I thought this snippet from of one of Paul Graham's essays (http://www.paulgraham.com/colleges.html) might be relevant to this discussion,
===== There used to be a saying in the corporate world: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." You no longer hear this about IBM specifically, but the idea is very much alive; there is a whole category of "enterprise" software companies that exist to take advantage of it. People buying technology for large organizations don't care if they pay a fortune for mediocre software. It's not their money. They just want to buy from a supplier who seems safe—a company with an established name, confident salesmen, impressive offices, and software that conforms to all the current fashions. Not necessarily a company that will deliver so much as one that, if they do let you down, will still seem to have been a prudent choice. So companies have evolved to fill that niche. ===== Real or not, I would reckon that there is a perceived risk in adopting gEDA, even though in a lot of ways the risk is reduced (future support, openness, etc.) The more gEDA success stories there are at a *commercial* level, the lower the perceived risk will be. In what other ways could the perceived risk be reduced? _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@moria.seul.org http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user