2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
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 =).
Wait..wtf are we talking about now? I remember it was something about
McDonald's, the M and the A, the Ronald and the Teepee :O