On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:41:46 +0000, Kier wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:32:16 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:24:42 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 20:14 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:07:16 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday 07 February 2007 19:35 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 19:13:53 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Symantec: Microsoft conflict of interest is damaging internet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>>>| Symantec's chief executive has lambasted Microsoft for a dangerous
>>>>>>>| conflict of interest as both the provider of an operating system
>>>>>>>| and seller of software designed to secure its users.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much like Linux vendors have a conflict of interest in that they subsist
>>>>>> entirely on support contracts, and have no financial incentive to make
>>>>>> problem free software.
>>>>>
>>>>> So tell us Erik - how much (what proportion) of the software that they
>>>>> are vending do they make?
>>>>
>>>> In most cases, All of it, or at least some portion of all or most of it.
>>>> They have to package and configure each application in their repository to
>>>> fit their directory and support structure. For example, SUSE applications
>>>> have to support SUSEconfig. They apply patches in many cases as well.
>>>
>>> Ah - right - so you think that software problems are in the "make" rather
>>> than the write and test?
>>
>> I'm simply saying that no open source vendor can afford to make software
>> problem or bug free. They'd go out of business.
>
> Are you suggesting they *deliberately* create shitty software just to
> make support contracts more lucrative? That's offensive bullshit. They
> can't afford to make crappy software, when the customer can simply go
> elsewhere. Unlike MS, Linux vendors are much less able to afford the los
> of business and reputation such actions would bring about.
Yeah, sure. There are VERY few players in the enterprise support arena.
Very few companies are big enough to deal with large corporate demand.
|
|
