From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Apr 12 08:46:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA07932 for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:46:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA07927 for ; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 08:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id LAA14451; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:51:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970412114405.00a714d0@etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 11:44:12 -0400 To: The Hermit Hacker From: dennis Subject: Re: Commercial vendors registry Cc: Pedro Giffuni , hackers@freebsd.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM 4/12/97 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote: >On Sat, 12 Apr 1997, dennis wrote: > >> Then perhaps there is a different reason that commercial vendors stay away >> from >> FreeBSD? > > Because its a free, non-commercially supported product with nobody >to rant and rave at if there is a problem? Nice excuse, but I doubt it. You get a lot more response ranting at the hackers than you do ranting at microsoft or SCO, unless you're a REALLY BIG vendor. I think it has more to do with: 1) Its a tiny market due to no promotional effort (ala LINUX) 2) Lack of commitment to stability of key components, particularly networking 3) Most of the key people are running/using/developing under -current rather than the releases. How can there be a perceived commitment to the releases when so much development time is already focused on 3.x? 4) Lack of focus as to what FreeBSD is (jack of all trades, master of none) no doubt a flame-bait opinion, but i can take it :-) db