From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 13 07:41:55 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 B606916A4CE for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:41:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sccimhc92.asp.att.net (sccimhc92.asp.att.net [63.240.76.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5D043D45 for ; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:41:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from freebsd@nbritton.org) Received: from [192.168.1.10] (12-223-129-46.client.insightbb.com[12.223.129.46]) by sccimhc92.asp.att.net (sccimhc92) with ESMTP id <20050213074153i92004ulole>; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 07:41:54 +0000 Message-ID: <420F04BE.9060404@nbritton.org> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 01:41:50 -0600 From: Nikolas Britton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050202) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Erich Dollansky 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> In-Reply-To: <420EFBA2.4000106@pacific.net.sg> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 07:41:55 -0000 Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > Paul A. Hoadley wrote: > >> On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 02:30:59PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: >> >> >> are you really saying that you have had experiences where FreeBSD was >> rejected when it became clear that the project was steered by a small >> group of developers elected from a larger group of developers? That >> is, was the rejection based on a description of the core group concept >> specifically, or some larger issue of support? >> >> > I think with all that snipping - also done by me - my point got turned > to something very different. > > 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. > > All the potential user sees is currently this small group called > 'core' which is obviously to small to give the same support like IBM - > or any other huge company - could give. This part makes no sense. Core is not (and will never be) for end user support. This is like saying the executive officers of a company should man the help desk phones. It is your job to provide support for your end users or clients, the computer industry is now a service based industry. You have to sell them on yourself and the services you have to offer, FreeBSD is just a tool in your bag of tricks. till later....