Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:30:59 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> To: "Paul A. Hoadley" <paulh@logicsquad.net> Cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far.... Message-ID: <420EF423.7020609@pacific.net.sg> In-Reply-To: <20050213055831.GB8532@grover.logicsquad.net> References: <20050213004204.GA91920@xor.obsecurity.org> <20050213021055.69766.qmail@web53901.mail.yahoo.com> <20050213022605.GA24426@xor.obsecurity.org> <420ED112.80401@pacific.net.sg> <420EDF52.1090408@nbritton.org> <420EE518.9070605@pacific.net.sg> <20050213055831.GB8532@grover.logicsquad.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Paul A. Hoadley wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:26:48PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > >>No matter what FreeBSD will do, companies will not accept FreeBSD >>more as long as this structure stays like this. > > > What makes you draw this conclusion? > > My experience with companies here in south-east Asia and in Germany. If a company did not use FreeBSD anyway, FreeBSD was finally block-off with this reasoning. I never have had to go into the discussion regarding logos or names, it was just about the supporting structure behind. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420EF423.7020609>