Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 13:47:42 +0200 From: Michael Elbel <mwe@consol.de> To: Marco Molteni <molter@logic.it> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Are Kudos ok on this list? Message-ID: <19971013134742.60619@int.consol.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971024135648.1063A-100000@dumbwinter.logic.it>; from Marco Molteni on Fri, Oct 24, 1997 at 02:04:39PM %2B0200 References: <3.0.3.32.19971024024019.007c3a60@jcwells.deskmail.washington.edu> <Pine.BSF.3.96.971024135648.1063A-100000@dumbwinter.logic.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Oct 24, 1997 at 02:04:39PM +0200, Marco Molteni wrote: > [moved to -chat] > [...] > Same for me here :-) > > The silly part of the deal is that *all* the bosses I know say: "So > you say Yahoo runs FreeBSD, but is it free? Well, if it is free, I > doubt it can be as good as [put the junk you prefer here]". That's why you don't say that it is free in the meaning of costs nothing, which it certainly isn't. Just think of the costs to retreive it and, much more costly, the manpower to support the servers running it. FreeBSD is certainly much less expensive than many other alternatives but it certainly doesn't come for free even you're free to do with it what you want. I've had good results with claiming that FreeBSD is *cost efficient* (low investment costs (CDs or Internet traffic)) and flexible maintenance costs (you actually get what you pay for, nothing more, nothing less). But then we've been through that discussion before. Maybe someone could write up a couple of arguments with regards to freely available vs. costs nothing. Michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971013134742.60619>