Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Anders Karlsson]

On 20th Apr 2006, Alexander Jacob Tsykin <stsykin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 20 April 2006 01:18, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:01 +1000, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> > > clearly it is, but one company is not enough. And lets face facts,
> > > Mark Shuttleworth is much more interested in promoting Ubuntu than
> > > in making a profit from it.
> >
> > Why is one company not enough? I have not heard anything convincing
> > that Ubuntu would get so much better with more cooks.
> >
> I meant Linux in general, not just Ubuntu. Sorry for being unclear.

No problem.

> > > I'm aware of all this. However, the more commercial backing, the
> > > better. Consider that Ubuntu does benefit from both of their
> > > contributions, eg. Xgl and Compiz from Novell.
> >
> > You can throw as much money as you want at something, it doesn't
> > automagically make it the best thing since sliced bread. Acquiring
> > lots of financial backers won't automatically get you anything
> > without hard graft, sometimes it just makes things harder, because
> > of unrealistic and outlandish expectations.
> >
> > Let's learn how to walk before trying to run...
> >
> What does that mean? Speak in practicalities pleas,e not platitudes.

I did speak of practical issues. You seem to believe that the more money
is thrown at something, the better it gets and in less time. That is not
the case. More money may help specific issues but it is not the silver
bullet you make it out to be.

> > I seem to remember someone saying something about GIMP being total
> > overkill for users and that it should not be installed because of
> > this. We all make claims others disagree with from time to time.
> >
> And I immediately qualified that as only MY OPINION in capitol
> letters. Again, check your sources before you make a claim.

I did, and you did qualify it as your opinion, but only after pushed on
the point. Initially you presented it as fact.

> > I should have mentioned that I was referring to discussions on the
> > LKML, and I was dragging things out of memory from some time ago.
> >
> thanks you

It wasn't an apology, but hey, I am in a generous mood today...

> > [multiverse]
> >
> > > It is used all the time. It is promoted extensively in the Wiki
> > > and the Forums. It is unofficially official, and we are encouraged
> > > to use it.
> >
> > Really? Last time I made a clean install of Dapper and looked at the
> > default sources.list, multiverse certainly was not included or
> > enabled. universe was, but was commented out.
> >
> Like I said, it is promoted in both the wiki and the forums. We are
> actively encouraged to use it.

Links please. I want to read the 'active encouragement' parts myself.
Not that I don't trust you, but I want to do my research, as you so
kindly have told me to do over and over again.

multiverse may have some useful bits in it, but from what I have
recently seen, a user unaware of the existence of multiverse and with a
Flight6 install ISO of Dapper would not get multiverse packages on a
freshly installed box.

> > > I did not say that. I said that companies should be allowed to
> > > participate in and invest in Linux, and should not be presented
> > > with gross disincentives to do so.
> >
> > AFAICT, IBM is participating quite happily and investing rather a
> > large amount of cash and time in Linux. I can't remember them asking
> > permission to do so. They did it of their own back after checking
> > the legal side first.
> >
> > The only "gross disincentive" to predatory corporations joining the
> > Linux party is that they have to play fair. They don't have to come
> > to the party if they don't want to.
> >
> a) just because one company finds it feasible to contribute, doesn't
>  meant hey all do (and please don't ask for examples because I am
>  talking only in generalities here and don';t have them).

I've noticed. Your argument is easily turned around though. Just because
one company does not find it feasible to contribute etc etc. 

> b) I was talking about GPLv3, which IBM have said would be an obstacle
> for them to invest further in Open Source, not about what happens now.

GPLv3 has its place in open source development I am sure, but it would
appear that the uptake will be rather slow... 

> > The mailing lists tend to adhere to netiquette reasonably well. The
> > web forums - well - don't.
> I hadn't noticed you did.

meow

> The way you patronise me is ridiculous.

So sorry if that is how it comes across, it's not intentional.

> I do not agree with your opinion, but I acknowledge that it has
> validity. Please do me the same courtesy.

But Sasha, that is exactly what I have done.

> This does not, however, answer the question as to why links to the
> mailing lists should be severed from the forums if they are sold.

I think you will find that it did. The other response on this issue
understood me fine, so....

-- 
Anders Karlsson <trudheim at gmail.com>