3 Dec
2009
3 Dec
'09
7:01 p.m.
2009/12/4 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee(a)gmail.com>
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 09:50 -1000, david wrote:
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
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
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).