http://www.linuxpackages.net/more-news.php?newsid=179

"... the Slackware maintainer cares little about the commercial side of
Slackware or the people that actually put money in his pocket. "

What a silly man. Doesn't he know it's not about market-share?

AC

On 2007-07-08 22:56, ANC wrote in alt.os.linux.slackware:
> What a silly man. Doesn't he know it's not about market-share?
>
Or probably cares little in other people making money of his back/work.
After all these things are just as easy available from the
slackware-store themselves.

One has to really wonder how much of the things they sold in the name of
slackware, saw their way back to P.V. as some form of contribution.

--
Well yes, ok. Perhaps my approach is slightly over-engineered.
blog: http://michielvwessem.wordpress.com

Michiel van Wessem (michiel.van.wessem@gmail.com) writes:
> On 2007-07-08 22:56, ANC wrote in alt.os.linux.slackware:
>> What a silly man. Doesn't he know it's not about market-share?
>>
> Or probably cares little in other people making money of his back/work.
> After all these things are just as easy available from the
> slackware-store themselves.
>
> One has to really wonder how much of the things they sold in the name of
> slackware, saw their way back to P.V. as some form of contribution.
>
And it sure isn't clear what the guy is griping about.

Maybe he thinks SLackware should come out closer together, causing
people to buy something new even if they were happy with what they
are using.

And he seems to gripe as much about deadbeats as Patrick, which
suggests the bit about Patrick is only an afterthought.

Michael

Michael Black wrote:

> And it sure isn't clear what the guy is griping about.
>
> Maybe he thinks SLackware should come out closer together, causing
> people to buy something new even if they were happy with what they
> are using.
>
> And he seems to gripe as much about deadbeats as Patrick, which
> suggests the bit about Patrick is only an afterthought.

Years ago, they were linuxmafia.org (and still own that name), and feuded
with Slackware because they couldn't get recognition as "the official
depository" of slackware packages. At some point, PV must have allowed
them to sell Slack stuff as "authorized resellers." So, they are selling
the same Slack stuff that Slackware.com sells, in direct competition with
Slackware.com. Apparently PV was willing to share that market with them,
on the theory that they would expand the market. But really, what kind of
deal could he give them? What could their margin be after paying PV's cost
and his cut? Sounds like a pretty lame business plan to me. So, it fails,
and the old animosity comes out. After all, my failure can't be my fault.
It's the customers, and the supplier, man!

--
Old Man

"Swagger isn't courage." Lee Iacocca

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:56:19 -0700, ANC wrote:

> "... the Slackware maintainer cares little about the commercial side of
> Slackware or the people that actually put money in his pocket. "

A quote from an ungrateful asswipe, who runs LP.net. He's an idiot.

> What a silly man. Doesn't he know it's not about market-share?

___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Please do |
/ O O\__ NOT |
/ \ feed the |
/ \ \ trolls |
/ _ \ \ ______________|
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ \ __||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | /| | --|
| | |// |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ // |
/ _ \\ _ // | /
* / \_ /- | - | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________





--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 14:56:19 -0700, ANC wrote:
>
>> "... the Slackware maintainer cares little about the commercial side of
>> Slackware or the people that actually put money in his pocket. "
>
> A quote from an ungrateful asswipe, who runs LP.net. He's an idiot.

I seem to remember some issues arising from these idiots back when Pat
was sick. That is when it hit me that they were shit. Although I like the
little penguin they had back in the linuxmafia days (this pic is missing the
violin case):

<http://lwn.net/Gallery/page.php3?page=2>

- Kurt

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:44:30 -0400, Old Man wrote:

> Michael Black wrote:
>
>> And it sure isn't clear what the guy is griping about.
>>
>> Maybe he thinks SLackware should come out closer together, causing
>> people to buy something new even if they were happy with what they
>> are using.
>>
>> And he seems to gripe as much about deadbeats as Patrick, which
>> suggests the bit about Patrick is only an afterthought.
>
> Years ago, they were linuxmafia.org (and still own that name), and feuded
> with Slackware because they couldn't get recognition as "the official
> depository" of slackware packages. At some point, PV must have allowed
> them to sell Slack stuff as "authorized resellers." So, they are selling
> the same Slack stuff that Slackware.com sells, in direct competition with
> Slackware.com. Apparently PV was willing to share that market with them,
> on the theory that they would expand the market. But really, what kind of
> deal could he give them? What could their margin be after paying PV's cost
> and his cut? Sounds like a pretty lame business plan to me. So, it fails,
> and the old animosity comes out. After all, my failure can't be my fault.
> It's the customers, and the supplier, man!

I agree. The reseller can't make a go of his business plan and therefore
its PV's fault. He shouldn't have given up his day job. what a whiner.

King Beowulf wrote:

> I agree. The reseller can't make a go of his business plan and therefore
> its PV's fault. He shouldn't have given up his day job. what a whiner.

It looks to me like one of those posts/emails etc you make in the heat of
the moment when you should have taken a step back and had a look at what
have written with a cool head.

Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Peter Chant (pete@petezilla.co.uk) writes:
> King Beowulf wrote:
>
>> I agree. The reseller can't make a go of his business plan and therefore
>> its PV's fault. He shouldn't have given up his day job. what a whiner.
>
> It looks to me like one of those posts/emails etc you make in the heat of
> the moment when you should have taken a step back and had a look at what
> have written with a cool head.
>
There's a more recent note up there now, going further into detail,
though it seems to be missing something.

Apparently he got email, and he's addressing that. So either people
did email him about the same things discussed in this thread, or he's
seen this thread.

Michael

On 2007-07-09, Michael Black <et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:

> There's a more recent note up there now, going further into detail,
> though it seems to be missing something.

He says:

"I guess and thought he was being forced to release even though he had
said two weeks to FreeBSD Mall. He then delayed for months on the
release. Knowing Pat this was done to simply show some folks who is
boss I am sure."

".....I tend to go with my first assumption."

Sounds like he has no facts. OTOH, perhaps Pat WAS being a dick.
Perhaps at the last minute he discovered an unacceptable problem that
just had to be resolved. I can imagine valid reasons for both Jim's
point of view and Pat's actions.

The problem here is with the sales org/policy. What the Hell is the
deal with presales? What greedy ass came up with the concept of
selling an item before it's finished and what kinda moron would pay
out money for something that doesn't exist, yet? Howzabout you buy it
when it's ready, ferchrysakes. I subscribe and hardly think about it
till the box shows up in my mailbox. If I want it earlier, I can
download it. In this case, I had 12.0 discs within 24hrs of release
and it didn't cost me a cent. Whatever the real story, here, seems
there's plenty of stupidity to go around.

nb