Subject: Re: small worlds and better than ransom
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 15:11:51 +0900

Thomas Lord writes:
 > 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.

It's not a professional consideration.  It's a public policy
consideration.  "Does it make sense to advocate an extreme position
when there is no known reliable way to mitigate the kind of experience
you've had?"

Again, you've been able to basically maintain your ethical stance on
free software in the face of very adverse experiences.  Do you really
think that FSB has a future if free software demands that of all its
adherents?

 > 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.
[...]
 > 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.

From their point of view?  AFAICS they weren't talking about
acquisition of an independent vendor, they were talking about an
employment contract.  So what do you think you had to offer that they
would *recognize* as being of value?  The fact that you were
unimpressed by their proposals implies to me that it wasn't much.

This isn't surprising: they're entrepreneurs, and you're a visionary.
I hear similar things said by people a lot, and I just think it's
unavoidable because of the difference in the kinds of people who take
on the different roles.

 > Water under the bridge.

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to learn from history. ;-)

 > That luck-deficit is invariant under all plans and scenarios
 > I can think of.   Gotta play the hand you're dealt.

You've chosen to discard all your aces, considering it unethical to
keep them.  Thing is, you're an inventive guy, and you can say to The
Dealer Up There "hit me", and you will get some more good cards.  What
will you do with them?  Will you discard them, or play them?