Closed-vs-open source [was RE: [ILUG] Red Hat in Easons.]

[Kenn Humborg]

>  > One of the main practical (ie. not ideological) reasons *I* use free
>  > software, is that the small company I work for is *never* going to get
>  > anything like service out of any of the big vendors.  It takes 
> megabucks
>  > to get a support contract that'll do that, and only other big co's can
>  > afford it.
> 
> Meh, yeah, that's practical. It does assume you can program, though. 

Nope, it assumes that you can find someone who can program.  Big
difference.

>  > It's much more affordable to use free software and *fix* it if 
> it doesn't
>  > work.
> 
> If the software company was doing its job properly, they would fix it
> for you, given a clear enough bug report. 

Technically, they just have to fulfill their contractual obligations
(which is fsck all - look at any EULA) and keep their shareholders
happy.  If this means refusing to do a few thousand pounds worth
of effort fixing a bug that will result in a few hundred pounds of
sales (or even no sales), then there is _nothing_ you can do about it.

> That they don't isn't an
> abstract reason not to use proprietary software, just a pragmatic
> one. 

It's a very real reason not to use it, and probably the most 
compelling to most people.

With open source, you ask your friendly code guru how much he thinks
it will cost to fix and you make the cost/benefit decision, not
some corporation which has a completely different set of priorities.
Remember, companies exist to make profit.  Nothing more...  

Later,
Kenn