Warren Bell wrote:
>
> "Justin H." wrote:
> >
> > Warren Bell wrote:
> > >
> > > Gervase Markham wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You just described 90% of open source software. Is that not end-user
> > > > > software also?
> > > >
> > > > No. The e.g. version packaged (and, often, patched) by Red Hat for which
> > > > people pay $39.95 is end user software.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But what about all the OS software we don't pay for? (AAMOF I get RH for
> > > free also through download)
> >
> > Right. When you pay for it, you pay for support, documentation, and
> > other support related functions directly from Redhat. When you want a
> > program packaged with Redhat, or have a problem of some sort with your
> > Redhat install, don't expect to talk to Linus about it.
> >
>
> Right, I wasn't desputing that. From the original statment:
>
> > Because being an end-user application involves packaging, advertising
> > and (most importantly) support, none of which mozilla.org is able to give.
>
> I was saying that that's not a valid reason for an app not to be an
> end-user product. 90% of OSS has no packaging or support, but it's
> still an end-user application.
I don't consider an "end user" program released under those conditions a
product, I consider it a project (As in "That pile of wood? That's my
project I've been working on for 8 years. I haven't decided what it'll
be yet."). Projects, once (if?) they're finished, are done and
discarded. Products are supported, packaged (digital or paper, doesn't
matter), and advertised. From what I saw of OSS's website, it looks
like they do support, package (again, digital or paper, doesn't matter),
and advertise. It doesn't necessarily have to be effective, mind you.
Justin H.
--
"If it's in stock, we've got it!"
-slogan for a tire store
