On Mon, Jun 17, 2002 at 11:44:53AM +0200, Jan Johansson wrote: > > so contractual, however inresponsive, support from a lame-ass > > linux distro > > means more to you than actually securing the system? > > Nope. Read my last paragraph. A system provider which can not also offer a > _legally binding_ support contract is simply not allowed on any production / > mission critical servers within our organisation. So it doesnt really matter > that i prefer Debian and Slack over RedHat, i still wouldnt be allowed to > deploy a deb-system. > > I understand the existence of such a mind set in management. Goofy attitudes on the part of suits, empty and ohterwise, are part of the real world.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity for a third party service organization: Sell official Debian CDs with a fancy label, and privide contract support only with companies who are customers of record for their particular pressings of the Debian CDs. To make the business "credible", it would have to charge at least as much for a set of Debian CDs as Microsoft charges for an entry level site license. > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Paul E Condon [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
