On Thursday 06 February 2003 03:38 am, James Sparenberg wrote: > On Wed, 2003-02-05 at 06:15, et wrote: > > I have noticed that Redhat, and M$ has lately published listing > > reguardiing expected support cycles, and all of them are shorter than > > what most people expect for manufactured products, but this is the way of > > things, and even more so with computers, since the hardware is planned to > > be obsolete in 3 to 4 years anyway. > > This is the sweet spot I'm talking about.... IF support cycles matched > hardware life it would be IMHO a better proposition. In other words > doing support life by series not by release. The the life cycle of the > series would more closely match the life of the hardware. The problem > now is to hit the sweet spot in Corporate world in such a way that they > want/need MDK's support and are willing to pay for it! Product life > cycle is cool. I still feel it's a little short. > > James > > > the real problem (from my narrow little pinhole viewpoint) is > > the need for applications needing all the computing power available. > > while most companies got P3 M$ windows boxes, they still use them to > > emmulate access to a termanel off the server, or run word. stuff they > > could have done with the wyse monochrom termanal they threw away to have > > pretty colors. > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com I would like to see a "free support" and a "paid for support level that is extended, but that seems to be what they tried to do... support th "server series" longer than the "desktop" series. that said, I firmly believe the powerpack makes for a damn sweet serveer too, that can fillin as a desktop when needed
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
