Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263574AbTFWOwX (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:52:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263638AbTFWOwX (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:52:23 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:36029 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263574AbTFWOwV (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 10:52:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 08:06:16 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: Scott Robert Ladd Cc: Larry McVoy , David Woodhouse , Stephan von Krawczynski , jgarzik@pobox.com, lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM] Message-ID: <20030623150616.GA20103@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Scott Robert Ladd , Larry McVoy , David Woodhouse , Stephan von Krawczynski , jgarzik@pobox.com, lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030620001217.G6248@almesberger.net> <20030620120910.3f2cb001.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030620142436.GB14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620143012.GC14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620163349.GG17563@work.bitmover.com> <20030621142048.2ae63afa.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030621133831.GA10089@work.bitmover.com> <1056358467.29264.41.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> <20030623132231.GC6715@work.bitmover.com> <3EF70EF8.3050107@coyotegulch.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EF70EF8.3050107@coyotegulch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 7, AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2219 Lines: 43 On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 10:30:16AM -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Larry McVoy wrote: > >The one flaw in this argument and all of those which say basically > >"services > >is the answer" is that it only works if you produce crappy software which > >needs servicing. > > Your definition of "services" is far too narrow. Requirements change > with time; ideal software today may be inadequate tomorrow. I make most > of my money from customizing software to a specific customer's needs. I > combine and refine existing components to produce unique software. > > A case in point: My Java Indexed Serialization Package (JISP) provides a > very basic tool; about half my business comes from people who like the > Jisp concept, and need a custom version that is tightly coupled to their > requirements. I don't sell Jisp; I sell *what I can do* with Jisp. I think I'm going to give up soon (much to relief of the list) because I keep getting the same sorts of answers which make sense from a small custom shop point of view but are simply broken from a company point of view. Your model is fine, there is nothing wrong with it but there isn't a lot right with it either. You can't really grow your business under that model. Why? Because you are essentially a consulting shop and that isn't going to generate the revenue you need to hire more people, build more things, get more consulting. You can keep yourself going but not make enough to get more people going. Instead of coming back at me with the premise of "well, I'm eating so my model is OK" how about coming back with a plan that says "Here's how we make an open source based business put Microsoft out of business". That's reality. You are just playing around on the edges, there is nothing wrong with that, but until you have a viable plan that competes with the big boys let's stop kidding ourselves, ok? -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/