On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Guido Berhoerster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never said Sun has to provide it, but that Sun will apparently provide it > only to paying customers is disappointing for me and seems inconsequent > given the fact that they are trying to attract Linux developers (who are not > the same as OpenSolaris developers who might actually have an interest in a > bleeding-edge SXCE-like distribution). > > I think a comparison OpenSolaris with RHEL is also inappropriate, rather > Solaris 10 would be in the same league. > > I wouldn't consider the combination of security and a certain degree of > stability as an optional feature to pay for, especially because I can get > that for free by using Ubuntu, OpenSuse, Debian etc. What does Sun have to > loose here, enterprise users will want their support contract for Solaris > 10/OpenSolaris anyway? IMO this only makes OpenSolaris less attractive for > the (at least initially) targeted Linux developers, students etc.
I'm just going to have to disagree in general. Maintaining software is expensive, especially lots of software. Your belief seems to be that Sun should support the cost of the distribution by themselves, that if the community doesn't provide it, Sun has to, and that you should get all support short of a help-line for free. You also seem to believe that the burden of this cost should be placed on enterprise users and that individual users should not have to share in any of it. That doesn't seem very fair or reasonable. -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
