On 8/8/06, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In this thread a couple of weeks ago, a side topic was generated that > discussed why we are very careful of our computer technologies and which > ones we choose. Incidents like this are why we are reluctant to go with > open source technologies that do not have official organizations to contract > with.
.... Ok, before Mike D comes in like that pilot from Star Wars (Stay on target, stay on target) :-) -- I fail to see why you put "open source" in there. Surely this is more of a legal issue than an "open source" issue, per se? If liability is something specific to open source, you're not spewing FUD :-], but otherwise... why not leave open source out of it? I'd hate for people to think they were safe from litigation because they're using a closed source product, or have "a contract" with another party. Who's to blame for lack of training? The software? Maybe we can sue the OS maker! Now that's MY kind of thinking! ;-) And we all read the the fine print, to the end, right? And regularly consult with our lawyers? I'm not saying it's not an issue, but rather that I think it's an issue that crosses the "open" and "closed" boundaries. If I'm wrong I'll humbly eat crow, but defending open source is so much fun and I'm like the only one. :-P Kidding of course. (not about eating crow tho). Really, pointing out why the metric system is a silly idea should be a higher priority for me at this point in time. :Denny "gonna be more topicful. really." V. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:249256 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
