Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > So you're back to "internet busking", which is where you are. Dammit > Tom, you deserve better, just plain as a human being, and in > comparison to your contributions. > I appreciate the sentiment but that isn't a professional consideration, exactly. People may or may not choose to become customers as an expression of good will if they want to act on such considerations of their own. > Look, you've been there, with Canonical. They clearly thought they > had a better use for your time than working on Arch, no? They > considered revision control a problem under control, they could > delegate incremental improvement to people without your vision in that > area. (I'm aware that there were a lot of other things going on, but > stated as bare facts that's correct, is it not?) > Canonical discussed the possibility of employment with them to work on Arch. In those discussions, three non-negotiable conditions emerged from Canonical, at least as I understood their position: 1) That I would make any change to Arch I was ordered to (though would be free to not include it in the public release). 2. That I would submit to personal surveillance of my whereabouts and activities (to be personally conducted by the founder, no less!). 3. That no equity was being offered. I declined. It did not help that when the plans for what changes to Arch I might be asked to make were discussed, I found them unimpressive and technologically wrong-headed. If I had thought the ideas were good, (1) might not have been an obstacle, if (2) and (3) could have been answered. What happened next was a situation in which his employees behaved in manners I consider unprofessional and that, in fairness, probably do not reflect the reflectively held values of those employees, Canonical, or Canonical's founder. And, in fairness, I did not, in that process, make any kind of commercial counter-offer to Canonical. If I had thought to make a counter-offer, some like pre-purchases would have made a lot of sense. Water under the bridge. > > One thing to consider is what happens if not just me but > > perhaps a few people actually succeed in starting a business like > > this. That will change the landscape a lot because many people > > will try to emulate this. That is, many entrepreneurial hackers > > will follow suit and offer their work under similar terms. > > Agreed, and I sincerely wish you good luck. But the bottom line on > the back of the envelope I'm looking at says "you're gonna need luck > in round lots." > > > That luck-deficit is invariant under all plans and scenarios I can think of. Gotta play the hand you're dealt. -t