Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Nov 2006 18:26 UTC
Permalink for comment 179343
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-08-26
You're an idiot.
It's not that they can be trusted more. Companies make mistakes all the time, often with very dire consequences.
The difference is that companies can offer support, or liability in some cases, which is nothing more than another place to point the finger when something does happen.
People don't buy support contracts because they 'have to', they do it because 'they can'. Contracts of that nature are nearly _always_ CYA political moves. A calculated risk. You'll spend X amount of budget to have someone that you can point the figure at when system Y tanks. Is your job worth X in budget? If yes, pay support contract for Y. If not, then sod all and hope Y never has a problem.
Anyone who thinks people are paying OSS vendor support contracts because of a 'level of service' or "updates" of higher quality than you can get from the last stable build of any major distro is deluding themselves.
You pay not for peace of mind in quality of code. You pay for peace of mind in knowing you've got someone else to blame.
Duh.