Laurent Blume <laur...@opencsw.org> writes: > On 06/08/13 13:49, Peter FELECAN wrote: >> A fact is part of a causality chain. What's the cause of this effect? Is >> this not a myth, folklore, FUD, &c? > > Of course not. You just provided another example. If you believe that > people running S9 are a myth, then just suggest dropping it > altogether.
This what me and 3 others have proposed already. My example was in fact a counter example: showing how is possible to run an old version but not needing the bleeding edge. > Me, I know there are people still running it, and they want to > continue running it, their reasons, goodf or bad, are their own. > > But I think we all assume there are plenty of S9 out there. Sure. My question was: who runs S9, needs the latest version for their other software (see the contradiction?), cannot migrate to S10 or better. >> The point is that for such an infrastructure to exist it must be >> maintained, administrated, &c. So it costs, indirectly, energy from >> OpenCSW members. If someone wishes to take a contract job of this kind >> he should provide also the material par of it. > > See below. > >> Per previous point, it's certainly not. > > Because for some reason you want to split them :-) Huh? sorry, but I don't get the meaning of "split" in this context. > My point is very clearly to outline something that would not cost > OpenCSW when S9 packages start breaking, and somebody requests an > update. > Whatever is needed, money, hardware, human operators... > > If somebody wants to pay for such a support, OpenCSW very clearly has > a very interesting infrastructure existing, so why not, a. make it > somehow available, and b. make sure the result of those resources > invested can be shared with others rather than have 1000s (okay, maybe > just dozens) of people reinventing the same wheel separately, > > Ideally, OpenCSW could even allow those people to pool resources if a > given package is requested several times. > >> Seriously, has any of the foundation's members a request of this kind? >> If someone propose me a contract of this kind I will gladly provide a >> quotation. > > Well, that's why I'm talking about, and there could be a page on > OpenCSW advertising it. I'm not sure that the foundation statuses permit this. But that is another discussion. > The goal is that nobody feels ripped off. If I got such a contract, > and I could use OpenCSW's infrastructure, I'd made sure to make it > clear what I need and what's needed in exchange. I don't get how a voluntary project as ours can rip of people when we consider to focus on the core of our activity which is to provide a reasonably up to date FOSS stack on current versions of the Solaris operating system. > But that's all to make it clear to companies that if they seriously > intend to continue using obsolete OS's, there's a cost. Since the > human cost is so often ignored, a direct fee makes it clear, If it > convinces them to switch to S10/11, it's obviously better. If they > have no interest whatsoever, and just want some free lunch after > having wasted so much money on expensive hardware, then it's their > problem. Agreed. > But then again, maybe that's not possible, and maybe OpenCSW does not > want to get involved in that (I'm aware there are very good arguments > against, particularly with Oracle's attitude). >From my stand point, OpenCSW doesn't want that. This is why, James' proposition is a good proposition: old collection for old clunkers. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list maintainers@lists.opencsw.org https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.