Subject: Re: small worlds and better than ransom
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:21:52 -0700

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> You've chosen to discard all your aces, considering it unethical to
> keep them. 

That's false on both counts.


> 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?

"hit me" + discard?  I think you are mixing metaphors.

Basically I can't make ante so about all I can do is ask
potential customers to put up a stake for me and buy me
a seat at the table.


> So what do you think you had to offer that they
> [Canonical] would [have] *recognize[d]* as being
> of value?  


I think they shot themselves in the foot with zero-sum
thinking.   They got it into their heads that the world would
be a better place if there was only one line of Arch development
that the public cooperated with and they assumed it was
to be a fight to make sure that that line of development would
be there's.    That is, they behaved as if the goal was to
minimize the number of people who cooperated directly
with me -- they strove to create attrition from my project.
If they were thinking more clearly, they might
instead have behaved as if the goal was to maximize the
number of people working on any viable branch of Arch
at all.   It's classic "bigger slice" vs. "bigger pie" thinking.

I think they shot themselves in the foot by winding up with
almost 100% of a much smaller pie.   They just didn't
"get" open source.   They acted like they had to kill the
GNU project to survive, and that's (with all due respect
to Andy) just what they did.

-t