-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Personally, I also disagree with charging for the tree as well. However, the premium server access is something I'm more inclined to agree with, primarily because of the performance benefits, further dissemination of load, and, best of all, lack of favoritism. Good idea, Kurt.
On Monday February 2, 2004 12:26 pm, Kurt Lieber wrote: > On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:45:11AM -0500 or thereabouts, Caleb Tennis wrote: > > This is an awesome GLEP idea, and I'm glad it finally got put into > > written words. The one suggestion I have, which I am sure is up for a > > large amount of criticism, is that I think Gentoo should charge a fee for > > the use of this tree. This is, in my opinion, a premium service, and a I > > believe it should come with a premium price, even if it's as low as 5 > > dollars per quarter. > > I'll be interested to see what other folks say about that suggestion. I am > personally opposed to it, but not for the same reasons that I think a lot > of the other folks will be. > > I would hate to exclude certain key features of Gentoo Linux to those folks > who can't/won't pay for them. I feel a stable tree is a key feature and > charging for it would do more harm than good. > > A better idea might be to set up a number of private mirror servers and > charge for access to them. Folks who wished to sign up for this service > could get guaranteed access to files, better speeds because fewer people > would be using the servers, etc. Updates would get pushed out to both > types of servers (private and public) at the same time -- no favoratism > would be shown. In other words, charge people for better performance, > rather than additional features. That's the subject of an entirely > different GLEP, however. - -- Bryan D. Stine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAHpY9fOANI+KyU0sRAjutAJwOWOvrO5HQLC23343Bek4TZGQrvgCeLZSV 8u3iYBX91ktSVdsyJOJj/Dg= =Fcyf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
