Mail Archives: cygwin/2010/09/13/16:12:04
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 09:48:49PM +0200, Al wrote:
>> It depends on what is meant by "become". ?If it means will there be a concerted
>> effort to "harden" Cygwin for a server then the answer is likely "not unless
>> someone pays for it."
>>
>> That points back to paying Red Hat for support.
>
>I think you use the term support in the wrong field. It is the enduser
>who buys support, not the developers.
Can't really parse that, especially given that I'm a developer and you're
obviously not.
>Also the enduser doesn't buy support to make a product more stable.
My supposition was that you would purchase the product from Red Hat, run
it, report problems, and, gradually, have Red Hat improve "stability".
However, you could also purchase a contract with Red Hat with the goal
of improving "server stability". I guess the latter is not strictly
a "support" contract but I don't see why there has to be minute hair
splitting here.
>It's works the other way. A stable product is choosen by more
>endusers, which in return buy more support. So it's Red Hat, who has
>to invest into stability of Cygwin to make it as succesfull as
>possible.
>
>If they don't see a challange in this, than Cygwin is in a kind of
>cul-de-sac with Red Hat I guess.
Red Hat puts as much money into the product as needed to make a profit.
If they are satisfied with their customer base then they have no
incentive to do anything to Cygwin.
If *you* want to use Cygwin and you have a specific requirement that is
not going to be met by the meandering ways of an open source project
then you have two options: 1) work on improving the product yourself
or 2) pay someone to do it for you. In the Cygwin scenario, the most
likely place to find someone to do it for you is Red Hat.
cgf
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
- Raw text -