Mandrake Linux files for Bankruptsy

[MichaeltheGreat]

[CICSMaster]

Originally posted by Agathon


This is not my point (which I have been trying to explain to Asher).

My point is that it can make good business sense to open source part of your code. If enough companies do this there can be massive efficiency gains, which means cheaper and better software.

Which is exactly my point as well.
However, under the GNU license, any MODIFICATION of the GNU source, must be made available for FREE to the GNU populace. This does not stop you from using GNU software in a product. You cannot charge for the for the GNU part, but you are allowed to charge for your software that makes use of the GNU product.

Note: Apple does not charge for the Open BSD OS or the Mach kernal. It charges for all the fruit that runs on top of the free OS.

That out of the way. You are still missing my point.
Almost ALL open source software under the GNU license is created by USERS to USE and not to SELL. You don't create GNU Open source software to SELL because you can't SELL it.

That being th case, you can still make an economic case for a company to Open source it's IT development. The benefit is that you will get many more programmers working on your problem than you can afford to employ on your own. If you are willing to let any competitors use your software, and are just interested in USING your Open Source software then this could be a good strategy.

[CICSMaster]

Originally posted by Agathon
You are assuming that I think the GNU or GNU-like licenses are the only possibility for open source. I never said that. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make on your part, but it is not what I think and I didn't say it. My current opinion is that totally free software probably won't work - that doesn't mean there aren't other options.

Well tell that to the millions of Linux users.

Free software works. It works because the users of that software are also the developers of the software. They care less about selling as opposed to using.

This can be used by companies as well. They just need to keep the proprietary parts seperate from the free parts, ala Apple.

Your points on this are spot on. Many companies will start to take advantage of Open Source software (especially GNU free software).

Why would you pay Microsoft money for something that you can get for free.
That's what Microsoft is afraid of.

[Ted Striker]

BSD license offers more freedom than the GNU license.

[Drake Tungsten]

You may be good at CS, but you are a lousy thinker.

It's funny cuz it's true!

[DinoDoc]

Why would you pay Microsoft money for something that you can get for free.

I like my products to be more user friendly than the typical Linux product is. Standardization is a good thing for the computer neophyte.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


It's funny cuz it's true!

Drake, look at his post.

He doesn't have a clue about open source development, it's obvious. He insists it's "more efficient" and as some way to prove this he talks about how Apple used the Mach kernel in OS X. Then he calls me a poor thinker.

Surely he realizes that if that constitutes a proof, then it's a proof to call proprietary software more efficient because of all of the games using the Quake III engine?

You and this guy are a lot alike, Drake. Except in this case you don't even bother trying to argue, you just came in with a quick elementary-schoolesque troll because you're capable of no more.

[Drake Tungsten]

Except in this case you don't even bother trying to argue, you just came in with a quick elementary-schoolesque troll because you're capable of no more.

I've had enough of you for a while. I'd rather sit back and laugh at you like I usually do without the hassle of actually having to listen to your maniacal arguments...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I've had enough of you for a while. I'd rather sit back and laugh at you like I usually do without the hassle of actually having to listen to your maniacal arguments...

You're welcome to sit back and laugh, but that doesn't involve posting stupid comments like you've been doing.

You're the one that thinks MS is in the Xbox business for profit mainly, even though they'd need to make a billion dollars in profit from Xbox alone each year for the next 3 years to even break even. And you laugh at me.

[Drake Tungsten]

even though they'd need to make a billion dollars in profit from Xbox alone each year for the next 3 years to even break even.

This makes complete sense, as we all know the world will end in 3 years and MS will have no chance to make further profits...

Usual Asher, misrepresenting my arguments in a desperate attempt to support his unchanging point of view. And you wonder why I don't bother any more? It's fun to wind you up and watch you go some of the time, but after a while it just makes my head hurt...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This makes complete sense, as we all know the world will end in 3 years and MS will have no chance to make further profits...

The Xbox world will end in 3 years, as the Xbox's lifecycle ends in 2005...

At that point, they start over again. New R&D costs, new $500M marketing budget for the North American launch, new sky-high hardware costs, etc.

So yes, effectively the world does end in 3 years for the Xbox.

Usual Asher, misrepresenting my arguments in a desperate attempt to support his unchanging point of view. And you wonder why I don't bother any more? It's fun to wind you up and watch you go some of the time, but after a while it just makes my head hurt...

Explain to me how that was misrepresenting your arguments.

Your argument was MS got into the Xbox market primarily for profit. You made that painfully clear.

Think, Drake, think...

[Drake Tungsten]

Your argument was MS got into the Xbox market primarily for profit. You made that painfully clear.

I also made it painfully clear that their profits would come on the Xbox 2. The Xbox is meant to build a brand name and sell developers on Microsoft's next console.

So yes, effectively the world does end in 3 years for the Xbox.

Only if you think that a successful console doesn't build momentum and support for its followup. One of your most ridiculous ideas, but one you have to stick too, as Asher can never admit being wrong. Redmond might be disappointed...

[Asher]

Only if you think that a successful console doesn't build momentum and support for its followup. One of your most ridiculous ideas, but one you have to stick too, as Asher can never admit being wrong. Redmond might be disappointed...

My idea was that it doesn't mean it's a success and MS can let it slide by making a cheaper console next cycle. Effectively, every cycle console manufacturers need to start over again. It is a help to have a successful predecessor, it's not a ticket to success for the next one like you insist it is.

It's a painfully obvious concept.

You seem to be comfortable hedging all your bets on the concept of if the Xbox has 30% marketshare now, they'll have 30% marketshare next cycle too.

It's incredibly stupid.

[Drake Tungsten]

You seem to be comfortable hedging all your bets on the concept of if the Xbox has 30% marketshare now, they'll have 30% marketshare next cycle too.

It's certainly not guaranteed, but it's a relatively safe bet for a company with Microsoft's prodigious resources. Companies do take risks, Asher, a concept you can't seem to grasp. MS took a risk on the Xbox, but if it pays off they will control the highly lucrative gaming industry. If you consider that even the utter failure of the Xbox won't really hurt MS, it becomes pretty obvious why MS did this. A great opportunity for profit with acceptable risks. And they can even cover their attempt to take over another industry by claiming that Sony is a threat to them...

You really are a poor thinker...

[Asher]

Drake...

I really don't know what to say.

If you really want to continue arguing this with me, go read Opening the Xbox. It's not a terribly long book, and it'll open your eyes to MS' intentions in the market. It'll make a whole bunch of things make sense.

Further, it's absurd to think a 30% marketshare now means a 30% one next term. Further still, why do you think MS would be happy with 30%? They want it all. Either way, it may as well be 0%.

They'll need to pour tons of money into Xbox2 to gain lots of marketshare, which means it very likely won't turn a net profit either.

It just doesn't make sense for MS to enter a market for the purpose of making profit then spend billions of dollars, knowing they probably won't make them back...

It then becomes obvious, especially after reading the book I mentioned, that the reason they did it was not for profit, but to prevent Sony from dominating the living room. That's what it's about, the battle for the living room...

MS doesn't need profits from the Xbox. That's what Windows and Office are for. The Xbox's role is to protect Microsoft incase the market shifts from PCs to Living Room boxes, as Sony is trying to do...

If you still don't comprehend this, and I'm a poor thinker, I'd hate to think what you'd be classified as...