[LAU] arch users?

david gnome at hawaii.rr.com
Fri Dec 4 00:21:09 EST 2009


Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> 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 =).

Those kinds of people probably don't see beyond the bobbing Red Hat ...  ;-)

A couple of such places I've worked in here used only Red Hat, didn't 
know anything about any other distros and wouldn't even consider them if 
they did.

-- 
David
gnome at hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list