Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 03:01:58 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@zippy.cdrom.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Market share and platform support Message-ID: <4.2.0.58.19990909020511.0473c730@localhost> In-Reply-To: <7196.936853710@localhost> References: <Your message of "Wed, 08 Sep 1999 21:52:00 MDT." <4.2.0.58.19990908203747.0463bd20@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 10:08 PM 9/8/99 -0700, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: >Anything which I say that contradicts your gloom-and-doom assessment It's not "gloom and doom;" it's a wake-up call. >automatically falls into the category of "ignoring the problem" Ignoring a wake-up call IS a problem. When one recognizes that a problem is worsening exponentially, the time to fix it is quite short. It's like water lilies in a pond which -- in the presence of excessive amounts of phosphates -- double in area overnight. By the time you say, "Gee, there are a lot of lilies in this pond," the situation is ALREADY out of hand. >and >thus, as we've more than adequately proven in this mailing list, >there's really no point in discussing it with you. There has been some productive discussion here. For example, there has been almost complete agreement that creation of native ports depends not on the absolute size of an OS's user base but on market share rank. This strongly suggests that FreeBSD must advance its market share rank in order to get ports. > You've already >amply demonstrated that you see only in black-and-white and thus >having a discussion about color is, well, pretty pointless. Arguing >with polemicists is what tires me out! It appears that you yourself may be guilty of the charge of which you accuse me. I've expressed many opinions here which are not at all black-and-white. To brand me as a polemicist is, ironically, to be one. >There are several organizations who want to create "high end >distributions" at this stage, and some of them have waved non-trivial >amounts of money in my face in the discussions we've had to date - >it's hardly a new or non-obvious idea, after all. Does this mean that >I'm jumping for their dollar bills or "son, we'll make you a star" >promises without considering what the 2nd-order effects might be? What "2nd-order effects" are you concerned about? In any event, the folks who want to bankroll me are anything but waving huge amounts of cash around with abandon. But they have great faith in me and want me to try it. They want it to be a solid effort and not a flash in the pan. > Of >course not, and without knowing more about what your "investors" are >thinking about, I'm certainly not going to openly endorse any such >thing I'm not asking for an endorsement; one shouldn't need one to proceed with the creation and marketing of an open source operating system distribution. Anyone should be able to take the code and run with it. What I (and they) are concerned about is that the effort not be blocked by Walnut Creek CD-ROM, which has the power to do that because it controls the development process. Since I'd invest a significant portion of my time and they'd invest a bunch of money, this is important. >or make promises about whether I will or won't attempt to spike >their guns if I don't like what they're doing. This is exactly what concerns me -- and should concern others. The fact that you are not reaffirming the stated policy of the FreeBSD project -- to wit, that the code is there for anyone to use for any purpose -- is VERY worrisome and should be of great concern to anyone who is considering contributing. Is FreeBSD really free for all to use? Or only for folks who do things of which Jordan Hubbard or Walnut Creek CD-ROM approve? >That's no more or less than I've told the other folks, and it's always >been my policy in these matters to move slowly and carefully, doing my >best to see just what each such group of people are up to and have in >mind before I know if it's going to be compatible with the project's >own goals. In many cases, it's best that the company in question >simply work separately on its own objectives and try to share what >resources they can rather than have an unhappy marriage, and this >strategem has worked well for companies like Whistle and Juniper so >why mess with it? You haven't acted to "spike the guns" of Whistle and Juniper. But if your comment above means that you might attempt to sabotage a project that involved, say, a degree of evangelism you did not like, this is of great concern indeed! As mentioned above, it flies in the face of the principles which have guided development of the BSDs since the beginning. >The Walnut Creek CDROM relationship is one where we mostly lucked out >since we didn't really know one another well before getting into it >and things have gone surprisingly well despite that fact. It's not a >type of luck I'd rely on again, however. Which kind of begs the >question: If these folks are so serious, why haven't they even talked >to any of the other people actually involved in the project? Because they wouldn't know what to ask. They're not techies, nor are they VCs. They're "angel" investors -- clients for whom I've installed BSD systems. Their businesses have done well because of it. They're saying (and this is almost a direct quote from one of them, who's a lawyer), "Brett, this BSD stuff is working better than our colleagues' Linux systems, even. We can't believe it isn't better known or that the big software houses aren't developing for it. Why don't you start a business selling software like what you installed for us? We'll help bankroll you." >The >other investor-types certainly have, and it should again be >re-emphasised that I'm only interested in sincere partners with >something truly of value to offer the FreeBSD Project when we start >talking about this kind of thing, I'm not into participating in some >clueless VC's get-rich-quick scheme or courting a set of people who >aren't really sure which horse they want to back anyway; I've watched >those people and they tend to switch horses a lot in mid-stream, too. I'm not interested in get-rich-quick schemes either, and you can bet that if I do base this project on FreeBSD, it's going to offer value and reflect well on FreeBSD. If successful, it will ramp up FreeBSD's growth curve by seriously invading markets where Linux and NT are currently growing faster and where BSD UNIX has previously made little headway. There are zillions of businesses who, like these clients, would benefit greatly from such a product. >I'm also not here to make my fortune and I think that's already been >adequately proven by the number of insanely profitable start-ups I've >passed on just to remain where I am. I and the others are here as >custodians of FreeBSD to ensure that all of its technology and its >partnerships are good ones. If these good partnerships also make some >money for the participants then more power to them, of course, but >that's a side-effect and not the primary goal. The primary goal is to >make sure that the project does well, gets fed the right things and >doesn't eat any poison while it's wandering around the computing >landscape. Not unlike caring for a labrador retriever, I guess. :) There's nothing about such a project that would poison FreeBSD. But the reverse is not true. There are things Walnut Creek could do -- and you know what they are -- to make the creation of alternative or enhanced distributions difficult. Again, your comment about spiking guns, above, is of great concern. If you reserve the right to pick winners and losers, and/or to make it difficult for someone other than Walnut Creek to sell a package based on FreeBSD, this should give anyone who believes in the BSD license and development model pause. >You've given me far less information than any of the other people I've >already put at arm's length, and I'm not talking about castles in >clouds and other really attractive scenarios because EVERYBODY paints >those things when they're trying to sell an idea, such scenarios often >have nothing whatsoever to do with the ensuing reality or 9 out of 10 >startups wouldn't fail. What determines who that lucky 1 out of 10 >will be is who's involved, how much investment is being made and just >how and where these investors expect to get their money BACK OUT >again. What's the business model? What are the projections for >profitability? Who are the principals in this company? What's their >track record? I'm not applying to you for financing, so the VC-like questions are not relevant here. I am, again, asking for assurance that you and/or Walnut Creek will not use your control of the development process to hobble or prevent the creation of alternative distributions. >Again, knowing that statistics are strongly against you and that 9/10 >is pretty bad odds for survival, anyone *not* asking such questions is >frankly setting themselves up for nothing more than a fall and I can't >afford to let that falling body be the FreeBSD Project. There is no danger of the FreeBSD project being a "falling body." The project I am undertaking can only help it. But it could also be hurt by it. > If you have >more to tell me than what you've told me so far, let's hear it. I've covered a great deal of additional information here. But again, I'm not asking for financing or any special support, so that's not what's relevant. What's relevant is this: are either you or Walnut Creek going to violate the spirit of BSD development by attempting to pick who can do a distribution and who cannot? Your comments here are troubling exactly because you will not make a commitment not to do so. > If not, >it sounds exactly like the same story I've heard 50 times already from >exceedingly dubious businessmen with dubious credentials hoping there's >still enough gold at Sutter's mill to make a good strike. If there's gold to be made, I intend to make it via hard work and sweat, not via a lucky strike. One nice thing about staying away from conventional VCs is that the investors understand this. But they ARE smart enough to be concerned about the issues I've mentioned. --Brett Glass To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.2.0.58.19990909020511.0473c730>