Oracle intersted in buying Ubunutu

[Alexander Jacob Tsykin]

On Thursday 20 April 2006 01:18, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-04-20 at 00:01 +1000, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:
> > clearly it is, but one company is not enough. And lets face facts, Mark
> > Shuttleworth is much more interested in promoting Ubuntu than in making a
> > profit from it.
>
> Why is one company not enough? I have not heard anything convincing that
> Ubuntu would get so much better with more cooks.
>
I meant Linux in general, not just Ubuntu. Sorry for being unclear.
> > I'm aware of all this. However, the more commercial backing, the better.
> > Consider that Ubuntu does benefit from both of their contributions, eg.
> > Xgl and Compiz from Novell.
>
> You can throw as much money as you want at something, it doesn't
> automagically make it the best thing since sliced bread. Acquiring lots
> of financial backers won't automatically get you anything without hard
> graft, sometimes it just makes things harder, because of unrealistic and
> outlandish expectations.
>
> Let's learn how to walk before trying to run...
>
What does that mean? Speak in practicalities pleas,e not platitudes.
> > the reason Linus stated is because it would deter commercial investment.
> > Do your research before making a claim. Many commercial companies, like
> > Novell, have claimed that they will not be able to subscribe to it or use
> > software which falls under GPLv3.
>
> I seem to remember someone saying something about GIMP being total
> overkill for users and that it should not be installed because of this.
> We all make claims others disagree with from time to time.
>
And I immediately qualified that as only MY OPINION in capitol letters. Again, 
check your sources before you make a claim.
> I should have mentioned that I was referring to discussions on the LKML,
> and I was dragging things out of memory from some time ago.
>
thanks you
> [multiverse]
>
> > It is used all the time. It is promoted extensively in the Wiki and the
> > Forums. It is unofficially official, and we are encouraged to use it.
>
> Really? Last time I made a clean install of Dapper and looked at the
> default sources.list, multiverse certainly was not included or enabled.
> universe was, but was commented out.
>
Like I said, it is promoted in both the wiki and the forums. We are actively 
encouraged to use it.
> > I did not say that. I said that companies should be allowed to
> > participate in and invest in Linux, and should not be presented with
> > gross disincentives to do so.
>
> AFAICT, IBM is participating quite happily and investing rather a large
> amount of cash and time in Linux. I can't remember them asking
> permission to do so. They did it of their own back after checking the
> legal side first.
>
> The only "gross disincentive" to predatory corporations joining the
> Linux party is that they have to play fair. They don't have to come to
> the party if they don't want to.
>
a) just because one company finds it feasible to contribute, doesn't meant hey 
all do (and please don't ask for examples because I am talking only in 
generalities here and don';t have them).
b) I was talking about GPLv3, which IBM have said would be an obstacle for 
them to invest further in Open Source, not about what happens now.
> > > By all means flog the web forum to highest bidder, as long as the links
> > > to the mailing lists are severed at the same time.
> >
> > why?
>
> The mailing lists tend to adhere to netiquette reasonably well. The web
> forums - well - don't.
I hadn't noticed you did. The way you patronise me is ridiculous. I do not 
agree with your opinion, but I acknowledge that it has validity. Please do me 
the same courtesy.

This does not, however, answer the question as to why links to the mailing 
lists should be severed from the forums if they are sold.

Sasha