On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 05:16, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 07:03, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > 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 > > He was talking about your comparison of the situations not being fair, > not about fairness in the business world with regard to Mandrake's IBM,s > and Red Hat's financial decisions. You know that and so does everybody > else. John was correct.
That may have been what he was talking about, but my point is that that's completely irrelevant. Whether the comparison is "fair" or not, it can usefully be made. Otherwise, what? We're not allowed to say Windows is the dominant desktop because that's not a "fair" comparison? So what if it's fair or not? It's the situation we're faced with. So what if it's "fair" to compare Mandrake to SuSE and Red Hat? This is a capitalist market, SuSE and Red Hat are MandrakeSoft's most significant direct competitors, and they're both doing better financially. That's just cut and dried fact, no matter how "fair" it is. -- adamw
