🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <m2vhloqxtg.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup  <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>First, you have cut my list.

I wasn't disputing the others at all.  :)

>Second, you have failed to prove that
>the above parties develop open source products only for idealistic
>purposes, but not for the ultimate goal of making profits.  In fact,
>you have mentioned ways in which each of them plans to *make* a
>profit.  The original stuff I challenged stated:

>>> On the other hand, open-source software is currently being created
>>> for idealistic purposes only.  Or do you know of anyone producing it
>>> for profit?

Point.  I suppose one could argue that Netscape continues to work on
Navigator only for idealistic purposes, or that Adaptec has provided
Linux drivers "only for idealistic purposes", but honestly, it's nonsense;
I think your point is well proven.

It's not impossible to make money selling open source software.  It's
just impossible to make a *huge* profit on it.  No problem; the market
can handle competition.

-s
-- 
Copyright 1998, All rights reserved.  Peter Seebach / seebs@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter.  Boycott Spamazon!
Seeking interesting programming projects.  Not interested in commuting.
Visit my new ISP <URL:http://www.plethora.net/> --- More Net, Less Spam!