Free vs. pay versions (Re: Oracle Sues Google Over Android)

[jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org (Jarod Wilson)]

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Miller <david3d-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Richard Pieri <richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org>wrote:
>
>> On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Rich Braun wrote:
>> >
>> > It's proving out one of my theories: ?that as a technology becomes
>> > sufficiently mature, stability improves to the point that the free
>> version
>> > provides reliability on par with the pay versions.
>>
>> A valid statement that stops short the moment that you actually need paid
>> support. ?It might not happen often but when it does, and you need it, you
>> may find yourself regretting not having it. ?Voice of experience speaking.
>>
>
> I think that's one of the nice things about the Canonical/Ubuntu approach.
> ?There is only one version and you can choose to have or not to have a
> support contract. ?If you do find yourself in need of support you can get a
> support contract at that time.
>
> That doesn't really factor the quality of the support as I don't have any
> experience with RedHat or Canonical support I can't make any comparisons
> there.

Honestly, its no contest if its a kernel-level issue you need support
for. Red Hat wins there, easily. I'm not sure what sort of issues
Ubuntu users buy support contracts for though, given that Canonical
has marketed Ubuntu primarily for the desktop, while Red Hat is pretty
much server (with a bit of workstation).

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod-ajLrJawYSntWk0Htik3J/w at public.gmane.org