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