From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 07:15:10 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C3B16A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:10 +0000 (GMT) Received: from grover.logicsquad.net (ppp140-249.lns1.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.140.249]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C55E443D1D for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from paulh@logicsquad.net) Received: (qmail 23467 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Feb 2005 07:15:07 -0000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:45:07 +1030 From: "Paul A. Hoadley" To: Erich Dollansky Message-ID: <20050213071507.GA23312@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> <420EF423.7020609@pacific.net.sg> <20050213064500.GD8532@grover.logicsquad.net> <420EFBA2.4000106@pacific.net.sg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <420EFBA2.4000106@pacific.net.sg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far.... X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:15:10 -0000 --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 03:02:58PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > I think with all that snipping - also done by me - my point got > turned to something very different. I thought it might have. > The point is the lack of a company supporting FreeBSD like IBM does > for Linux, is a reason for companies not to take FreeBSD as they > cannot turn back to that company if things go wrong. OK, that point I can buy. :-) > As mentioned before, I know that FreeBSD became what it is because > core exists. I read your earlier post as saying it has been your experience that FreeBSD was rejected because of an objection to either the existence of, or the process of electing, a core group _per se_. Your actual point, as clarified above, doesn't strike me as controversial at all. Lack of formalised, accountable support is an enormous issue. --=20 Paul. w http://logicsquad.net/ h http://paul.hoadley.name/ --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCDv57730Z/jysbzIRAkGzAJ9Eg3yGy2AIa9WbKk6sk9QNKMHhVgCfQfvQ Dz0FJztOyYNJ6M/R+rToWe0= =+UCG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --zYM0uCDKw75PZbzx--