Subject: Re: A few here may have an opinion on this
From: Rich Bodo <rsb@ostel.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:25:38 -0700 (PDT)


oops.  Transcrewed that domain name.  The correct one is:
http://www.computerhistory.org/core/
Excellent pub, BTW.

-Rich

Rich Bodo | rsb@ostel.com | 650-964-4678

On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Rich Bodo wrote:

>
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Chris Maeda wrote:
>
> > Cute.  I'll bet you can't name one publicly-traded consistently-profitable
> > free software business.
>
> Well, if we could decide what a free software business is, we might
> try.  Hey, why don't we just include businesses that depend on free
> software for their livelihood, and say Microsft!  O.K. I am being a
> smart ass now.  But how about RedHat?  They're profitable.  Not in
> MS's class, but I have a guess as to why.  In the recent issue of CORE
> (http://www.computerhistorymuseum.org/core/) there was a reprint of a
> letter from Bill Gates to hobbyists dated 1978.  He complains therein
> that he and his employees effectively make $2 per hour because of a
> lack of sales due to piracy.  30 years later, no complaints.  Most of
> my friends that own what I would consider free software businesses
> started their businesses within the last 5 years or so.  There are a
> few that have been around longer, but the majority are very young.  I
> think we just need to give the small businesses that are out there
> another 20 years or so to go public.
>
> -Rich
>
> Rich Bodo | rsb@ostel.com | 650-964-4678
> > At 01:01 PM 10/24/2002 -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> > >Chris Maeda <chrismaeda@attbi.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I looked up MSFT's latest financial release
> > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> > > > Do you still think that proprietary software is not a great business
> > > > model?
> > >
> > >I'm no economist, but I think your sample group is 'micro' and your
> > >data is very 'soft'.
> >
> >
>
>