On Thursday 03 December 2009 09:06:35 you wrote: > On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:09 -0500, drew Roberts wrote: > > On Thursday 03 December 2009 05:04:26 Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > > > Oh, I was thinking Golden Arch Linux would be the paid-support > > > > version of Arch Linux. > > > > > > Quite difficult to have a 'paid-support' version of a distro that's not > > > owned/managed by a company =). > > > > Yup, but not too difficult to have paid support for a distro that's not > > owned/managed by a company.Right? > > > > all the best, > > > > drew > > I guess. Doubt it'd be a good economic prospect in any case, considering > the user base either:- > a) doesn't need your help > b) needs your help but won't pay for it cos "OMGZZ THIS ISN'T WINDOWS > WHY SHOULD I PAY" > > Disclaimer: I use Arch myself, and I know very very few users who fall > into b). Few isn't none, however =) Well, Free Software is not going to make it some places unless this problem is solved. You need to have paid support in both one off and contractual options for the distro and apps available for a Free distro and app system. A vendor lock in play on the distro or app front is not going to really cut it. Why would someone seeking to get away from the vendor lock in game they are in now move to another vendor lock in game with a twist. By the same token, they will not move to a Free game if they cannot assure themselves of support "on-demand" as they know they need it. And hiring bodies to provide the paid support for the Free game is not cost effective in all situations. all the best, drew _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
