Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:53:58 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... Message-ID: <863830644.20050213025358@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <1108249638.32574.49.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> References: <20050212203851.D694116A4D3@hub.freebsd.org> <1108249638.32574.49.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Mather writes: > I hate to burst your bubble, but neither is any other OS vendor > ultimately accountable for its code. Actually it is. That's why companies tend to prefer support from vendors; vendors have a vested interest in making good on support requests, because they can lose a lot more than just a support contract if they fail to do so. > By that, I mean you can file "problem reports" or "trouble tickets" or > whatever the phrase du jour is, but the company is ultimately under no > obligation to fix them. Vendors can fix problems; third-party support companies cannot. > Also, if you read your license carefully, they don't guarantee the OS > will work, nor are you protected against it destroying your data. Many of those disclaimers have never been tested in court. The notion that all a software company need guarantee is a readable CD is very extreme and untested; personally, I rather doubt that it would survive a test. It's hard to explain why a mere CD should cost $2500. > MSCEs aren't "ultimately accountable" for Windows code, but they > get hired all the time to fix things and build solutions, right? They are hired to build, not to fix. When things need to be fixed, Microsoft Product Support gets the call. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?863830644.20050213025358>