No. Tarsnap has been cash flow positive for several months, thanks to the fact that people have to deposit money before using tarsnap. (Tarsnap turns out, completely by accident, to be an amazing cash flow machine: I take in money before I provide a service, but Amazon doesn't charge me for the costs of providing that service until the end of the month, and I don't pay the credit card bill on which that appears until the end of the following month.)
I mean profitable: Income (which does not include unearned revenue) greater than expenses.
Then I'm with menloparkbum and not understanding what you mean, since your business doesn't even cover the cost of keeping its sole staff member from going into insulin shock.
Didn't really mean to wade in here. Congrats on getting some liftoff with tarsnap.
It feels like you're deliberately not understanding so you can have a massive row about it.
Tarsnap business has money coming in from paying users, and that is enough to cover the non-human costs of servicing those users.
It's not a claim of amazing success or resiliency or world-beating awesomeness, it's a statement of progress, a milestone, a reassurance that things are moving in the right direction, that tarsnap isn't wallowing in "I have users but still no income" land.
Stop reading too much into it and then arguing about how much of a misleading dirty stinking lie it is.
You're spoiling a positive progress report with a meaningless argument and at the same time implying cperviva is misleading/lying, and stupid/incompetent. In short, you're trolling.
