On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 02:58, T. Ribbrock wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 01:07:12AM +0200, Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > > T. Ribbrock schrieb am Mon, 15 Sep 2003 00:29:16 +0200: > > > Linux companies are a necessary evil in my eyes. They're needed to > > > help prevent monopolies from drowning the software world in > > > proprietary lock-ins, as unfortunately, you need money for that. > > > But they're not the essence of the movement in my opinion. > > > They also provide convenience, something I have appreciated in the > > > past and still do appreciate. > > > > You seem to forget some of the essential parts. What about the Open > > Source projects which are sponsored by Linux companies? You may ask > > yourself how far Linux would have evolved was it not that the main > > leaders (Linus et al) were sponsored by companies. Linus is a good > > example. He said Bye to Transmeta and stated explicitely that he > > appreciated the way Transmeta did not force him to work for his pay but > > let him as much time for Linux as he wanted/needed. > > > [several examples for companies helping] > > > > Without the companies backing them up many developers of the Linux > > community would have to work on other stuff to earn their pay and so the > > projects they work for would have been delayed or not possible at all. > > I concede the point that those companies have helped greatly. However, > I see to aspects: Some projects, as you say, would have been delayed - > but nonetheless, they would still have happened, just slower. As for > the projects that wouldn't have been possible: Correct me, if I'm > wrong, but I think many of those included stuff, where proprietary > things were involved - stuff, that had to be done from business to > business. That's another aspect of what I mean with necessary evil. > You're right that it couldn't have been done without them, but I still > think it's a pity that it has to be that way. > On the other hand, seeing that other projects (e.g. OpenBSD) can > thrive without all those companies involved, there seem to be other > ways as well. ahhh, no. BSD would be a kernel just as linux is just a kernel. I bet 100%of the companies using BSD and apache-PHP/mySQL on their webserver would not be there without mySQL, how good is BSD without any of the programs that are packed with it? same thing bud.....
> > > > On the other hand, with business comes vested interests and efforts to > > > influence the whole thing, to use, and maybe even ab-use it > > > (Caldera/SCO, anyone?). and why do you make a statement that sounds as though only businesses have vested interests? individuals come with vested interests as well as hidden and open prejudices. > > > > Sure, but why do you name just the most commercial? Why do you mix up > > Mandrake with other companies which always had a straight commercial > > poin of view? > > I was using Caldera/SCO as an example for the extreme this *can* lead > to. why not "Bonnie and Clyde" as long as we are talking about misappropriations and taking something that you did not earn or pay for? > It was not my intention to suggest that Mandrake (or even Red Hat > or SuSE) are in that league, and I sure hope they will never be. But > seeing those extremes does make me wary. > > > > > Till then, it's the download version for me, knowing, > > > that Mandrake at least still gets some money out of it. but no matter how good it is, you don't seem willing to _pay_ for the quality product you receive. damn shame (imho) > > > > Nobody denies you that. How could anybody? Download versions have been > > free (as in free beer) all the time. > > <g> I always wondered why of all words "free" is one that's defined so > poorly in the English language, while that language can be so subtle > otherwise. Amazing. :-) > > > > What you are saying is, now that the download version is polluted with > > ads you can use it without having a moral obligation to pay something > > for it, be it money or be it your time and talents. > > > > And this is IMHO at least debatable. > > See, I was afraid someone would do what you're doing here: You're > turning my argument around by 180 degrees. I'm *not* preferring the > download version because it still generates revenue for Mandrake while > being cheaper for me. If you think that, I don't think you've read my > previous mail well enough. I using the download version, because I > *refuse* to pay for the boxed version the way Mandrake is planning to > release it (i.e. with third party advertising). I even suggested an > alternative: Release a fully ad-free version for 10% extra and watch > me buying it... :-) If there wasn't a download version, I'd simply not > use Mandrake in this case, simple as that. But the download version > exists and the product is good enough, so I use it. This is just my > way of telling Mandrake that they *can* have more money from me, just > not this way. > > Regards, > > Thomas <sarcasm tag> ohhh,, right,,, did you buy any other sets? </sarcasm tag> -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mandrake HowTo's & More: http://twiki.mdklinuxfaq.org
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
