On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 19:23, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> > I'm not really interested in playing a 'vendor lock-in' game.
>
> Okay, this is the typically spiral I see people do.
>
> They start talking about "vendor lock-in" with regards to Red Hat,
> applying their experiences with Microsoft. Sorry, this is _exactly_
> the "demonization" I'm talking about.
>
> You are comparing the world's greatest, "we lack even proprietary
> standards" company to Red Hat, the absolute #1 pro-GPL commercial
> company. So there's _no_ sense in my responding further.
I went that way because you replied to every 'how does a user
get X' with 'this is why Red Hat chooses to provide only Y'. If
you had answered with 'hire a consultant to work around the
decision to provide Y instead' I might have just taken your
word on it.
Any vendor's reasoning not to provide what a user wants is
irrelevant to the question about how to get it. The issue might
as well be that you want a car in a different color than the vendor
sells this year. The answer isn't going to relate to why that
choice was made, but to where to get a good paint job. Except that
in software, everyone doesn't have to repeat the same paint job
or hire the same person to do the same thing over again. After
the work has been done once, it can be applied to any number of
systems that might want the same change.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
