http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1833612,00.asp

.... P.V.? Hope not.

OK, tell me again it's not about market share.

Al C.

On 2005-07-04, Al C. <acanton_nospam@takeout_adams-blake.com_nospam> wrote:
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1833612,00.asp
>
> ... P.V.? Hope not.
>
> OK, tell me again it's not about market share.
>
> Al C.
>

Article is garbage, it has nothing to do with market share....it has to do with
people not paying developers...as a marketing guru you should realize that....

It's also garabage because the developer is not named nor is the software
product, there may be other circumstances involved. Not a good source.

Try again or read PV's view.............

gus-br.linuxmag.com.br/pt/artigos/04-out-2002.html

ken

--
---------------------------------------------------
Slackware's package management system is called....
../configure, make, make install.

No_One wrote:

> gus-br.linuxmag.com.br/pt/artigos/04-out-2002.html

This was written almost three years ago... an eon in 'internet time.' A lot
has happened and a lot has changed. Maybe it's still all true, but I rather
doubt it.

P.V. says, "I don't have a problem with commercial versions of Linux
(Slackware is one, after all)."

So it's not about market share and profits? Yeah. OK. Whatever.

Al C.

On 2005-07-04, Al C. <acanton_nospam@takeout_adams-blake.com_nospam> wrote:
> No_One wrote:
>
>> gus-br.linuxmag.com.br/pt/artigos/04-out-2002.html

>Maybe it's still all true, but I rather
> doubt it.

And your proof would be???? Or is this just another AC assumption you make
from time to time to support .... whatever is the cause d'jour.


> P.V. says, "I don't have a problem with commercial versions of Linux
> (Slackware is one, after all)."
>
> So it's not about market share and profits? Yeah. OK. Whatever.
>
> Al C.

Market share and profits are two different concepts, you should know that...

--
---------------------------------------------------
Slackware's package management system is called....
../configure, make, make install.

We interrupt this exchange of views for a brief public-service
announcement:

_________________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do not |
/ O O\__ feed the Trolls. |
/ \ Thank You. |
/ \ \ |
/ _ \ \---------------------
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `?
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:23:47 +0000, Al C. wrote:
[...]
> OK, tell me again it's not about market share.
>
> Al C.

Okay one more time but please pay attention:

(1) Assume some value X, the slackware marketshare.
(2) Assume that X is not at maximum.
(2) Assume that X may be maximized through some marketing effort.
(3) Assume that slackware is capable of some marketing effort.
(4) Observe that slackware makes no marketing effort.
(5) Therefore, it's not about marketshare.
QED.

Is that clear now?

The obvious followup, "If not marketshare, then what?" is
left as an exercise for the reader. (Hint: make a list).
This question may appear on the final exam.

Consider perhaps that the maximal may not be the optimal.
Reconsider the proof above substituing 'opt' for 'max. Perhaps
slackware marketshare is at its optimal value, thus no marketing
effort is appropriate. But otherwise the conclusion is much the
same: it's not about marketshare.

--
William Hunt, Portland Oregon USA

On 2005-07-04, William Hunt <wjh@prv8.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:23:47 +0000, Al C. wrote:
> [...]
>> OK, tell me again it's not about market share.
>>
>> Al C.
>
> Okay one more time but please pay attention:
>
> (1) Assume some value X, the slackware marketshare.
> (2) Assume that X is not at maximum.
> (2) Assume that X may be maximized through some marketing effort.
> (3) Assume that slackware is capable of some marketing effort.
> (4) Observe that slackware makes no marketing effort.
> (5) Therefore, it's not about marketshare.
> QED.

Succinct is good, great in fact, alas, it may be wasted on the OP.

He is a marketshare magpie.

ken

--
---------------------------------------------------
Slackware's package management system is called....
../configure, make, make install.

Üurgüu wrote:
> We interrupt this exchange of views for a brief public-service
> announcement:
>


LOL.

Al C. wrote:
> No_One wrote:
>
>
>>gus-br.linuxmag.com.br/pt/artigos/04-out-2002.html
>
>
> This was written almost three years ago... an eon in 'internet time.' A lot
> has happened and a lot has changed. Maybe it's still all true, but I rather
> doubt it.
>
> P.V. says, "I don't have a problem with commercial versions of Linux
> (Slackware is one, after all)."
>
> So it's not about market share and profits? Yeah. OK. Whatever.
>
> Al C.


If I write a piece of software, and I license it to a single company for
a fee, this is "commerce". I'm dealing with commercial software. If I
refrain from licensing my piece of software to any additional companies,
even though I could certainly do so, and even though it might gain me a
substantial amount of market share, my software is still commercial,
even though I have negligible market share and don't care to expand.

I'm not sure what exactly you don't understand about this. It is only
ever "about market share" when my market share becomes a motivating
factor in how I run my business. Whether or not market share is a
motivating factor for PV is not the issue here; the issue is that you
seem to think that "market share and profits" logically follow from
"commercial", which simply isn't the case.

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:40:10 +0930, Shannon Lloyd wrote:

>> So it's not about market share and profits? Yeah. OK. Whatever.
>> Al C.

> If I write a piece of software, and I license it to a single company for
> a fee, this is "commerce". I'm dealing with commercial software. If I
> refrain from licensing my piece of software to any additional companies,
> even though I could certainly do so, and even though it might gain me a
> substantial amount of market share, my software is still commercial,
> even though I have negligible market share and don't care to expand.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you don't understand about this. It is only
> ever "about market share" when my market share becomes a motivating
> factor in how I run my business. Whether or not market share is a
> motivating factor for PV is not the issue here; the issue is that you
> seem to think that "market share and profits" logically follow from
> "commercial", which simply isn't the case.

Bravo! Well stated.

Al C. still won't understand, though. At least he'll claim not to.

--
If you're not on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951