Re: Money and Linux (was: Re: [SLUG] Mandrake 8.0)

From: Michael Adams (Linuxman@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jun 03 2001 - 12:52:02 EDT


Money, Money, Money, It makes the world go round.
But to really make Linux work, work being the key here, it is already
competitive, but just not working for people. Why?

Money !!!! $$$$$$$

We here on the Slug sites, are not the average user, or administrator.
For Linux to work, by work I mean be put and start replacing other OS'es, you
need more than just the OS. ie... Mac, Apple, the OS is great, but in a
compariason, its like driving, Would you buy a car if it was only allowed on
5% of the streets and roads? No!
Well if you have gone to Comp USA for example and took a look at all the
hardware and games, (Thousands) how many choices are there for Windows, and
how many for other OS'es?
Windows drives on 95% of the roads, as opposed to other OS'es which drive on
about 5%.
I would love to give up Windows, however, there are several games, and my
Quicken, and a few other apps that people like myself find vital.
And Intuit's quicken, and other software companies are not going to produce
if there is no profit.

That is why I feel Money is always going to be a driving force, but not Greed
as in Microsoft. Linux will hpefully be a kinder gentler money making OS
rather than a Forcefull Greedy Coglomerative such as MS has become.

Thanks for your time.

On Sunday 03 June 2001 11:56, you wrote:
> > ease of use is whats gonna make linux the desktop for so many.
> > it has to be easy to use for most of us. this is not to say it will
> > become less powerful. there will be always be the command line
> > and those big black hole that people call terminals :)
> >
> > i dont understand why some people seem to get upset that
> > linux is becoming easier and easier to use. i would like to
> > have a discussion with some that feel this way.
>
> I agree with what you're saying here. Ease of use doesn't necessarily
> mean less powerful. I think there was a time a while back when LinuxPPC
> put out a "Live" distro (similar to the SuSe evals we gave out this
> week) and many people complained that it didn't have everything (such as
> gcc and a bunch of other tools). But it was supposed to be easy to use.
> I also think the Easy to Use value proposition comes also from (ahem)
> the MacOS. People think it isn't powerful because it's all point and
> click. I don't think the Linux Community has quite figured out the ease
> of use issue. It's partly cultural, since many a hacker is so used to
> doing it all alone, with little or no help, or the kind you get from a
> mailing list. Why would you waste your time making it easy to use?
>
> Linux is still a "one size fits all" sort of a phenomenon. If everything
> that's expected to go with doesn't come with it, people get upset. (I
> think they are confused.) SuSe takes this to heart, because their full
> distro is 7 CD's! RedHat and Debian are much more reasonable with their
> default installs being smaller.
>
> BTW, RedHat seems to be making headway against the "OSFA" phenomenon.
> It's being aimed squarely at the corporate market.
>
> > and i have a question, why do some people get upset with
> > the idea that some will make money on linux. if linux is to grow
> > then some people will want to buy some software. distros need
> > a little money to make the cd
> > s and keep their work going.
>
> Hmmm...Linux seems to have done quite well without any money. I think
> people are really complaining about the loss of innocence that comes
> with growing up. It isn't just the "Hacker's Hobby" anymore. Money also
> has an influence separate from what is technically correct.
> ("Technically" I mean in the sense of the best solution) Money is also
> more simply a corrupting influence. Look at what's happened with
> Caldera. They got so big that they could buy SCO Unix! Their loyalty to
> Linux and Free Software has come into question and has caused Richard
> Stallman to publicly admonish them for abandoning Linux. (His opinion)
> Another problem people have with the money aspect is like so: "Why
> should I contribute time/energy/resources/money/code to a for-profit
> company? That would be like making a charitable contribution to M$."
> "It's somehow unfair that *my* work should help someone else make money.
> Where's my cut?" There's more of course, but you get the idea.
>
> HTH
>
> Russell
>
> ____________________________________________________
> _its_ (no apostrophe) means "the thing that it owns"
> _it's_ (with apostrophe) means "it is"



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:39:54 EDT