Ubuntu vs Freespire

[Alan Mckinnon]

On Thu, 2006-08-24 at 10:56 +0200, Sylvain Girard wrote:
> The general problem with opensource software is that there is usually
> no corporation of somekind that can be held responsible in case of...
> Companies (schools) fear this, they fear that they need to solve their
> own problems without the possibility of sueing someone. Redhat tried
> to tackle this problem by certification programs that were much more
> expensive then the certifications for windows, so eventually, the
> prices would be the same. 
> The opensource app needs a corporate face to be publicly integrated or
> accepted, imo...
> 

Hah! The fallacy of corporate responsibility and that they can actually
be held responsible for their mistakes. And people actually believe that
drivel. There's one born every minute, and I suppose bullshit really
does baffle brains.

The proof: Take any piece of proprietary software and find a problem it
caused. If you can't find one, phone me and I'll give you one of many
dozen sitting in this handy file I have right here. Then get the vendor
to be responsible. You get 1 bonus point if you get them to reply, 5
bonus points if the reply is on-topic, 25 if they fix the bug sometime
this year and a special 100 points if they reimburse you your losses.
If the vendor happens to be Microsoft, multiply your bonuses by 5 and go
to the top of the class.

The truth, as taught by the school of hard knocks, is that proprietary
software from an incorporated vendor is backed up by exactly the same
amount of corporate responsibility as OSS: sweet f all.

alan