On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 16:49, Rolf Pedersen wrote: > > MandrakeSoft is a commercial software company. It ought to be able to be > > profitable (or at least not burn cash so fast it gets near bankruptcy) > > through normal business operations. If not, it deserves to fail. This is > > the logic of capitalism, the system MandrakeSoft decided to exist under. > > Live by the sword, die by the sword. I'm not about to give my money to a > > failing business simply to keep it alive, there are charities which are > > in far more deserving need of it. > > > > Why do I get the impression that all the "deserving charities" are also > waiting for your support? :P
Get that impression all you like, but it's entirely wrong. I'm a student so I probably get a hell of a lot less money than most people on this list, but I think more of mine goes to charity than most people's. > Eh, thanks for playing! As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the > appeals to the realities of capitalism, in one breath, then the > unilateral rejection of the capitalistic bankruptcy protection, in Capitalistic bankruptcy protection?! Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's no such thing. Bankruptcy protection is government interference in the free operation of free market capitalism (I'm sure Adam Smith wouldn't have wanted to hear of such a thing). Anyway, your point is entirely irrelevant, as what I said had bugger all to do with bankruptcy protection. At the time I wrote it, I wasn't aware Mandrake had actually filed for the French Chapter 11 equivalent - I hadn't read the news for that day yet. I was simply pointing out that IN THE EVENT THAT Mandrake SHOULD go bankrupt (NOT enter bankruptcy protection), it didn't spell the end for the distro. My other points were general and apply whether MandrakeSoft is bankrupt, in bankruptcy protection, or stuck up a bloody tree, so long as it's still begging its users for charity. Re-read what I'm saying then come back. > another, is only typical of the speciousness of your 'argument'. > Gratuitously appending a 'worst case scenario' rationale after the fact > changes nothing. (*) What do you mean, after the fact? I added a clarification. Nothing in my original post said that I was talking about MandrakeSoft going into bankruptcy protection, in fact it clearly stated the opposite. Someone simply managed to miss this point, so I made it even clearer. > Also, airy-fairy concepts of opensource somehow > seamlessly providing an uninterrupted source of the distro for the > leechers, when all the flesh-and blood producers of same are looking for > a new job and the infrastructure (lights, buildings, machines, websites) > has vanished, fall short of compelling. Sorry, even the most rigorous > reading at the University of The Register does not qualify as a basis > for deciding how *I* spend *my* money. Anyone who must work for a I didn't tell you how you should spend your money. Spend it how the hell you like. It's not my decision. MandrakeSoft went into business on the belief that it could exist as a profitable business while supplying a freely distributed version of the GNU/Linux operating system. Insult me all you like, this is an indisputable fact. It was the rationale on which the company was founded, and if it can't manage to carry on business in that fashion, I'm not going to shed a tear. By the rationale of the system in which it lives, if it fails, it was a deserved failure. > living and has half a backbone can appreciate that paying for a product > that takes money to create is only reasonable. Perhaps your education > would benefit from some light reading on how Mandrake was started and > how it has supported a panoply of opensource development. (**) > It all takes cash. This argument is irrelevant. Entirely and utterly irrelevant. What is "reasonable" or "right" has nothing at all to do with the point. You will also note that, if you read between the lines of recent Mandrake statements, they completely support my position. What they're saying isn't that creating Mandrake Linux and supporting opensource development is taking the cash they can't afford to spend. After all, their survival depends on the insistence that they can carry out this core activity profitably. What they're saying is exactly what I'm saying - that their core operation is sustainable but that the peripheral crap they took on during the dotcom era is dragging the company down. > > This is the line MandrakeSoft has been feeding its customers for a while > > now - "this is just a temporary problem, the rosy future is just around > > the corner! No, actually, we lied, it's just around this NEXT corner! > > Uh, just hold on to the next corner, would you?" It's starting to wear a > > little thin. > > Now, you have the temerity to come to this list and call MandrakeSoft > liars. What has worn clear through is the alacrity with which those > whose knowledge and critical thinking are no more developed than yours > will seize upon the type of FUD you espouse as yet another > raionalization for leeching the software and bashing the distributor. > Why don't you go 'support' an endeavor more worthy of your high standards? Oooh, do you feel big and clever now? Good, I'm glad I've served some small part in massaging your masculinity. I support the *DISTRIBUTION* Mandrake Linux by running Cooker and filing bug reports, the same way everyone on this list does. MandrakeSoft, so far as I'm concerned, can live or die by the business decisions it made; I don't consider it a worthwhile usage of my money to bail out their lousy business choices. -- adamw
