his appointees that deliver so-so-so mandate for me, you will see that their action towards the election will be different. But if the president gives them a clear mandate that be fair, let the best person emerge. It also helps. So the body language of the president helps for us to have a credible election. But that doesn't mean that at the end of the day, we won't find policemen that would compromise. That doesn't mean that because the president has given orders, we won't find politicians that are willing to go on out to concrete the pressure. I think, okay, I understand. But I wish we had more time to talk about this. I mean, I'm just making reference to the past that, for every other time we've had that, could you also be that the body language has been that, hey, go read the election or, you know, because this is what I want. And that's what they have acted like that. But we'll leave that conversation. I would say that. Yes, let's leave that quickly. Let's leave that quickly. We're asked to go, but just before we go, just in a few sentences, is there a guarantee of neutrality of our security agents in the 2023 elections? Well, the neutrality of the security agencies depends on a number of factors. If Nigerians themselves are determined to have a free, fair and credible election, these security agencies sometimes read the body language of Nigerians themselves. If Nigerians are ready to go all out and vote and stand by their vote, it will be difficult for the security agencies to compromise. But as we have good officers, we have bad officers. So I can't guarantee that there will be totally like non-partisanship because we have policemen in uniforms who are eating members of political parties or who have eating interests in certain political parties that would influence their conduct. But I believe that if the system does not allow it, and if Nigerians are willing to stand by their vote, especially with the introduction of the beavers, whereby the results are transmitted electronically, instantly, if there's a large crowd and Nigerians are willing to stand by their vote, and the security agencies are willing to do their job, it would be difficult. I think where the security agencies get each other is in the area of compromise. We don't see security agencies snatching the ballot box and all that, but the compromise for talks, the compromise for politicians. So if there is less compromise on the part of the security agencies, I believe that with the introduction of the beaver system, we will have a better election. We are not yet there, but we'll get there maybe someday. Definitely. We can only continue to talk about this. Some other people will say we need to pray, but prayers without actions or faith without work is dead. So let's all get to work and do the needful, so we can move forward. As a country, thank you so much, Dr. Deji, for being with us this morning. Thank you for having me. Dr. Moshulat Deji is a political scientist and he's made out time to be with us this morning on the show, but that's the size of it. We take a break. When we return, we look at the threats coming from telecommunication companies. He might just be a lot for Nigerians in 2023. Please stay with us.


Questions? Good. I'll give you another shot at the end of the talk if you have any questions on anything I present. My name is Bob Waldy for the next 20 minutes. I'll give you a talk on, as we saw before, building successful and unsuccessful businesses based on open source foundations and unfortunately I have had experience in both, a taste of both. I know which one I enjoy most and I'll do that by, can I send that down to get rid of the crackle or is that fine? Okay. I'll do that by just giving you a quick introduction on myself so you can discount or see what colours what I say. Then I'll just share some lessons from specific personal experience I've had of both success and lack thereof in building businesses that have been based on open source foundations. It's not necessarily selling an open source solution but with the open source was the key element, the key success factor or not success factor in the business. And then maybe share with you my thoughts and observations what I see of changes in the general open source and Linux environment in the industry since I've been involved in it over the last 15 years or so. I was going to finish with some sequence of success when I originally wrote these presentations that I really struggled to think of those little gems I was going to throw so maybe over the next 20 minutes something a little gel and I'll conclude with that. Again, while I said there'll be questions at the end feel free at any stage if you have a question just put your hand up and I really would like to have dialogue as much as pitch. That's my, I forgot to push my timer here so I don't go over time so give me two seconds. Start. End of presentation. Very good. Okay. Okay. Welcome to Brisbane. I said I'm not a coder. I am an engineer by training but I've, and I was not a particularly excellent engineer admit, I've subsequently had MBA lobotomies and so really I'm not a technologist. I have the fortune to be able to spot good technologists and that's actually been a good useful tool over the years. And I live in the embedded space so the products we've developed principally have been appliance products, hardware products they've been built on at the intellectual property that's associated with those fundamentally has been the software that's embedded. But we had delivered them wrapped rather than on a CD or a download wrapped or a service wrapped in a hardware object. And I said I've been making money out of open source technology since 1995. The first company that I set up was a company called Morton Bay Ventures then and it fundamentally was an open source technology company based on UC Linux. Two of the drivers here of the UC Linux platform are Greg Unger and Dave McCulloch were founders of the company. We sold a whole range of development platforms and that was sort of the first of a series of open source ventures that I've been involved with. I spent a couple of years in the states working for a company I'll talk about a little bit later, Linneo, whose mission in life was in the embedded world to do what Red Hat's done successfully in the Linux world. Their mission was to be a billion dollar embedded Linux distribution companies, services and tools but software was not successful. And my current company Open Gear, again another startup, we again have got a, we've got a SLA hardware management platform but it's totally based on embedded open source tools, things like Nagios, we use the management nut, network UPS tools and managing power devices and the like and it's an open source play. So I'm pleased to be able to speak after Paul although I am sort of a little bit overshadowed by the quality of his slides and the quantity of his slides I've got five. That's because unlike that one billion dollar corporation that Red Hat's going to become this year, we're a four million dollar business so we're in the earlier stages but come a look and see an Open Gear presentation in five or 10 years time and you'll see 30 slides up there as we head towards the billion dollar stage. So I said this is largely very experiential, it's not meant to be, this isn't based on any structured analytics sort of view of the markets and things. So I'll just quickly touch on some successes and not successes that I've had in commercialization of intellectual property experiences. The Morton Bay Venture Company, which was the MBV platform, it was the first startup I've been involved in in the open source world and what we specifically set out to do at the time was develop ARM platforms, ARM processor platforms that people could use then for developing their products and their projects using open source Linux tools. Again, built on the UC Linux platform that we were leading the development of. The catch with that business was actually coming up with the business model that worked. Again, we did not want to be a tools and development platform vendor forever because that's a really hard model to scale and capitalise. It's only one or two winners in that sort of space. Like currently you've got the Wind River, Intel and MBV players. It's just very hard to do that. So the business model we were pursuing there was actually trying to come up with generic platforms, focus on specific areas, do some custom bespoke designs for people and get some services revenue in, slowly aggregate some expertise and particular niches and start to build up value added and expertise in niche markets. That was the business model which we had that was behind the Morton Bay Venture activity. It was successful. We rolled it up to a few million dollars in revenues. We got bought and had a reasonable capital return to the investors. So it was a good example of a successful model. But again, we started out with a view of what's the capital play we're doing here with this thing? What's something that's going to scale? It doesn't just create revenues, but creates a capital exit for the investors and for all the stakeholders, which is all the staff. That was my first taste of success in commercialising open source. My first taste in failure came very soon after, which was the linear business model, which is down here on the other side. I said Lineo was a company in the States that was well funded, had 48 million dollars in venture capital funding, had aggregated, had bought a bunch of companies around the world who were open source technology and tools providers and their goal was to create, exactly like Red Hat, to productise and add service layers and all those things in the embedded open source world. Although we struggled over a period of, and this all happened just pre-2000, which is in a terrible era in the IT history when, well, it had seed funding, the market collapsed before it could IPO and get sustaining funding. But it was a real struggle in a business, trying to create a revenue stream in a business when you were trying to sell software, selling better software that people were used to getting for free. And when you were selling tools that were at the very early stages of their creation. So we struggled hard and a lot of companies struggle now. We are involved with Nagios as one of the open source software products that we support. It's been around very popular. Has anyone here used Nagios? Many? Oh, good. Okay. It's been around for a long time. So we support, since we started Open Gear, we give them money every year just as a sponsor to keep it going. Met with Ethan and they've been looking at how they move from being a generic community open source project to how they commercialise. And it's difficult how you career, what choice you take for your revenue stream and how you actually crystallise and you keep your community interest at the same time as creating real tangible value in the market to customers. So linear was an example I had. I was COO over there for a while and I really got to taste the embarrassment of a great failure. My next failure event, an unsuccessful event for Tains to Open Gear. We actually started this company six years ago. I got together with the guys who had started previous open source ventures within Brisbane and we sat down and we looked for some market opportunities where we could develop a new open source business. I'd made some money, I'd retired, I'd found having a farm and growing grapes and cows, they're really boring. So I decided to get back into the, you know, let's start a business again. And we spotted a, what we thought was a really good boom area which was the KVM Keyville Video Mouse technology space. It was a market we profiled, $600 million market, found the players, looked at parameters, figured we could go in there and develop an open source, and it's all proprietary, proprietary hardware, proprietary software. And we thought we could go in there and develop a fully open source software and open source hardware equivalent and actually go over there and disrupt the market and take that on, you know, head on. That was the decision. At the same time we've come from an old serial comms board background in the the stallion days, so what went hand in hand with KVM device is a console server. So we thought as well as doing, you know, commoditising the, not commoditising, opening the KVM world, we'd open up the console server market at the same time. So we started another open source source forage project where we said here's how you can get the equivalent of what you currently pay $4,000 for recyclades, you know, an old Cisco box or a recyclage terminal server. Now you can go along and buy a $200 multi-foot board, put it on a PC and we'll have a Hizzle, a software that'll do all the bits that you need and you can roll your own device. We thought that would also take off and we had to talk to a couple of people about this and we believed it was true. So got some funding together, developers sat down, best part of it, not six months or so, developed some great products, trade shows, went to market and suddenly realised this was totally, totally wrong. The two things we're approaching to do, the KVM market, doing open source hardware and trying to commercialise that is just real hard yards. Our goal was to find a bunch of hardware chip vendors that we'd put software stacks on them and we'd say here's your chip and we had some, we did the layouts of the boards, test them, got them certified and said here it is, here's the solution. But going to talk to hardware people about putting open sourcing up the drivers and getting too close with open technology into their hardware layers is a real challenge to get the, to get, particularly in the graphics chips domain. It's just really difficult to get there. So we ended up saying we've got one chip vendor we came with, from Japan we were working with and we had one platform and that was okay, so it wasn't generic. So that was our KVM play, didn't actually get the multi-platform validity. On the console server side, we suddenly found that for system administrators cost is important but that's not the issue.  They want something that's rock solid. They also want something, they don't want something that's cost a hundred dollars or two hundred dollars based on a PC footprint. They want something that takes one RU or less because rack space costs lots of dollars and these are all the sort of go-to-market things we learn. Unfortunately, afterwards started the business. After we'd invested in the technology, we had a great technology, it's still out there, great open source project, we still get a few people asking for it but so we sat down after a year and a half of open gears, you know, beginning in life and thought okay, well we're clever, we've got the money, we've started, what do we do now? And that's when we've, we've continued on our current business plan and I think the current, okay, the current business plan we're doing with open gears, we're actually developed these little one RU console service compete with Cyclades. We developed little remote management boxes, we've taken the same technology, we've embodied it, embodied it into products, we've got a product plan now but the original open source mission we started the company with has changed radically. I think the last piece down the bottom I've got a no community STT. One of the other things we had in our open gear business is that everything we did, we decided we're going to do fully open source and we had some little Java client management client software we developed and we decided we'd open source that and again start a STT project and we got some traction in terms of community following but not enough to really justify doing it in open source, in a full open source GPL manner. We would have been much better doing it the way saying we're happy to share the source with you Mr. Kustman if ever you ask, but we won't go through all the compliance issues and the update issues and that because we, there wasn't tangible customer benefit and what we're doing now we've got, within our open gear business we've developed some central management platforms that extend on Nagios and do some accessing device between firewalls and the like and our intention is to open all that up but we're looking a way to open it up in a way that doesn't necessarily involve putting it in a GPL tag on it. I'm quite happy to do that but I know the minute I do that, okay thank you, paranoia prevails when you get to cry here but I know the minute that you open it up and you put the GPL tag and I think every two months or three months someone's going to send me five dollars and ask for a CD with the current cut and there's lots of nuisance compliance cost things and unless you've got a big community of users that are feeding back and you're creating something of wealth it's not necessarily the right way to open, to share the value of openness. I think the key thing is I think we should be getting to a point now where open source is a great start. The value prop is not really the open source and the regular regulation that goes with it, it's the notion of openness that the customers want and that's the not jump the end, okay. So I move on to what I see as I said the transitions that we've seen in the Linux world and the open source world over the last 15 years. I think the first one is the major one that open source is now an integrated part of the proprietary world we live in. I think that if you think of which of the most successful commercializers of open source companies in the around the markets today who's got some what's the release of the red hat? Apple? Okay, Apple. Google? Okay, okay, so good and that there the answers. It's Apple, it's Google, it's Facebook, it's companies that have built businesses, built Zoomy wealth-creating businesses totally on open source platforms but you go on Facebook and look to see open source advocacy and they don't. They've got open source interface, an SDK if you want to indicate interface to androids and iPhones and the like and these companies I think that are successfully commercializing open source today are doing so often by actually using and levering off the value of open source without necessarily taking it out the forefront and taking a head-on advocacy saying here's my open source, you know, jumla-drupal versus your closed source product, product is being done underneath the infrastructure level and providing value to use. So I think that's probably one what I see as the biggest change is as open source, because I think open source is just one the game, the infrastructure within the internet today, it's a lamp infrastructure that we're building our IT world on. So now it's, I think, we need to be successfully, to successfully commercialize. We don't want to be out there championing open source mantras. We want to be out there finding that, yeah. So I'm chairing the open source mantras. Yes. But there is quite a successful companies that are doing that, although the Drupal community, Acquia, for example, is a very successful IT promotes open source, it also promotes the fact that it's the community that makes it, and also one of the main reasons that, you know, Acquia and Acquia sit up was also to help fund and put money back into that community space as well. So they're seeing their business model as being directly chimed into the fact that they're open source. Okay. And then it's done and it's tested. Yeah, and not questioning that, sorry. I'd say, okay, so you don't, I didn't mean you don't want to. I meant you don't need to. Because what I'm saying is I think that the biggest successes now within open source have come from, are coming from companies that are deploying open source technologies and deploying them to create revenue streams that aren't linked directly to the open source licenses at all, that aren't linked at all to services related to the open source technologies. They're using those technologies to provide the customer with the openness to remove vendor lock-in fears to these things. Then they've got some other value prop, which is their Google. It doesn't get themselves advertising. Here we are. Linux generates advertising revenues. That's the business model that's been deployed. I'm not questioning there's lots of successful companies and good growth opportunities there, but that's not where we're moving. I see where we're moving now. If you look at the people who are writing the code in big business is funding Linux. The Linux foundation lists of who's writing the code that goes in the Linux. 70% of people writing code are working for companies, as paid employees paid to write open source code. 12% of those 70% work for Red Hat. It's 19% that work in this notional, and it's not this distributed community who are doing things out of ours and for different reasons. There's nothing wrong with that, but that's where we're migrated. You know, some people might see it as open source or so. And then there is other companies that are arguing it. There's corporations that are actually, the fact that it is open source technology is the reason why they're attacking it. Because there's this thing that you have to work in the corporations called agile and open source is the only way that you can really justify like getting to an agile project. So you can't do that in a provide instructions. So, but anyway just So, again, I'm not arguing that there's a spectrum of solutions. The question is, where are we moving? Where are we moving globally? I think that's my sense of things now is that is, and it isn't companies who are using open source and not contributing back to it. These are companies that are funded businesses creating wealth and their object is commercialized open source. That is their mission. Their mission is actually to create wealth, dollar wealth, out of open source technology. So that's the, and I think we have migrated. That was the next one. We've migrated largely from a general community driven, development community driven open source model to where we are now, which is generally a vendor driven a development model where it's vendors, it's companies that are getting the funding to do the development, to take the initiatives, to take these projects forward. And that I think's got, again, as part of you think you've had, you know, where do I play a role and how do I commercialize ideas I have. And I think it's a different model to what we had five, 10, 15 years ago. The other part I said before that I said before I think the other part that's emerging is that the revenue that successful open source commercialization has arrived is increasingly not being derived from just selling licenses or even selling services linked to those licenses. Now being sold is it's indirect revenue streams that people are being more successful. Software as a service, you know restructuring the delivery models. And so I guess my general sense is that I look at things open, I don't see the purity in the open source. Well, we use, we use sugar CRM for our contact records. Who else uses sugar here? No one. Oh, no more. But we do also look to, look to commercial tools, look to Salesforce which is one of the popular sales management tools out there. You go into Salesforce which is the hub of proprietary software services, hosted services. They've got their apps market area where users put apps in. They've got a whole bunch of open source people putting open source apps into this proprietary world. I guess that's where I see, aside from each license issue, migration, boundary issues, right? That's where I see a lot more emergence of the successful open source opportunities now maybe not developing an open source alternative to something that's proprietary but more actually developing an open source add on or extension to something that remains proprietary. Having said that, the last bit was actually going back to what you were saying. I think there still is a lot of substantial success with companies based on, based on the original model of pure open source GPL and there's real tangible benefits that come with robust technology that comes from a rich developer pool, the fact that Sorry, just to the curse to me, Irene, are you sort of feeding the beast there? I mean, you mentioned the idea of Salesforce. So, you know, the total lock-in, data lock-in, platform lock-in, are we really doing ourselves a long-term service by building an open source plug-in community around a proprietary platform? Isn't that kind of like the only one who's actually benefiting there is Salesforce? Or doesn't it matter? Is that? Well, I guess I I would think that Ignore it if it's big time. No, it isn't. No, it isn't. I spend aside from what I do is with the business. I'm also an angel investor and I'm involved in some VC things. I look at startups and so I do tend to have that horrible return on investment, how do I put on things on how you judge success? Because I think that my measure of success is if you can create wealth, that's the best thing you can do in life because that lifts our standards, that makes hospitals, old people a little longer, start to think that's more important. And that's a good thing. Now, there's some other sort of zealot, there's other dimensions to the openness argument and I'm supportive of them with my commercial hat on. I look at what generates the most wealth-creating outcome. And again, if you look at Google, here's their open source layer buried in their androids. Marketplace with a sort of a semi-open sort of interface on the top and then there's a stack of applications, mostly proprietary, but maybe there's a great opportunity for a fully open source suite of applications living there. And that, I think, is the sort of world that I see we've moved to. We've got some open pillars mixed in with proprietary pieces and that's what the net is. It's exactly that complex fabric of open and proprietary and it all sits on a proprietary hardware base. So it's not... Yeah, just... Yeah, sure. ...that supports Oracle. It works fine with Oracle. We have about a 10 second change. We can make it work with Postgres, MySQL, whatever. And it just means that we provide software that works in the proprietary world and still play that game. But we can very easily jump into other domains. So we provide a Salesforce button in theory as only drivers can also work with some great high model. So what you're saying is that that's not necessary which was the best... That's, to me, how your business has been in and around this company. It's not effective to go around denying it. It's also not giving back to anyone in the community or not even when you talk about it. It's the fact that you're then going, here's this great open source product and its main use is this. And he said, you know what, for that small percentage of people that might want to plug into Oracle or this free with that growth you send in that option is there for them. And I don't think... Not... I'm going to tell you what's wrong, I think, to me, that's what I sell for corporations. That's why corporations get me in there is because I'm the open source person. Because I've been talking about open source. I've been talking about how they can get into the community, how they can contribute models and things like that. So I just... Okay. That's not really the point that I'm hearing though. No, yeah. I don't know how to use that. And it's about making money, the use of that source rather than making money. Making money. That's correct. And I said, we've got at Open Gear, we use Open Essence... Open Essence as our main communications thing. One of the successful ventures are things like successful commercialization items I had there I didn't talk about is we actually sponsored last year for it to get... For the last version of Open Essence to get FIPS compliant. Now, a lot of people have done it for their products but rather than doing for our products we sponsored it to do... Paid for it to get done for the platform. And what that did is we got... Where's the company? So it was just sunk money. Tens of that, not a hundred, just a hundred. And what that got is I got invited to go along for an Open SSI, Industry Body Association in the States that actually sit there with the SVP of Sun and the guys from the DOD and our little company sit over here saying we're an open source advocate. We advocate by giving money to areas that we see as important. 70% of the community that you talk about that companies aren't giving it back. 70% of the community is actually companies. The community are the companies. There's companies like us like Sun, like Google, like Apple. That is the community nowadays. It's people who are employees of big companies and that's the big change. It's not... It's moved out of its... You know, it's not basements and it doesn't have the same sort of, you know, great origins that have. I'm not going to defend Microsoft. Okay, I'll... Yes, sorry. Yes, I'm not going to defend Microsoft. I'm not going to... I'm just... Yes, yes. Any other... I love being right with capitalism. It's a refreshing contrast and storming us kind of. It is. And I just know that... So we started this an open source company. I fully believe in this open source. I'll happily... So we made enough money. That's not the goal. The goal is to make it be successful. But I think now that you need to be successful and open source, you need to sell the value of openness to the customer and deliver the value of openness to the customer. And often it's an incremental value, not a core value. Right? Deliver the value. And don't... And let's stop pitching open source. Because I think as a thing, all right, it's a great tool, but the power lies in the openness that you're actually... That's the liberating thing. You're giving people control of their own supporting... They can support themselves. All the... All the benefits that we sell will be sell open source. I think we should just move it to the next level. So if there are no more questions... Yes? Go on. The front page of it is not... Don't need to use the whole financing, I'll start. So I realise you've been on those sides of that to tell the thing. Do you have any views on that? In terms of the sense of getting businesses going, what are the... What are the other views that don't surround that to go on? That's the deal. See, I'm one of the few... I'm one of the few people in life that I actually... When we started Open Gear Up, what I also did was... Even though the people who were in the team, we had the funding to do the business. First thing I did was worked out what's our outside funding piece in our puzzle. And we got some East Coast, USA, East Coast, BC guys that I knew from previous lives. They set up a little business, put some money in it that funded us because I think there's real benefit and enterprise having these outside funding piece in your founding equation to keep you on track, to help connect you. There's lots of good leverage that goes with it. So I advocate it's got great value. It's really hard to get. That's the... And it's particularly hard to get if this is your first-time venture. And it's particularly hard to get if this is your second or third or fourth and you haven't failed yet because your odds of this being the one you fail on is higher because at some stage you're going to go up and down. That's that. But it's... And so I'm involved with Brisbane Angels and there's lots of... That's a different talk. I don't have any... And I'm not... But I'm not certain though that what used to be an issue in the VC world, what was an issue where we used to sell ourselves some time ago is where's the intellectual property? Where's the core IP value under running this business? People aren't... I don't see that as being the barrier anymore. That's part of... We've transcended that model. Now it's more what's the value delivered to customer? How are you protecting that? What's your branding? What's your unfair advantage? All those things. But the IPPs and the fact that it's open source versus proprietary is far less of a problem. So as a company... Yes. ...it's good to be a new start. Yes. One of the big risks is to look whether they'll be there in a year or two or whether the projects are open and effective. Yes, yes, yes. Me, that funding model is really, really... I'm... That's... ...the guarantee of the long term. Which is why we'll be a billion dollar company like Red Hat because there are scale issues that get you into it. Yeah, you're right. There's lots of others. Now, in my position as a corporate consumer it's really good to go and get some people involved with some of these smaller ones like the real... ...the real risk is a lot of them don't get the financial thing right and you can see that they're just not going to be there for a long time. The technology's off the list. It doesn't even get purchased and absorbed to something else and just disappeared. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's why there's value right from the day one. Not just the financial structures but all the governance that goes with which need to get right, you know, your IP or your contract governance. One last question at the back. Yes. So is it pursuing a level of external funding? Is that just adding a base load of stress that you may not necessarily... may not necessarily be necessary for a business? And why assume that you need it if you may not... if you may not? I don't know. I just... I guess I just do this experientially, right? I find it's great value that I like most people particularly like most Australians where satiate is not maximizes. And if you're quite happy having a business that's a good comfortable business goes on for 10 years or 20 years then you don't need to put VC in. If you want to guarantee yourself that you're never going to have a comfortable business that goes on for 10 or 20 years that you're already going to go fast and be, you know, give it a real go, right? Or you're going to go bust, right? That's the game you want to play. Then VC's... that outside capital is a good crystal to put right at the beginning to give to... to set that agenda for you because otherwise you do this. And you become an SMB... nothing wrong with being an SMB and passing the business to your daughter and there's nothing wrong with that model at all. If you want to... outside funding is a key success factor generally in... I find in maintaining ramp pressure. And I don't like outside venture capital so I don't... those people I've done it... I don't have a capital but I think it's a useful age in the equation. That was a... I think I should stop because I'm running out of time. Thank you very much. I forgot to say... I forgot to say the last thing was... but if you do think that... I had a slide that showed a map of Australia we've got great open source potential here. We haven't had enough successful commercial ventures. We do actually have an industry association open source industry association which is reformed and it's something I'd advocate anyone who's looking for successful commercialization to participate in. I think it's osia.org.au .net.au Sorry, okay. Thanks.


Yes, Roma wines taste better because only Roma selects from the world's greatest wine reserves for your pleasure. And now, Roma wines, R-O-M-A, Roma wines present suspense. Tonight Roma wines bring you Miss Angela Lansbury in A Thing of Beauty, a suspense play produced, edited and directed for Roma wines by William Spears. Suspense, Radio's Outstanding Theatre of Thrills is presented for your enjoyment by Roma wines. That's R-O-M-A, Roma wines, those better tasting California wines enjoyed by more Americans than any other wine, for friendly entertaining, for delightful dining. Yes, right now a glassful would be very pleasant as Roma wines bring you Angela Lansbury in a remarkable tale of suspense. Now, if you will give me your arm. Yes, sir. Oh, thank you. I think we shall just miss the storm if we hurry. What a somber place, isn't it? Oh, it gives her seclusion and that's all she's ever asked for since she came here. That and what little spiritual comfort I'd been able to give her. How long ago was that, sir? That she came here, I mean? Oh, eight. No, let me see. No, no, nine. Nine years ago in May. But it was long before that that she left the stage.  Though it's not her mind was ever sick or I'm mistaken. They do say she's a bit on the eccentric side, though. Oh, well, you'll be her spiritual advisor yourself soon enough when I've retired. And I want you to meet her without prejudice. One day I'll tell you what I know, which goodness knows it little enough and what I have reason to believe, which is somewhat more. Well, it seems we're just about to escape a drenching. She lives completely alone? The one servant, that is all. Oh, Father Benton. Ah, Suzette, this is my new curate, the Rev. Mr. Sedley. We're here to see Mr. May. Well, does she know you are not alone? Good Suzette, I haven't any idea. But you might have seen out of the raid if you don't mind while you so inform her. But if...very well, come in. Ah, thank you. If you would wait in the study, I will ask if mademoiselle is able to see you. Ah, what in the world's got into that woman? She knows Mr. May's been seeing me every fortnight at the same time for nine years. Hmm, there's a picture here. Is it of her? Probably. A word. She was a beauty. Your father could have told you. Ah, yes, she was a legend of two continents.  Is it true, sir, that she sees no one but you? No one. As far as I know, she has never set foot outside this house in all the time she's been here. Nor has she ever had a single visitor beside myself. But why? Mademoiselle will see you now, Father, in her parlor across the hall. Ah, thank you, Suzette. Father Benton. Hello, hello, my dear. Come in, come in. Thank you. I do hope you don't mind my receiving you in the dark, but I have a mortal dread of light stirring a storm. Not at all, my dear. You'll find two quite comfortable chairs just there by the window, I think. Oh, thank you, thank you. Uh, uh, Madeline, this is my new curate, Mr. Sedley. Oh, yes, Mr. Sedley. It's a great pleasure to meet the famous beauty, even in the dark. Yes, I suppose you've heard of my beauty, Mr. Sedley. You know as you came in, I was looking at this little gold mirror engraved on the back of the words, a thing of beauty is a joy forever. Ah, Keats. Yes, Oscar gave it to me. Oh? He said it was a magic mirror. When you are very old, Madeline, he said, you will only have to look in it to see yourself as you are now, young and radiant and a joy forever. And I've believed ever since then that Oscar was really something of a magician, because you know, it's true. Uh, was that Oscar Wilde, Mr. Maine? Yes. Dear Oscar, dear dead days, I suppose you've already heard all the wild tales of my lurid past, Mr. Sedley. Oh, no, Mr. Maine, I assure you I... I don't believe that Father Bentham has ever caught me in a reminiscing mood, have you, Father? But since you will one day be vicar here, Mr. Sedley, perhaps it would be better if you heard the truth from me. Mr. Maine, don't think I... No, the truth is wild enough. It all began, I suppose, when John Gaylord gave me my first speaking part. That was so far too long ago to tell. My hair was a little darker. My voice was not quite as rich as it is now. A trifle more silvery, perhaps. John and Nell Garrett were the leaves. In my part, well, it was one of those obscure little parts that no one pays any attention to until some obscure little actress comes along and makes the start of a career with it. It was then that I first experienced what will always be to me in all the range of human feelings, the supreme exaltation when you hear the full frenzied applause of an audience. For you. For you alone. May I see you? Come in, John. It's simply marvellous. Oh, thank you, John.  A fool? I've told you to play the part down, but it's getting worse and worse tonight. She's absolutely furious. She's going to make trouble for you, Madeline. Trouble? What kind of trouble? Oh, you don't know Nellie Garrett. But I know my audience, don't I? Oh, Madeline, you're so young and foolish and so beautiful. Why, thank you, John. So terribly beautiful. Oh, John, you're leading up to it again, aren't you? Oh, Madeline, this play isn't going to last forever. You can't keep it alive much longer. Why don't we make plans together now? We could have our own company. As the great John Gaylord and Mrs. Gaylord. No, of course not. Why, in a couple of years, you'd be as famous in your own right as Nell Garrett herself. Perhaps I don't want to wait a couple of years. Besides, John, I don't love you. But do you love anyone? No. But when I marry, it'll be old. It'll be an up-and-coming young member of Parliament's life. You're in for it now, Madeline. Please, my dear, you must... So there you are, my fine miss. Go easy, Miss Garrett, she's meant no harm. No harm indeed. She has merely ruined my entire last act curtain for 29 consecutive performances, hoisting her skirts clear above the ankle, ogling the stalls like a music hall gretchen. Well, it's only because it's that kind of a part... Oh, is it indeed now? Well, as long as I play the lead in this company, I will not have my best speech in the whole play utterly ruined by rowdy applause for the gutter antics of a half-bait ingenuity. Really?  And while we're on the subject, Mr. Gaylord, there are a few points I should like to discuss with you. When you help Miss Tremaine down from the swing in the second act, there's no need for you to keep your arm around her during the entire remainder of the scene. I'll admit that she appears ready to swoon at any moment. But one peep-show performance is quite enough for an evening at Rory Lane. Well, really, Miss Garrett, if you can no longer hold either your audiences or your love, are you cheap? No.   I left the theatre and walked aimlessly out into the night. My eyes blinded with tears.  For I knew that Nell Garrett could ruin me with every theatre manager in London, and I knew she would. How long I wandered through those misty streets or where, or even what I did, I shall never know. But just as dawn was breaking, I found myself by some odd twist of fate passing by the lodgings of John Gaylord. On a sudden impulse, I climbed the steps to his door. Madeleine! Hello, John. Darling, did anyone see you? See me? Come in, come in. Where have you been? Just walking. Walking? Good Lord. Alone? Yes, why? Don't you know? Yes, John, I'm afraid I do my career. Your career?  John, what is it?  Dead? Murdered? Oh, John. The police have been looking all over London for you. I've been expecting them here every moment. For me? Of course, for you. But why?  Why wouldn't they be looking for you? Now, Madeleine, now, listen to me. Where did you go? What did you do? Didn't anyone see you? Didn't you talk to anyone? You've got to tell them something. But what can I tell them? Because if you don't tell them, they'll... John, I... Yes, yes, they'll hang you, Madeleine. No. Please, Madeleine, you've got to think. You've got to remember something. I was so alone. If only I had a friend. You have got a friend, Madeleine. I'm your friend, believe me. But someone who loved me and loved to at least say they were with me. Yes, who is it? Inspector Pellis. Scotland Yard. Oh, there, quickly, in the bedroom. John. Don't worry. I'll tell him something. Hurry. Yes, coming. I'm sorry to rouse you with this early hour, sir. It's quite all right. Come in. You are Mr. John Gaylord? Yes. Of the Queen's Players Company, Drury Lane? Yes. Can you tell me, Mr. Gaylord, anything of the whereabouts of Miss Madeleine Tremaine? Madeleine Tremaine? Yes. Why, uh... Did you call me, darling? Oh, excuse me. Who is this lady, Mr. Gaylord? Well, who are you? I'm from the police, madam. Police? There's been a murder. This Nell Garrett of the Queen's Company was found stabbed in her home last night. Nell Garrett? Yes. Do you know her? Why, of course, this is great... I'm afraid, madam, that I shall have to ask you for your name. I'm Madeleine Tremaine. I'm sorry that you find me in somewhat disarray. Mr. Tremaine, I'm afraid I shall also have to ask you to account for your whereabouts after you left the theatre last night. Very well. Mr. Gaylord can account for my whereabouts. Well, Mr. Gaylord? I, uh... You see, Inspector, it's rather a delicate matter because since I left the theatre last night, I've been here. Is that true, Mr. Gaylord? Yes. Quite true, Inspector. I see. Is that satisfactory, Inspector? Yes, yes. Well, I don't think I need trouble you any further for the moment. Well, I quite understand your position, Inspector. It's a terrible, terrible thing. Yes. Well, um... Good day to you. Good day, sir. Oh, Madeleine, you shouldn't have done it. They'll have the scandal all over every newspaper in the city. Well, the scandal is better than a hanging, isn't it? There must have been some other way. Now, they'll tear you to shreds. They won't have you in anything better than a music hall for the rest of your life. John, there won't be any scandal. If what? John, it wasn't just my tiff with Nell Garrett that made me go wandering through the fog last night. I was thinking about something much more serious. What do you mean? I was thinking about what you said. What I had said? John, perhaps I don't really love you yet. But there's no one else. And you're the kindest, finest man I've ever known. Mad woman.  Madeleine, I love you more than anything else in this world, but I wouldn't have you marry me for gratitude. I wouldn't marry any man for gratitude. Madeleine, if I were to tell you that I wasn't here last night either, that I couldn't explain my whereabouts. Oh, I see. Would you still marry me? Yes, John. I will marry you. For suspense, Roma Wines are bringing you Angela Lansbury in A Thing of Beauty. Roma Wines' presentation tonight in Radio's outstanding Theatre of Thrill's Suspense. Between the acts of suspense, this is Truman Bradley for Roma Wines. Whether you serve wine infrequently or often, enjoy the better taste of Roma Wines. Yes, Roma Wines give you more pleasure with every sip or better three ways in fuller bouquet, richer body, and better taste. To bring you better tasting wine, Roma begins with California's choicest grapes, then with ancient skill and wine-making resources unmatched in America, Roma Master Ventiners guide this grape treasure unhurriedly to tempting taste perfection. These choice wines are then placed with Mellow Roma Wines of years before and from these reserves, the world's greatest reserves of fine wines, Roma later selects for your pleasure. This holiday weekend, enjoy rich Roma-California port or toque serve after dinner or in a tall glass with ice and soda as a refreshing warm-weather cooler. Served any way, Roma tastes better. That's why more Americans enjoy Roma than any other wine. That's R-O-M-A. Roma, your best buy in good taste. And now Roma Wines bring back to our Hollywood soundstage Mitch Angela Lansbury, who is Madeleine Tremaine, resumes the recital of her brilliant and stormy career. It is a tale told to two clergymen in a darkened room, a tale well-calculated to keep them and you in suspense. Shall I continue, gentlemen? Oh, yes. Please do, Mr. Maine. It's most absorbing. Indeed it is. Really? I hope you don't mind the lights turned off. It's the storm. I suppose I am a sort of an elemental creature, but I always love to sit here and have it dark when it's stormy outside. Not at all. Well then, our marriage was a very happy one. Perhaps not entirely in the high tradition of grand passion, but a thoroughly comfortable, civilized relationship, until something happened which is so often a tragic feature of wedded life between two stage personalities. You see, for the first two seasons, John and I always play together, and then managers began to ask for me alone, what could I do? I was young, just reaching the peak of my career. John was past his prime and popularity, and so at last he no longer even tried to have a career but lived along on false hopes and idle dreams and tiresome reminiscences and took up those little hobbies to pass the time away. If we grew a little stout, it was very difficult for both of us. And then, for me, came the time and the opportunity that every actress dreams of. Man, where's it? Hello, Suzette. I've got the most wonderful news, the most wonderful, wonderful news. That's you, Madeline. I'll tell you about it later. We know where it is. Yes, John. Come on in here a moment. I want to show you something. Where are you? In here in the dead. How could heavens now? I thought I'd keep it a secret until I had my first exhibit. I couldn't wait. I've taken up etching. Etching? Yes. Look, here. Oh, what's that? You? What? It's only the copper plate, of course. You see, the whole principle of etching of Madeline, look out. What's the matter? You almost knocked over that vat of nitric acid.  Well, must you have that sort of thing around, darling? Of course, that's the whole thing. You see, the sketch simply scrapes the wax off the copper plate. Then you drop it in the acid and... Well, that's very interesting, I must say. Yes. Well, tell me, what happened in town, anything? Anything. Everything. Got some plans, eh? Anyone ask for me? Oh, yes, everyone ask for you, John, and I told them you were well. I mean, well, I thought there might be a couple of decent plays for a change. I might consider something. I know, John. John, how are you on Romeo? Romeo? Yes, John. You see, Maxwell has finally asked me to do a Shakespeare repertory. And high time, by the way, and I'm starting in Romeo and Juliet, and I need... Madeline, why didn't you tell me Romeo? It would be a sensation. Yes. And it's just the thing I need. I know, John. Oh, I can do it all right. Take off a little weight brush up on the lines I've been in. Oh, you know. But, John, I... Oh, Madeline, we've got a deadest wife and the best friend a man ever had. You know, lately I've actually wandered sometimes, if you might not think I was. Oh, my darling. Yes, but now, John, don't count too heavily on this. I'm not quite sure yet how things are going to work out. Look out! How else can they work out, but perfectly? Very well. I'd like to begin reading here at home first thing tomorrow evening. Now, shall we take it from, yet I should kill thee with much cherishing? Yes. Yet I should kill thee with much cherishing. Good night, good night. Parting is such sweet sorrow that I shall say good night till it be morrow. Sleep well upon thine eyes, peace in thy breast. Would I wear sleep and peace when you're too sweet to rest? Yes, yes, darling. But you see, on those last, you should already be moving off the stage. You don't want to take too much of them after all. The scene really ends when Juliet leaves the balcony. Well, I know, but you can't just throw them away, Madeline. Dear, those are very famous lines. Yes, I know, darling. But we mustn't think so much in terms of lines as of performance. Yes, Suzette. Monsieur Alexandre Duncan is here. Oh, show him in. Weeman was in. Alec Duncan, what's that young ham coming around for? Well, John, I've been meaning to tell you. Hello, Madeline. Hello, Alec. You know my husband. Oh, yes, of course. Mr. Tremay. My name is Gaylord. Of course, Mr. Gaylon. Well, I say, aren't I the luckiest fellow in the world? Are you? John. To be playing Romeo opposite Madeline Tremay. Madeline, when I got your cable, I could hardly believe it. I jumped on the boat without even packing a bag. Is something wrong? John, I have been trying to tell you, but I didn't want to hurt your feelings. Have I interrupted anything? No, it's all right. Madeline. John, please don't make a scene. I had to have somebody to rehearse until Alec got here, and I knew you wouldn't be the slightest help to me if you thought, oh, John, why must you make an issue of it? I've always known you're a thoughtful, selfish woman, but I never would have believed that you could do anything quite so vile. How dare you speak to me that way. You didn't really think that a man with a 40-inch waistline and a double chin could ever play Romeo, did you? Madeline, I say you... Get out of here. Get out.   I say, Madeline. Oh, Alec, I'll have to go and apologize. John, I want to talk to you. John? Yes, Madeline, be careful of that acid. Acid? Oh, John, I'm terribly sorry for what I said. It was beastly of me. It's quite all right, Madeline. Oh, John, I knew you'd see it that way when you came to think... Because you see, I am going to play Romeo. Oh, John, must we go through it all over again? Madeline, I've forgiven and forgotten a lot of things since we've been married. I pushed you out in front. I've given you the spotlight. I've watched your regard for me become somewhat less than for your servant, somewhat more than for your dog. John, now look here. But this, if only for myself, respect I will not allow. I could dangle before my eyes the thing that I wanted most in all this world, except your beauty that I gave it up for. The thing I've been wanting so much, I didn't dare admit it myself. And then to have you snatch it from me. No, Madeline, no, no, no. Waste lines and double chins can be concealed, but a mean spirit never. This one thing you can do for me and you will.   But there's one thing you haven't known, where I was the night Nell Garrett was murdered. Where were you? I was at Nell Garrett's home. Well, that explains quite a number of things, doesn't it, John? Madeline, where did you get that gun? I always thought that someday I might need one. Madeline! Don't come near me, John. Very well, John, I warned you. No, no, no! As he sank to the floor, he hurled the bowl of acid in my face. It was a frightful thing. Of course it was self-defense. I was never even brought to trial. Particularly when I told it was he who had killed poor Nell Garrett. But I suffered a complete nervous collapse. And I suppose I've never really recovered. And yet, Providence always seems kind enough to leave something to be thankful for, even in the worst of tragedies. Because not a single drop of acid ever touched me. I suppose if it had, I should be horribly disfigured to this day. Have I bored you, Mr. Sedley? No. Oh, no, Mr. Main. Good, Miss Gracious. Well, Madeline, the storm is almost over. I think we'd best push on. Must you? Well, excuse me for just a moment. Oh, of course, my dear. A poor woman. Yes, I say. Look here. What is it? This mirror. It's not a mirror at all. It has a picture pasted in it. The photograph that's in the study. Poor Madeline. Father Benton, Mademoiselle would like to speak with you in a moment before you go. Oh, oh, very well. I'll only be a moment, Mr. Sedley. This way, Father. Oh, thank you. Oh, Father. Well, Madeline. You may turn the lights on, Suzette, as you go. We, Mademoiselle. So that is your young curate, Father Benton? Yes. Do you like him? He seems like a dear boy. But what, Madeline? I'm afraid I can't see him again. Madeline, why? Well, I don't want to hurt his feelings, but it would not be the same. You've been my only true friend in all these years. And when you are gone, I would rather be alone again. I'm sorry, sir. But Mrs. Stoets is outside. Her little girl is dying. Go away! And when she heard you were here, she... Go away! Madeline! Go away! Come, sir. Go away! Good Lord. Poor Madeline. It was too much for her. Yes. She killed them both, of course. The woman and her husband. Somehow I think I always must have known it. All these years, she's lived a lie. Yes, but that's not the lie that's hurt her. It was the acid. Acid? Didn't you see her face, sir? You forget, my boy, that I am blind. She has no face. Suspense. Presented by Roma Wines. R-O-M-A. Roma. America's favorite wines. Before we hear again from Angela Lansbury, star of tonight's suspense play, this is Truman Bradley reminding you that in Roma wine, you enjoy an important difference, an extra dividend of pleasure, in fuller bouquet, richer body, and better taste. Yes, Roma wines taste better because Roma selects better tasting wines from the world's greatest wine reserves. Discover for yourself why more Americans enjoy Roma than any other wine. This weekend, serve Roma, California Burgundy, or Sautern with dinner. You will agree that Roma is a premium wine in everything but price. And now, Angela Lansbury. Hello. I've had many a thrill myself listening to suspense, and I hope we were able to send a few chills up and down your spines tonight. I'm sure next week's program will, when Roma wines bring you Hume Cronin in Make Mad the Guilty. It's a real thriller, so don't miss it. Good night. Angela Lansbury appeared through arrangement with Metro Golden Mayor, producers of High Barbarie, starring Van Johnson and June Allison. Tonight's suspense play was written by Robert Richards from an original story by Elizabeth Heeson Heisch. Next Thursday, same time, you will hear Mr. Hume Cronin as star of Suspense, produced and directed by William Spear for the Roma wine company of Fresno, California. In the coming weeks, Suspense will present such stars as June Havoc, Vincent Price, Marsha Hunt and others. Make it a point to listen each Thursday to Suspense, Radio's outstanding Theatre of Thrills. A famous name presents a great experience in taste luxury. C-R-E-S-T-A V-L-A-N-C-A Cresta Blanca Cresta Blanca Yes, for the most discriminating Cresta Blanca offers two rare California cherries, Dry Watch and Triple Cream. Compare Cresta Blanca, Dry Watch and Triple Cream with the world's finest cherries, regardless of price. You will find Cresta Blanca, Dry Watch and Triple Cream unequaled in America, unsurpassed anywhere. Shenly's Cresta Blanca wine company, Livermore, California. Listen to Suspense next week, same time, same station. This is CBS The Columbia Broadcasting System.