Re: beta testing version

At 09:56 PM 12/2/00 -0700, Ron Chmara wrote:
...

>And I really havn't seen much in the way of full featured products, complete
>with printed docs, 24 hour support, tutorials, wizards, templates, a company
>to sue if the code causes damage, GUI install, setup, removal, etc. etc. etc.
>
>Want to make money from open source? Well, you have to find, or build,
>a _product_. Right now, there are no OS db products that can compare to oh,
>an Oracle product, a MSSQL product. There may be superior code, but that
>doesn't make a difference in business. Business has very little to do
>with building the perfect mousetrap, if nobody can easily use it.

Which of course is the business model - certainly not a "zero revenue" model
as Thomas arrogantly suggests - which OSS service companies are following.

They provide the cocoon around the code.

I buy RH releases from Fry's. Yes, I could download, but the price is such
that I'd rather just go buy the damned release CDs. I don't begrudge it,
they're providing me a real SERVICE, saving me time, which saves me dollars
in opportunity costs (given my $200/hr customer billing rate). They make
money buy publishing releases, I still get all the sources. We all win.

It is not a bad model.

Question - if this model sucks, then certainly PG, Inc's net revenue last
year was greater than any true open source software company's? I mean, let's
see that slam against the "zero revenue business model" be proven by showing
us some real numbers.

Just what was PG, Inc's net revenue last year, and just how does their mixed
revenue model stack up against the OSS world?

(NOT the .com world, which is in a different business, no matter what Thomas
wants to claim).

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest
Rare Bird Alert Service and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net.