Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266044AbTFWN2D (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:28:03 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266019AbTFWNZT (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:25:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.bitmover.com ([192.132.92.12]:1978 "EHLO smtp.bitmover.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266037AbTFWNXQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2003 09:23:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:37:14 -0700 From: Larry McVoy To: David Woodhouse Cc: Larry McVoy , Stephan von Krawczynski , jgarzik@pobox.com, lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM] Message-ID: <20030623133714.GB4302@work.bitmover.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , David Woodhouse , Larry McVoy , Stephan von Krawczynski , jgarzik@pobox.com, lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20030620001217.G6248@almesberger.net> <20030620120910.3f2cb001.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030620142436.GB14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620143012.GC14404@work.bitmover.com> <20030620163349.GG17563@work.bitmover.com> <20030621142048.2ae63afa.skraw@ithnet.com> <20030621133831.GA10089@work.bitmover.com> <1056358467.29264.41.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> <20030623132231.GC6715@work.bitmover.com> <1056375161.29264.178.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1056375161.29264.178.camel@passion.cambridge.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam (whitelisted), SpamAssassin (score=0.5, required 7, AWL, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1645 Lines: 35 On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 02:32:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 14:22, Larry McVoy wrote: > > The one flaw in this argument and all of those which say basically "services > > is the answer" is that it only works if you produce crappy software which > > needs servicing. > > I think you misunderstand; it's not always the _software_ which needs > looking after. > > How much time do you spend supporting BitKeeper users? Quite a lot, I > suspect. I wouldn't argue that fact makes it 'crappy' software. Actually, we don't spend that much time supporting users and the time we do spend tells us where we need to fix the product and/or documentation. We have a goal of zero support. Anything less than that means the software is counter intuitive or has some other problem. Do you think that we'd give out BK for free if all of you were asking for support every day? We'd be out of business in a week. > Neither am I arguing that you, personally, should be trying to make a > living by support alone -- I'm merely observing a trend. And I'm pointing out that the logic on which that trend is based has some severe problems. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be part of a business who's business model is to ship incomplete or broken software and then charge to fix it. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/