🚀 go-pugleaf

On 29 Sep 1998 14:26:04 GMT, dblake@dylan.ucsf.edu (Dave Blake )
wrote:

>Robert Wilderspin wrote:
>
>>Writing and selling books about GPL software is, in my opinion, also
>>commercial support, so Jason's comment was correct.  Support doesn't
>>only mean helpdesk work.
>
>Right, but people like Eric Allman and Larry Wall are writing the
>manuals. Their GPL software allowed them to write a manual that
>will sell millions of copies.

Although that's fine for some people on some software projects, that
approach is impossible for the vast majority of programmers working on
open source software.  How many people would buy a book on SCSI over
parallel device drivers, or drag and drop protocols in Gnome?  Not
enough to sustain half a dozen coders, I imagine.

>>Agree with you on this one.  Red Hat are giving loads back to the open
>>source community, and are rightly getting a lot of credit for it.
>
>One viewpoint is that they are altruistic and giving back
>to the open source community.
>
>Another viewpoint is that they are a company. They have a fiscal
>bottom line. The marketing they receive from open source
>programmers is more than worth the money they pay them.

I would say that it's a mixture of both.  It seems that they're
willing to subsidise coding efforts, at a loss, on the basis that at
the end of it they'll be able to sell a much more polished product.
The advertising is good, certainly, but only directed at existing
Linux users.

>When Nike supports Michael Jordan, are they "giving back to
>the basketball community" or "engaging in heavy marketing." ????

Why not both?  Basketball needs the high-profile advertising for
itsels as much as Nike does, so it's a win-win situation.  The same
for us lot, hopefully.

>>Red Hat are still driven by the need for profit, and that will always
>>get in the way of creating the ideal distribution, but the
>>improvements brought about by their funding vastly outway the
>>negatives.
>
>Only if their bottom line is the money made from the 
>distribution. I am not so certain that is it. Their
>future plan could easily be based on software consulting
>and not on their distribution, much in the same way
>Netscape is embracing the portal and giving the browser
>away.

The argument I've made before is that Red Hat are willing to release
largely untested distributions simply to get the product out of the
door.  They release products often to get brand-name recognition, and
shift more boxed sets, and can't afford (in those terms) to only
release once a year.

This contrasts with the Debian model, where the target is to produce a
distribution of the utmost quality, and withhold release until they're
pretty damn sure that it's as good as they can make it, regardless of
time pressures.  Horses for courses.

>>Even at the pace Linux is moving at now, Microsoft won't have the
>>bailiffs in for a good many years yet.
>
>Don't be so certain. Microsoft has two cash cows - OEM OS
>deals, and Office. If the first goes down their net value
>will plummet instantly. They have a ton staked on NT 5.0, 
>and linux is coming up fast on the server end.

It'll still take a few years to get anywhere near that position
though, but I'm pretty sure that it's going to happen in time.  Linux
now has two or three years to stake it's claim before NT 5.0 comes
out, so we'd better make the most of it.


Rob Wilderspin
--
"But I need it to crash once every few days - 
reboots are the only chance I get to sleep..."
----------------------= (send replies to rob@)