Business is not Evil (was: HOW-TO: Giving up Ubuntu)

[Derek Broughton]

Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:

> We (GNU enthusiasts) are often so entrenched in our idealism that we
> tend to forget that business is among the greatest (and most
> important) forces on earth. We also forget that free software is not
> against business at all. 

This is a rant against a _very_ old post, but since you're quoting me, I
guess I'll respond.

First, I'm not that idealistic about Free Software.  I have no qualms about
letting business develop software, and as a small business owner I'm _very_
aware of the importance of business.  That said, I really have never stated
a position in disagreement to most of this lengthy preamble.

> It is not a good enough argument to say "let the Windows people stay
> there; we don't need popularity to stay around; it's a free system
> which means it will stay around no matter what." 

You haven't explained _why_ it isn't a good enough argument.  It might not
be good enough for Mark Shuttleworth - he has to make money somewhere - but
it matters not one whit to me whether Windows users beat a path to the
Ubuntu door.  I still haven't made any attempt to convert a single family
member to Linux.  Windows is "good enough" for them.  I need something
better.
 
> Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>> This is the problem.  We're not in a race.  We have no need for a large
>> number of converts.  We don't need market share (in fact, free software,
>> under the existing definitions, _can't_ have market share - no matter how
>> many Linux desktops we have, the 'market share' will be restricted to
>> those that bought a commercial Linux variant).
> 
> Why not compete if we can win? Competition is not a bad thing and we

That's a religious position.  In my opinion, competition is very frequently
a bad thing.  I'll say right back at you, why compete at all?

> can have market share and it's not restricted to those who bought a
> commercial GNU/Linux variant...

No, we can't.  Market share is _defined_ based on the $ value of the market. 
Since Linux is, for the most part, free as in beer, we can never have a
measurable market share.

> Ubuntu and Debian are not commercial 
> although the former required sizable monetary resources to get
> started. 

And you won't find them on any "market share" rankings, though there are
surveys that will show them as being on "x" percent of desktops.

 
> Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote (again):
>> Linux isn't a commercial OS.  It exists to serve the needs of its users.
>> Its users are its developers, and those who don't like a particular
>> flavor of Linux will either use another flavor, use another OS, or start
>> their own.
> 
> Nearly all computer users on earth are non-developers and I bet most
> users of GNU/Linux are not developers either.

I didn't say _all_ of its users were its developers... but even there, it
_is_ a desirable end to get _all_ Linux users participating in the
development process.  Submit detailed bug reports if you can do nothing
else.

> 
> Serg B. <serg.belokamen at gmail.com> complements me:
>> I was also trying to say that Linux is no longer a hobby OS. It is in the
>> enterprise market and that in it self makes Linux commercial, you can
>> buy it, you can sell  it, you can buy and sell services related to it...
>> So those who fail to evolve and of an opinion that it should be a hobby
>> OS, take Linux community back a decade or so.

And I never said that it could only be a hobby OS - but it has no _need_ to
be anything more.  I feel sad for those, like you, who downgrade Linux
_because_ it isn't sufficiently commercial for your taste.
-- 
derek