From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 21 14:31:56 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id OAA25387
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:31:56 -0700
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (sri.MT.net [204.94.231.129])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA25363
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 14:31:42 -0700
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id PAA21818; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:33:45 -0600
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:33:45 -0600
Message-Id: <199507212133.PAA21818@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com
Subject: Support charges ( was Re: SUP target for -STABLE...)
Reply-To: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams)
From: nate@sneezy.sri.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


[ Karl Denninger writes about his instability problems ]

[ Jordan's discussion about "support for money" plans ]

> I'm happy to pay for *actual* support which I receive, but my feel on this
> is that I am not going to pay for a staffer full-time if the work that he or
> she produces goes back to *everyone*.

Wow, I hope I'm parsing this in-correctly, but my impression is that
*if* you pay for support, you don't want the fixes to go to anyone else.

So, if there is a bug in some part of the kernel that is triggered by
your hardware (and other's possibly), you don't want the fix generated
to go back into the general source tree?

If not, then can you re-phrase for dense folks like me to understand.

If it is the case, *WHY*?  What is the difference to you if only you get
the fix or everyone get's the fix?  Support means that you will get
fixes in a timely manner, while non-support means fixes will get done
whenever a developer feels like doing them.  In either case, the end
result is the same *except* you get them in a time-critical manner.

Even BSDI's support policy isn't this way AFAIK.  If there are bugs in
the system which get fixed by the support staff, *everyone* shares in
those fixes.

> If someone wants to start up a firm that does this kind of thing, I say more
> power to them.  However, my willingness to pay is directly correlated to the
> quality of the fixes and the timeliness of what we receive.

What you are paying for is the timeliness of the fix, and a guarantee
that the fix itself will be done to the best of the person's ability.

> If I'm going to pay big bucks, then I want the fixes (and the rest of that
> person's time) to myself.

What do you gain by keeping the fix all to yourself?  I'm not trying to
be a software socialist here, but I fail to understand the logic of
hoarding fixes which everyone can share.  FreeBSD was created by a large
number of volunteers who have spent *thousands* of hours of their time
w/out compensation to fix bugs.  Isn't it only *fair* to give the fix
you've received back in return?


Nate