On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote: > Ng Oon-Ee 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, I've bought Linux software in the past when FOSS software couldn't > do what I needed it to, so there are folk who buy Linux software. I even > bought my first Linux distro (CorelLinux). > Yes, I don't argue that purchasing Linux software is off-limits, but that when the entirety of the software is already available free, purchasing support is a much more iffy member for individual desktop users, as broadly divided into the groups mentioned above. Really, the market for paid support is (as I see it) mostly a corporate/governmental thing, and none of those would ever consider Arch Linux and its rolling release in any form =). _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
