On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 01:41:07 -0500 (EST), John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mishka mused: > > > > it actually *is* on commercial basis. does red hat ring a bell, just to > > name one > > (but not, by far, the only)? > > I'm well aware of Red Hat, Debian, etc. But they're not selling the > software - they're selling support services. If they actually had to > pay for the software development (or even for the software engineering > effort to fix many of the problems) it would be a very different story.
eh? RedHat is probably the biggest (one of the biggest, anyway) developing free software. They do pay developers. > > but it's a very different (from, say, adobe) business model: free (or > > cheap) software, > > profit off support. i think, the majority of software development use this > > model > > in some form (except for "shrink-wrapped" products you buy at compusa, but > > that > > a negligible part of all software) > > Just where did you pull that ridiculous statistic from? a hat, of course, where else? > By far the majority of all software (on home PCs and on business systems) > is bought "shrink wrapped", either from CompUSA or from the manufacturer. > Windows, Solaris, OS/X, AIX, Irix, and all those application packages. > That includes systems running Linux - most of the business Linux sites > still run proprietary shrink-wrapped applications on those Linux boxes. by far the majority of all software is built "in-house", for internal use.
