-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Le Vendredi 17 Janvier 2003 12:04, Adam Williamson a �crit :
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 16:49, Rolf Pedersen wrote:
> > > MandrakeSoft is a commercial software company. It ought to be able to
> > > be profitable (or at least not burn cash so fast it gets near
> > > bankruptcy) through normal business operations. If not, it deserves to
> > > fail. This is the logic of capitalism, the system MandrakeSoft decided
> > > to exist under. Live by the sword, die by the sword. I'm not about to
> > > give my money to a failing business simply to keep it alive, there are
> > > charities which are in far more deserving need of it.
> >
> > Why do I get the impression that all the "deserving charities" are also
> > waiting for your support? :P
>
> Get that impression all you like, but it's entirely wrong. I'm a student
> so I probably get a hell of a lot less money than most people on this
> list, but I think more of mine goes to charity than most people's.
>
> > Eh, thanks for playing!  As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the
> > appeals to the realities of capitalism, in one breath, then the
> > unilateral rejection of the capitalistic bankruptcy protection, in
>
> Capitalistic bankruptcy protection?! Sorry to burst your bubble, but
> there's no such thing. Bankruptcy protection is government interference
> in the free operation of free market capitalism (I'm sure Adam Smith
> wouldn't have wanted to hear of such a thing). Anyway, your point is
> entirely irrelevant, as what I said had bugger all to do with bankruptcy
> protection. At the time I wrote it, I wasn't aware Mandrake had actually
> filed for the French Chapter 11 equivalent - I hadn't read the news for
> that day yet. I was simply pointing out that IN THE EVENT THAT Mandrake
> SHOULD go bankrupt (NOT enter bankruptcy protection), it didn't spell
> the end for the distro. My other points were general and apply whether
> MandrakeSoft is bankrupt, in bankruptcy protection, or stuck up a bloody
> tree, so long as it's still begging its users for charity. Re-read what
> I'm saying then come back.
First its French Law, when a companie lose her capital, companie manager have 
obligation to do it. Its the rules. It's also a chance to survive and reborn.
>
> > another, is only typical of the speciousness of your 'argument'.
> > Gratuitously appending a 'worst case scenario' rationale after the fact
> > changes nothing. (*)
>
> What do you mean, after the fact? I added a clarification. Nothing in my
> original post said that I was talking about MandrakeSoft going into
> bankruptcy protection, in fact it clearly stated the opposite. Someone
> simply managed to miss this point, so I made it even clearer.
>
> >   Also, airy-fairy concepts of opensource somehow
> > seamlessly providing an uninterrupted source of the distro for the
> > leechers, when all the flesh-and blood producers of same are looking for
> > a new job and the infrastructure (lights, buildings, machines, websites)
> > has vanished, fall short of compelling.  Sorry, even the most rigorous
> > reading at the University of The Register does not qualify as a basis
> > for deciding how *I* spend *my* money.  Anyone who must work for a
>
> I didn't tell you how you should spend your money. Spend it how the hell
> you like. It's not my decision. MandrakeSoft went into business on the
> belief that it could exist as a profitable business while supplying a
> freely distributed version of the GNU/Linux operating system. Insult me
> all you like, this is an indisputable fact. It was the rationale on
> which the company was founded, and if it can't manage to carry on
> business in that fashion, I'm not going to shed a tear. By the rationale
> of the system in which it lives, if it fails, it was a deserved failure.
>
> > living and has half a backbone can appreciate that paying for a product
> > that takes money to create is only reasonable.  Perhaps your education
> > would benefit from some light reading on how Mandrake was started and
> > how it has supported a panoply of opensource development.  (**)
> > It all takes cash.
>
> This argument is irrelevant. Entirely and utterly irrelevant. What is
> "reasonable" or "right" has nothing at all to do with the point. You
> will also note that, if you read between the lines of recent Mandrake
> statements, they completely support my position. What they're saying
> isn't that creating Mandrake Linux and supporting opensource development
> is taking the cash they can't afford to spend. After all, their survival
> depends on the insistence that they can carry out this core activity
> profitably. What they're saying is exactly what I'm saying - that their
> core operation is sustainable but that the peripheral crap they took on
> during the dotcom era is dragging the company down.
>
> > > This is the line MandrakeSoft has been feeding its customers for a
> > > while now - "this is just a temporary problem, the rosy future is just
> > > around the corner! No, actually, we lied, it's just around this NEXT
> > > corner! Uh, just hold on to the next corner, would you?" It's starting
> > > to wear a little thin.
> >
> > Now, you have the temerity to come to this list and call MandrakeSoft
> > liars.  What has worn clear through is the alacrity with which those
> > whose knowledge and critical thinking are no more developed than yours
> > will seize upon the type of FUD you espouse as yet another
> > raionalization for leeching the software and bashing the distributor.
> > Why don't you go 'support' an endeavor more worthy of your high
> > standards?
>
> Oooh, do you feel big and clever now? Good, I'm glad I've served some
> small part in massaging your masculinity. I support the *DISTRIBUTION*
> Mandrake Linux by running Cooker and filing bug reports, the same way
> everyone on this list does. MandrakeSoft, so far as I'm concerned, can
> live or die by the business decisions it made; I don't consider it a
> worthwhile usage of my money to bail out their lousy business choices.
Pascal LACROIX
- -- 
GPG Public Key available at http://pgp.mit.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+KCUtkEN5g66hPygRAqo7AJ4+rpr+b444TOo9/7VwYsAyQgkNDwCeP/wL
pxy50/KY0Ff14aD/eKt9SBA=
=Qetu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply via email to