On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 11:54, John Allen wrote: > > Uh, how is that normal business operations? Mandrake makes a business > > decision to make a version of its distribution available for free, > > Mandrake is a commercial software company, with a free edition of their > product. I believe whislt this mey be the norm for Linux distro companies, > that it is distinctly not normal business operation.
It's normal for Mandrake, as it's a decision Mandrake made of its own free will (it doesn't actually need to freely distribute a compiled version of Mandrake on its own servers) in the belief it would serve its own business interest. > > therefore it has no right to demand that users of that version give it > > money. Users of the free version deciding to give MandrakeSoft money > > isn't a normal business operation, it's charity by any other name...SuSE > > No actually Mandrake it the charity! > > When a soup kitchen gives out free food, it is the charity; if a poor tramp > decides to donate some money to the soup kitchen, thats not charity, its > payback. Soup kitchens give out free soup for the benefit of the tramps, nor do they expect the free-soup-giving to benefit the kitchen. This isn't the model Mandrake is operating under. Mandrake's decision to offer a free version of Mandrake was made in the belief that this would benefit Mandrake's business. > > and Red Hat both make the same decision and don't appear to be filing > > for bankruptcy protection... > > Redhat have millions left over from a sucessful IPO, and SuSE have recently > recived a shitload of cash from IBM (to stop them from going under), so the > comparison is hardly fair. Fair? What does fair have to do with anything? Red Hat were able to make a successful IPO, MandrakeSoft wanted to and didn't. That is, Red Hat made a successful financial move, MandrakeSoft didn't. IBM give money to SuSE in the belief that it'll ultimately benefit IBM. Apparently, no large companies believe that the survival of MandrakeSoft is in their long-term interest. -- adamw
