Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?
From: Kevin Nathan (knathan_at_project54.com)
Date: 04/09/05
- Next message: graham: "Re: First Look at SUSE LINUX 9.3 Professional"
- Previous message: Charlie: "Re: Windows Server/Suse 9.2"
- In reply to: Ann: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Next in thread: houghi: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Reply: houghi: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Reply: Ann: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 23:58:36 -0700
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 23:13:21 GMT
"Ann" <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:35:35 -0700, Kevin Nathan wrote:
>
> > Where, it appears to me, she was denigrating the downloaders, while
> > not having a qualm about paying them for what they did . . . :-)
>
> You see no distinction between buying/downloading a distro to decide
> whether to buy the retail box and doing it to avoid paying for it?
This is a red herring. SUSE (and most others) offer their distro (or a
subset of it) via FTP for free download. Actually downloading, and using
it, is not 'avoiding' payment, it's part of what they offer. It's not
put there *just* to try out and then buy if you like it. Linux and FOSS
does *not* equal shareware. There is no reason to think anyone is doing
anything wrong by taking advantage of this avenue.
Your statement:
'Apparently there are a number of broadband subscribers who think their
subscription entitles them to all the "free" stuff they can download.'
is puzzling. If something is made available freely with no 'shareware'
type of notice then yes, anyone and everyone can download all of that
that they desire, with no implied responsibility of payment. Your
attitude of try it and then buy it if you like it is *not* an actual
stipulation of SUSE, or any license under which the software is released
-- it's strictly, and purely, *your* desired mode of operation. What
most Linux distros have discovered, is that this is the norm, not the
exception, and if they make an FTP download (or ISO in many cases)
available, not only do they get more paying customers but also have
built up 'goodwill' in the community. However, those that never pay for
the distribution should not be labeled as freeloaders, or stealing the
distro. It's just their choice. SUSE, and others, can pull that choice
any time they want to do so. All they *really* have to do, to be in
compliance with the GPL, is to provide the _source code_.
> Nor between several hundred people downloading vs the same number
> buying a CD/DVD duplicated from a single download?
No, there really *is* no difference between those two options. Those
buying the copies *could* download it themselves. It's not like one
downloader got possession of a distro _illegally_ and is pirating it.
Those that buy it are just saving themselves the time required to get it
and actually freeing up a little bandwidth in the process. You are the
one that gave the impression that those that download it are somehow
wrong by not paying for it.
> I did not buy the DVD from a "downloader", rather from a company that
> has been selling open source CDs, retail boxes, and books for 10
> years.
Yes, you did. How do you think *they* got it? Just because they are a
company that has found a way to make money at it does not mean they are
somehow _better_, or more official, than Joe Broadband downloading the
same thing. In fact, I applaud them for it. I do the same thing for my
friends and clients except I don't charge for it. All they have to do is
provide the medium to which they want it recorded. (This is not just
SUSE, it's many large, downloadable packages like OOo, Mozilla, etc.) I
encourage all of them to buy at least every other distro version that
they use, regardless of distro maker, to keep those companies alive.
> And as I've already written, I installed SuSE 9.2 on my try-out
> computer but have since over-written it with another distribution I'm
> considering.
>
Which has nothing to do with the discussion. But it's nice that you have
an extra box to do that. I have a few extra partitions on several boxes
to do the same thing. Whether I buy, or download, makes no difference.
> I bought my first Linux distribution about 10 years ago, Slackware 2.3
> (no, not a typo <g>). I've seen a bunch of distributions come/go
> since then.
I bought my first Linux distro only eight years ago (Red Hat 4.2 if
memory serves). I went through most version of Red Hat up to 7.3 and
several other distros before settling on SUSE as my preferred distro. I
paid for every one of them. Although some were included in books, I
consider that as payment, as well, because the publishers had an
agreement with the distro maker to be able to include it. Furthermore, I
purchased full versions of SUSE 7.0, 7.1, 7.3 and 8.2. Got 9.1 from
Novell on their free DVD set. 9.2 is the first, ever, Linux distro I've
downloaded and used (I downloaded Mandrake 9.1 and 9.2 after buying 7.1
and 8.2 but never did come to like it so didn't use it) -- mostly
because I wanted to learn the differences between the FTP/ISO version
from the boxed set. I will buy future versions of SUSE (and probably
other distros) along with downloading some of them.
> Slackware has survived because of a dedicated maintainer
> and loyal users who support the project by buying the retail box (or
> subscribing). Mandtiva's "Club" model appears to be successful in
> getting downloaders to pony up.
There are others that are freely downloadable, with no equivalent boxed
set other than what third parties offer (Debian and Ubuntu come to mind
first, but I'm sure there are others, as well).
I'm still puzzled by your insistence that 'downloaders must pony up'. I
disagree -- if the company thinks it's free downloads are a drag on the
company, then they should discontinue them. Mandrake suffered some
customer loss when they tried to mildly 'force' payment; they've since
recovered a bit, but I know at least ten companies and/or individuals
that dropped them and won't go back. Mind you, I agree with you that if
you like a distro you should support it. But I *don't* insist that
everyone that downloads and uses it must pay, since the company itself
does not require it.
> While I do think Novell will give SuSE Pro a fair trial, imo they
> would make the same decision Red Hat did if they decided the retail
> box distribution was a drag on the bottom line.
And then they'd lose many of their supporters, as did Red Hat. We'll
just have to wait and see . . . :-)
-- Kevin Nathan (Arizona, USA) Open standards. Open source. Open minds. The command line is the front line.
- Next message: graham: "Re: First Look at SUSE LINUX 9.3 Professional"
- Previous message: Charlie: "Re: Windows Server/Suse 9.2"
- In reply to: Ann: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Next in thread: houghi: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Reply: houghi: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Reply: Ann: "Re: novell-suse linux dead meat?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
