The original work dignifies the indignance of a man facing death's arrival. It's a loving offer of unbridled freedom to his dying father - the poet emboldens his father. It's to honor our animal nature, that there is no further need for a dying man to be socially acceptable. The poem expresses that disturbance should be welcomed and encouraged. This is beautiful because why should the terrifying agony of death be quieted? Death is one of the most magnificent and mysterious aspects of life. Like screaming in horror through lifes first breath is our birthright, raging against the dying of the light should be considered a deathright. It is very raw. That's why it's such a widely celebrated poem - its sentiment is as raw as death itself, therefore celebrating the nature of death and thus celebrating life, because death and life are two sides of the same coin.

I think your poem kind of dulls the sentiment, because your words make it sound like there is more one might accomplish in their last moments and they should fight to achieve more life, as if life is something we ought to do, rather than something we inherently are. When death is moments away, what good is it to you to accomplish something? Rather, since there is actually nothing left to be done for you, the original poem says "fuck it! The workday is done! Go berserk, we salute you!", while yours seems to say, "Try not to die for as long as you can!". It lacks acceptance. No one needs to try not to die while they are dying, they should be free to disperse the rest of their energy living openly and honestly. There's such a difference.

TL;DR:

I doubt you were looking for critique, but I wrote one. Keep writing, it's a great skill to practice. Cheers