| |||||||||||||
CorrectionCorrectionPosted Dec 21, 2012 7:56 UTC (Fri) by kragil (subscriber, #34373)Parent article: Ubuntu, non-advertisements, and spyware
"even Mark's personal fortune will not sustain it forever."
Wrong, in a capitalist society being really rich (Mark seems to be a billionaire) can generate way more profits than he spends on Ubuntu .. I don't think Mark got any "poorer" in the last 8 years ..
Although you could say that such a society is doomed to fail, were you implying that?
(Log in to post comments)
Correction Posted Dec 21, 2012 8:08 UTC (Fri) by apoelstra (subscriber, #75205) [Link]
> Although you could say that such a society is doomed to fail, were you implying that?
All societies are doomed to fail. I highly doubt that Jon intended to interrupt an article for such a mundane observation.
(If you were attempting to start a political fight, I ask that you go do it in some other community. This site covers technical, legal and human issues related to Linux and free software -- not the morality of investment.)
Correction Posted May 1, 2013 0:09 UTC (Wed) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Yadda, I was just pointing out that Marks fortune can sustain Canonical for a long long time without hurting him the slightest. No reason to think otherwise. He became way richer after he sold Thawte and founded Canonical. Mark is way better at investing than at building a distro (and he is quite good at that).
I have read many times that Mark doesn't want to fund Ubuntu forever. He might be dreaming that it would be cool if it would fund itself, but he has no kids and if he must he will probably give an Ubuntu foundation more money than it needs to work for a long time.
|
|||||||||||||