[FSF India] RH, SuSE etc

M.P.Anand Babu ab@gnu-india.org
12 Nov 2001 09:09:03 -0800


Radhakrishnan CV <cvr@river-valley.com> writes:

> On 12 Nov 2001 at 14:57, Khuzaima A. Lakdawala wrote:
> 
>    Please forgive me if I am wrong in interpreting the above but
>    you are suggesting that it is not possible for a free software
>    company to survive without compromising on the fundamental
>    principles of free software. *That* is a really depressing
>    scenario indeed!
> 
> It is really depressing. A company that extends IT enabled services
> based on free software might survive. But I am yet to see a company
> that creates free software and survives without compromising on the
> principles. Software companies generate revenue by selling licences,
> whereas a free software company cant do it.
Not might, CAN survive.
It is simply because they did not understand what Free(dom) software
means!.

In a business model, the whole equation is about money. We (FSF) have
to show the investors how, by being Free they can be successful. We
can take a step forward and teach them how to make money with
FreeSoftware Business model, but thats *not our focus*. We prime goal
is to complete the Free Operating System.

>    As for the need to look into the real reasons behind the
>    closing of free software companies, that's clearly the job of
>    economists, not of free software advocates. Nevertheless, if
>    at all such an exercise is undertaken, I bet it will be found
>    that the reasons had nothing to do with the ideology of free
>    software but were in fact the same reasons why so many other
>    high flying technology companies unrelated to free software
>    also closed down in the crash of the new millennium -- namely,
>    bad or flawed business models. We cannot blame the ideology
>    for failure in implementation; we cannot say, for instance,
>    (please forgive the cliched analogy) that because the Soviet
>    Union failed it is not really possible to have a truly
>    socialist state.
> 
> Ideal states are only theoretical posssibilities based on which
> humans go forward, but not necessarily be possible to translate
> entirely into reality. Soviet Union proved that and it applies to
> anything idealistic.
But FreeSoftware is REAL. Its happening. It will take time. But We
will do it.

> 
>    You have missed a *crucial* point here. We should not be the
>    least bit worried about *existing* GNU/Linux users. We should
>    be worried about *potential* GNU users!  Users who have
>    probably *already* "fallen a prey to Microsoft". How shall we
>    describe one of these distributions to them? "This is an
>    alternative to Microsoft. This is supposed to be free software
>    but because of some business compulsions this one too has some
>    proprietary software just like Microsoft. But it is
>    technically superior, more secure, cheaper..."
> 
> It is a sad truth that novices still depend upon the distributions
> termed as unethical. Later on, when they find themselves comfortable
> with experimenting and know more about the GNU system and its
> underlying philosophy, they move to a distribution which they
> consider to be better. I believe, the users' experiences guide them
> more rather than the goading of the veterans.
Yes novices are ignorant. They don't know. Few learn through a hard way,
but most others fail. We FSF are also responsible for educating such
novices to choose the right path and ensure them success and this is
what this whole Khuzaima's thread is about.

-- 
 _.|_ 
(_||_)
Inspired by GNU <www.gnu.org>