🚀 go-pugleaf

"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
news:FV/l4oHpvC8D092yn@visi.com...
> Here in comp.os.os2.misc, "J. Clarke" <nospam@nospam.nospam>
> spake unto us, saying:
>
> >"Richard Steiner" <rsteiner@visi.com> wrote in message
> >news:W/ml4oHpvGoR092yn@visi.com...
> >
> >> Why else do you think I've registered dozens of shareware packages over
> >> the years?  And why else do I continue to purchase "official" versions
> >> of the various Linux distributions I use here (Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE,
> >> etc) instead of getting the $2 version from Cheap*Bytes?
> >>
> >> Because I like supporting the authors.  Period.
> >
> >Well that's fine.  So how much _does_ Linus Torvalds get out of each copy
> >of Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc?  Personally I pay for those to get the
> >bundled commercial apps.
>
> Linus is but one of several dozen kernel developers now, essentially
> the "project leader" if you will.  He started things, but it's hardly
> just his show anymore, and he is no longer "the author".  Other people
> like Alan Cox, Stephen Tweedie, and Andrea Arcangeli are deserving of
> support as well, at least if you think kernel development is important.

You're dissembling.  How much does Red Hat pay each of these people?

> However, a typical Linux distribution is a LOT more than a kernel, and
> some groups like XFree86.org and others also deserve support, IhMO.

And how much do they get out of each copy?

> Most of the major distros come with very few commercial apps anymore
> (Red Hat used to include some in the 4.x and 5.x days, but no longer).
> Unless you're counting the demo disc?

Quantity doesn't matter.  Utility does.  StarOffice is a commercial app.
DB2 is a commercial app.  To name a couple.

> I generally pay for the official versions initially because I like the
> fact that many of the creators of the more "modern" Linux distributions
> are adding value in terms of installation and administration routines,
> security updates, package management, and other things.  But I also
> continue to buy subsequent "official" versions because I want to give
> those folks support in what little way I can.

I see.  So do you speak for the market or are you speaking for a few
goody-two-shoes types?

> >Now, what percentage of the potential customer base for an OS/2 device
> >driver for a relatively new sound card feel the same way you do?
>
> I have no idea, as I speak for only myself.

Well, sir, there is your problem.  Someone who is trying to make money
selling a product basis decisions on what the market will do.  If you have
no idea what the market will do then don't pontificate about market
strategies.

> Please be aware, however, that I've already *paid* for sound drivers
> for both Linux and FreeBSD here (OSS from 4Front Technologies), and
> OS/2 would be no different for me.  I've already put my money where my
> mouth is at $30 a copy on those other platforms to get decent Creative
> Labs AWE32 and AWE64 support, and would certainly do the same for OS/2
> support for a newer card if I had one.

Well, that's fine.  But you admit already that you don't have the foggiest
idea what the market will do.  Furthermore, are those produces freeware or
are they commercial software?

> Of course, my five main boxes use AWE32 or AWE64 variants right now,
> but a new gaming box probably wouldn't.
>
> >> I don't register crippled software at all as a general rule, but if I
> >> see something I think is cool, I'll pay for it out of principle, or to
> >> encourage further development, or sometimes just because I happen to
> >> like the author.
> >
> >And you like some faceless Taiwanese software company enough that you
> >want to support them?
>
> I might.  I pay for a lot of software here from companies all over the
> planet.  What are they writing that I might care about?

The device driver in question.

> >As for "further development", how much development does an OS/2 device
> >driver for a sound card _need_?
>
> If written correctly the first time?  Not much.  ;-)

Bingo--so why pay for "support" or "development"?

--

---

--- John

Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net