Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 17:37:47 -0700 From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@Eng.Sun.COM> To: tony@thing.sunquest.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Support charges ( was Re: SUP target for -STABLE...) Message-ID: <9507220037.AA19299@plokta.Eng.Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <9507212353.AA20088@thing.sunquest.com> References: <199507212253.QAA21981@rocky.sri.MT.net> <9507212353.AA20088@thing.sunquest.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
t> As far as I understand this (from having a friend who works at t> Cygnus) this is their normal method of operation. Cygnus is different in one moderately important regard: they have the GPL to wave at people who don't want the work Cygnus does on software like gdb distributed to the world. That said, it looks to me like Karl Denninger misunderstands the idea behind providing support in the form of patches for problems. If a paying customer doesn't want a patch to go back into the main source tree, then they will have to either (a) reapply the patch themselves the next time they upgrade their system (assuming the patch can be applied) or (b) pay for another patch to be made by the support people. Neither of these options is cost effective from the customer's point of view, since they waste both money and time. "Owning" a patch for a problem may look good if you don't think it through very far, but it is counterproductive. <b
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9507220037.AA19299>