[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       userlinux-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Discuss] ISV's and Licensing
From:       Adam Treat <manyoso () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2003-12-12 8:35:21
[Download RAW message or body]

On Friday 12 December 2003 3:06 am, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Adam Treat wrote:
> >So why in the world are you insisting that they do not use Qt [when they
> > predominantly buy proprietary solutions].
>
> Obviously, the agenda of Free Software developers isn't the same as that
> of Enterprise Users. UserLinux is in a sense bait, in that if they
> accept it they will be using more Free Software and will inevitably
> become more enamored with the idea of Free Software than they are today.
> But how do you win their hearts and minds? I submit that you do _not_ do
> that by insisting that before they join our camp they must undergo an a
> priori religious conversion to the Free Software camp. You win them over
> a little at a time. They are looking for a platform with an excellent
> proprietary software ecosystem around it. So, let's give them that,
> [roviding the lowest possible barriers and building a cottage business
> to satisfy them that does not exist today. And we build that on a good
> free software system, that keeps getting better.

This. Does. Not. Make. Sense.

Precisely who is insisting upon a religious conversion?  Trolltech?  KDE/Qt 
developers?  If we are to win them over at all we have to provide an 
enticement that they find desirable.  You keep insisting, despite all the 
evidence to the contrary presented to you on this very list, that proprietary 
developer will only be one over with an enticement of gratis development.  
This is simply wrong and this has been demonstrated several times.  

Gratis development is simply not the enticement you think it is when presented 
side-by-side with a technologically superior platform.  Not to mention the 
top notch support and documentation.  Not to mention the ease of conversion 
from their current toolkits.  Not to mention the cross-platform solution that 
many of them find to be a defining criteria.

Just to be crystal clear here Bruce:

lowest possible barrier != gratis development

At least not necessarily.  Again you bring up the coveted cottage industry.  
You salivate over a cottage industry, but soundly dismiss all current ISV's 
(the majority) from inclusion in your cottage industry.  That is absurd.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]