I'm with Michael. If I've paid for a product, like MS Windows, I expect it to work exactly the way it claims to work.
I don't manage MS Windows any more, haven't for years, and almost all of the software I deal with is open source. But when I pay for a product I expect it to be bug-free, I expect it to do what the vendor claims it does, and I expect the vendor to fix it if it doesn't. It's a trade, my money for the product means I have time to work on other things that are more important to the company than fixing somebody else's problems. This is, perhaps, a radical difference between the *nix concept that you have ownership of a system and all it's problems and the vendor-supported concept that you are paying for somebody else to take problems away from you. Both are perfectly valid and reasonable ways to deal with risk. (Personally, I vastly prefer the former, but that doesn't diminish the later.) On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Aaron McCaleb <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 20:13, Michael Ryder <[email protected]> wrote: >> In my experience, at least in the last 5 years, the Windows tools I use are >> all stable, all work and all do what I need. Why settle for less? > > Michael, > > For someone who seems to be taking others to task over a lack of > openness, you aren't presenting a very good case for openness, > yourself. For instance, what are you implying is "settling for less" > than using the "stable" GUI Windows tools? > > It's not my intent to start a fight. But if you want the rest of the > community to explore what you perceive to be their bias, we should > certainly explore your bias, as well. > > --Aaron > -- Perfection is just a word I use occasionally with mustard. --Atom Powers-- _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
