On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:01, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > New thread because of new subject. > > On Sunday 18 April 2004 00:45, Matthew Gregan wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2004 at 12:00:05AM +1200, Christopher Sawtell wrote: > > > There is a great deal of difference between Jason, or anybody else for > > > that matter, answering questions and _AT THE SAME TIME ONLY_ offering a > > > relevent commercial solution to an on topic question being asked, and > > > unsolicited spamming of the list with highly commercial messages > > > offering totally unrelated products or services. > > > > When you say "unsolicited spamming of the list with highly commercial > > messages offering totally unrelated products and services", are you > > referring to messages like this[0]? > > Yes, I think I am, that one's over to the wrong side of the fine line which > separates acceptable from unacceptable, because at first sight anyway the > message appears to be unsolicited and moreover is not connected to Linux. > Please don't do it again Jason. > > > I'm curious. In your view, would it also be valid for a Linux/Free > > Software consultant (working as a sole trader, if you like) to respond > > on-list to people looking for help with Linux/Free Software problems > > with advertisements for their commercial support services? > > That's a difficult one isn't it? I have the feeling it's not acceptable > either. It all depends how you define "advertisements". > > If a software consultant was to provide a solution to a problem, and _at > the same time_ offer as part of the reply that his services were available > at such and such a rate then I'd see that as acceptable, but attaching a > file being 250 kilobytes plus of glossy .pdf raving on about how wonderful > the cataloged item is, that is not acceptable at all. > > Furthermore, I would not like to see the list become a channel for Request > to Tender type of messages. > > In other words, if somebody was obviously totally stuck with setting up a > modem or whatever, I see it to be acceptable for somebody in the trade to > provide directions to as to how to solve the problem, and at the same time > mention that he could provide a solution for $AB for the hardware plus $XY > per hour labour. > > > > The former is acceptable, while the latter is not. > > > > Offering a commercial solution is acceptable. However, on a list where > > many people are providing free support to fellow Linux/Free Software > > users without asking or expecting anything more than a 'thank you' in > > return, those who offer a commercial solution and, at the same time, > > advertising that they can provide this particular commercial solution > > is, at best, acting without good taste. It is made even worse by acting > > in this manner and then neglecting to suggest viable free solutions to a > > problem when they exist. > > ok, where are we at here? > > Let's assume that a businessman who has an interest in Linux as a tool for > use to help him in his business appears on the list. He is trying to get > help to install a mailserver or whatever, and after a lot of tooing and > froing on the list it becomes quite obvious that it's beyond him. Are you > saying that in your opinion that it is not acceptable for one of us to pipe > up and say: "Let's stop futzing around with this because I can fix that in > 3 hours and my commercial rate is $XYZ per hour, please contact me off > list"? > > > List: Please note that the above are my private opinions which are not to > be taken as "List Policy". However as Linux gets closer to the main stream > these are the sorts of issues which I think we have to think and talk > about. > > > [0] http://lists.ethernal.org/cantlug-0403/msg00803.html
(see also my post on Re: digital cameras) if commercial posts were clearly labelled as such in the subject line would be acceptable, or would it be more appropriate that it was all done off- list?? -- cheers................dave g Mail to: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ____________________________________________ Kmail using Kontact - KDE Desktop 3.2.2 Mepis Linux - Kernel 2.4.22 (i686) ____________________________________________
