On 17/12/2009, at 11:48 AM, a b wrote:
> 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, ...
Most ISVs won't support short term releases of OpenSolaris, and that
really isn't on our radar. They don't support other Linux
distributions that are fast moving such as Fedora, Ubuntu, openSUSE
either. However, ISV support for Solaris Next is obviously desired and
expected.
Glynn
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
