On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Mikes work account wrote:
>
> Thirdly, The very nature of the open source community as free, is it
> owns worst enemy.
I'll disagree, in a moment.
> We need applications and distros the we know will be
> here in 90 days and will be supported not by an invisible cadre of geeks
> working around the world( how do I get in touch with someone I cannot
> see or talk to?) but rather we need flesh and blood at a desk somewhere
> and a help desk to go along with that.
There are several companies that sell distribution-neutral Linux support.
Some of them give you a single point of contact, a big-time, serious geek
who really knows their stuff. And you know his/her cell phone number,
and they can be flesh and blood at your desk for the right price, with a
cavalry standing by in the rare event that their butt is getting kicked by
modern technology. Good Linux support is available, in fact, it is the
biggest part of the "Linux market" since you can't make a living selling
the software itself for $300 a copy.
Back to the freedom thing. It is *not* a liability, but, in fact, a key
asset. Others have said how having the software "free" allows people to
contribute to it and give back to the "community", but that's not my
point. Look at how the large GNU/Linux implementations are done. They
look a lot like rolling out a new MS desktop OS. With the MS stuff the IT
department makes an "image". It is a set of binaries and configs that
allow most of the people to do most of the things they need to do to use
their company-provided computers to run most of the business. They might
have different images for different hardware sets or user sets, but they
are essentially building their own MS "distro" that they can support and
that provides what people need and that they can put on multiple tens of
thousands of machines so that the support folks always have at least some
idea of what they were getting into. Every large Linux-to-the-desktop
roll-out I've read about made their own distro, their own "image".
Except, that they could customize it more and make sure it better fit
their needs. They could be honest about bugs and make sure they were
addressed. They could change or fix whatever they needed limited only by
their in-house expertise or the expertise they could hire. And, they
didn't need to sign usurious, ludicrous EULAs. Can't do that without the
freedom; can't be so free to make it fit the customer's needs.
FREEDOM! You gotta believe!
If you tack on my $0.02 it might be starting to add up.
Maybe I should pay more attention to that dreaded politics list. :)
Greg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:01:42 EDT