[starbeast]

>If more Linux people embraced proprietary software it would help spread Linux.

Microsoft uses Linux on something like 60% of their own cloud servers, presumably because they find it more profitable to do so than to use the software they wrote themselves.

One thing you have possibly missed is that the people you think are fundamentalists rather than pragmatists, are for the most part being fundamentalist about pragmatism.

They are not telling you to open source based on some abstract philosophy, but because they think that the practical effects of doing so are better.

And given that open source as an economic system of production is currently out-competing liberal capitalism at its own game, on its own terms, on its home turf, I suspect that they may have a point.

Do what you want, but it may be a mistake to dismiss the open source community as not being pragmatic when they critique you.

[dpower]

To be absolutely clear, and I've made this point several times in the article - I am not dismissing the open source community.

I am dismissing those that reject proprietary software on principle.

I also made it clear that we would open source our software if we could find a business model that would work for us.

[starbeast]

>I am dismissing those that reject proprietary software on principle.

That dismissal presumably includes both Stallman and the Debian project. I would not dismiss them all that lightly.

>I also made it clear that we would open source our software if we could find a business model that would work for us.

You are making a nice email client. The service of rock solid business email management would presumably be the obvious model to start with. There are more people willing to spend money on that than there are people willing to buy a better email client.

[type0]

> I am dismissing those that reject proprietary software on principle

If they dismiss it then they don't need it. You can't force anyone to buy things they don't need, at least in free society that is.