Chris Tyler wrote: > I agree with Nicholas here: if an organization is looking for a > fully-supported solution, responding with an unsupported (or > community-supported with no SLA) DIY open source solution is a > non-starter. > > However, a competent consulting and support company can come in with a > FOSS solution [...]
But if you mean a community-developed FOSS solution (rather than one developed mainly by the company but is also FOSS), then if the organisation insists on a guaranteed Service Level Agreement which puts all risk on the support company, the guarantee costs can make it uncompetitive. Guarantee companies cough up their skulls when you're trying to guarantee stuff you didn't make yourself. There are three possible ways round it: 1. you find new guarantee companies which I haven't discovered that offer better prices for FOSS; 2. you give a guarantee which is only backed by your company, which I feel is a bit morally grey unless you've got deep pockets, probably not what the requestor really wants and not really a good option for a co-op - but I think this is what a lot of people are doing and it'll cause much pain whenever any one organisation calls on service to the point where the support company collapses; 3. you persuade the organisation to reword the SLA. Which is most probable? So I guess my advice would be to make sure the wording of the target SLA doesn't effectively prevent honest FOSS bids. :-) Or maybe this cold is making me crazy this morning. :) Regards, -- MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> Kewstoke, Somerset, England _______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
