Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 21:21:33 -0700 From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC <chad@shire.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <BE475D84-7D76-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> In-Reply-To: <863830644.20050213025358@wanadoo.fr> References: <20050212203851.D694116A4D3@hub.freebsd.org> <1108249638.32574.49.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> <863830644.20050213025358@wanadoo.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 12, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Paul Mather writes: > >> I hate to burst your bubble, but neither is any other OS vendor >> ultimately accountable for its code. > > Actually it is. That's why companies tend to prefer support from > vendors; vendors have a vested interest in making good on support > requests, because they can lose a lot more than just a support contract > if they fail to do so. > >> By that, I mean you can file "problem reports" or "trouble tickets" or >> whatever the phrase du jour is, but the company is ultimately under no >> obligation to fix them. > > Vendors can fix problems; third-party support companies cannot. ????? Maybe companies who support MS or other proprietary software can't as they don't have the source. But support companies that support open source can very easily fix problems -- they have the source and the license to use it Chad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BE475D84-7D76-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC>