On Sunday, 26 September 1999 at 19:35:22 -0400, Andrew Gillham wrote:
> seebs@plethora.net writes:
>> In message <87670xgulp.fsf@boojum.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writes:
>>> Almost all the code we share with FreeBSD is from the Berkeley era. We
>>> don't tend to exchange a lot these days.
>>
>> Well, no wonder the Linux people make fun of us.  ;-)
>>
>>> Hasn't my commentary been crystal clear already? I don't want to hand
>>> money to FreeBSD. They have plenty. NetBSD needs money. Count me out
>>> on any "*BSD" card. If the FreeBSD people want one, that's their business.
>>
>> Your commentary has been clear; I'm just not sure I buy into the reasoning
>> offered for it.
>>
>> I'd rather give a bit of money to FreeBSD, and have them give me a lot of
>> money, than not have the exchange.  As long as they have "plenty" of money,
>> and "plenty" of users, partnership is a big win for us.
>
> How about some numbers?  Why a mastercard?  Will people/merchants think the
> cardholder has an unusual religion? :-)
>
> (totally inaccurate/ridiculous numbers follow)
>
> Estimated NetBSD only cards = 100
> Estimated NetBSD only charges = $10000/month
> Cash to NetBSD organization = $100/month
>
> Estimated *BSD cards = 1000
> Estimated *BSD charges = $100000/month
> Cash to *BSD organizations = $1000/month
> Cash to NetBSD ( above / 4?) = $250/month
>
> I would think .25% (or less) of a bigger number might be better than 1% of a
> small number.
>
> "Sharing" certainly raises the question of how the funds would be allocated,
> which may result in a ratio based on the number of NetBSD "cardholders."
>
> IMHO any plan needs to benefit NetBSD *more* than a competitor, whether a
> commercial competitor, or a friendly competitor.  Otherwise it just doesn't
> seem in NetBSD's best interests.

There's a third alternative: no card at all.  That benefits NetBSD
even less.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key