> To the customers who are paying you for new versions. Isn't that where you'd
> send the bill for adding support for other new features in new OS releases?
...Except that nobody is paying me, and is not going to pay me in the
foreseeable
future to deliver my product for OpenSolaris.
So basically, here is the situation:
you have a progressive ISV, who WANTS to be ready and support your platform,
even though customers aren't paying him for it, but in order to do that, the ISV
basically has to invest double the effort to do so.
So even an enthusiastic ISV basically has to contend with unnecessary financial
burden, unnecessary because it was imposed by technical decisions which were
made with little or no input on what the customers really want or need, or how
they even use the existing product today.
Under these circumstances, how does the OpenSolaris project expect to garner
ISV support?
Has anybody given any thought to this, what impact these IPS technical decisions
will have on garnering ISV support? And what was their conclusion, and what was
it based on?
How many ISVs currently support OpenSolaris? And when I write ISVs, I mean
companies like: CheckPoint, Oracle, Adobe, Veritas, ...
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live: Friends get your Flickr, Yelp, and Digg updates when they e-mail
you.
http://www.microsoft.com/middleeast/windows/windowslive/see-it-in-action/social-network-basics.aspx?ocid=PID23461::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-xm:SI_SB_3:092010_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
