"Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> HP: Open source CAN BE more profitable than proprietary
>
> Note that it's "can be" and not "IS"
>
>
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The company claims it is starting to see higher returns
>> | from open source contracts
>> `----
>
> It's very interesting that you ended your quote in mid-sentence.
> Obviously the reason is that you're a dishonest little fudster who
> can't handle reality. Let's see what the opening sentence really said.
>
> "The company claims it is starting to see higher returns from open
> source contracts than proprietary software IN SOME INSTANCES, due to
> the support costs associated with migration."
>
> Further down it says - "Despite all the benefits, persuading an
> organisation to adopt open sources often takes a lot of effort on HP's
> part, Garbee admitted."
And why is that? because Open Source is frequently in the hands of some
spotty dweeb who has no idea of the realities of real life. No major
company is going to trust their choices in product development : they
would have to build up an internal OSS development team and branch the
code. A nightmare.
On this subject I was recently trying to get TLS authentication working
for exim4 using gmail smarthost.
Debian specfics came into play.
Even when i followed the Debian WIKI on how to do it : guess what? Yup :
no joy. As usual documentation out of date with the latest release.
Richard Stallman is right : OSS documentation sucks.
|
|
