debian and then pure business.....

[Paul Melson]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 03:00:09PM -0400, Mark Szidik - Michigan Library Consortium wrote:
> >     http://www.theregister.co.uk/000418-000014.html

	I'll wager that Slackware will also go unrepresented
	for similar reasons.  Nonetheless, the majority of
	Linux appliances on my network are based on Slack.
	Oh, well.  For businesses just starting to look at
	Linux, I tend to believe the commercial packages
	are more appealing to begin with, anyway.


> How can Wall Street like a company that gives away its products and
> doesnt hold the IP (intellectual property) rights of its produts?  I
> think long-term its incompatible.

	I'm afraid I disagree with your asessment of GNU 
	and its GPL being incompatible with profiteering.
	
	If you look at it from the standpoint of its
	strengths, Linux (as well as the *BSDs) has a
	huge number of developers working on various
	applications and resources as well as revamping
	and refining existing code.  Microsoft could
	never hire the number of coders that back the
	various Linux trees and distributions.  They
	could never organize (although, I don't mean to
	imply that everything GNU is organized :)) the 
	number of beta testers, nor would they give them 
	all of the source to the software they're testing, 
	that Linux has behind it.  What's more, because 
	of its nature, there's nobody to pay royalties to 
	under the GPL.
	
	It's ingenious, really.  Companies like RedHat
	bundle other peoples' software and make it
	available for free and then charge for the
	documentation and support.  I think the room for 
	profit margins there is certainly worth Wall 
	Street's attention, and they seem to agree.


> I dont have any problem with companies making money off of
> GNU/Linux software.  In fact I think it is necessary.  I just dont think
> the companies should be PUBLICLY traded companies.  It forces them to
> change their focus from software/products/services to profits &
> quarterly reports.

	Whether or not they're traded publicly, any company
	that doesn't have government contracts or a large 
	grant has no choice but to look at profits.  In fact,
	it's been my experience that the sort of "pump &
	dump" technology IPO craze that's swept the market 
	for the past several years has led companies (Amazon)
	to ignore profits for market share.  IMO, that's not
	good business sense, but that's another thread 
	altogether.  Anyhow, if there is to be commercial
	support for Linux, those companies will all look
	at bottom lines and quarterly reports.  And, by
	in large, Linux owes its popularity to the RedHats
	of the world.  Without them, it would still be
	a CS major's best friend and a netadmin's secret
	weapon.  Although, that wasn't all bad, either. (?)


> Thats Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

	Ditto.


PaulM


-- 
							_____________________
							melson@holt.k12.mi.us