Subject: Re: A Philosophical Diversion From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 1998/10/09 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3116940935413718@naggum.no> * trashcan@david-steuber.com (David Steuber "The Interloper") | I have to disagree with you on one point. Linux is a better end-user | environment than NT. uh, I'm not sure we disagree, because your statement is not qualitatively comparable to the statements "Linux is a programming environment" and "NT is an end-user environment". I was _not_ comparing the two, I was only pointing out what they are best at, almost, but not explicitly, to the exclusion of (focus on) the other. I don't know any actual end-users for whom NT is the best choice, myself, and all the people I know who say they think NT is best for end-users don't know any particular person for which this even _might_ be true, either, but it _has_ been optimized for _some_ concept of "end-user", and Linux continues to be optimal for programmers or at least end-users-who-aren't-afraid-of-programmers. | I hope to go a long way on free software. I even hope to make money | on it! Mostly I hope to have fun with it. Linux is fun. NT isn't. I honestly think you should forget making money on free software, and regard it as luck if it happens. the very concept is basically flawed: masses of people will never pay for support, but they _will_ pay more for upgrades than for the original product, which might as well come for free. quality software does not sell in volumes, and free software is generally high quality software. instead, aim for making the software you write for commercial clients free after a certain period. my clients have accepted that general- purpose components that I build half on their time and half on my own time to get the desired functionality for their use, may be re-used and publicly released as I see fit, but no sooner than six months after the system has stabilized. #:Erik