Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!THINK.COM!rlk From: rlk@THINK.COM (Robert L Krawitz) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Motif -> Open Look look & feel Message-ID: <9007071454.AA04577@underprize.think.com> Date: 7 Jul 90 14:54:44 GMT References: <9007062359.AA01925@shamash.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> Sender: rlk@think.com Organization: The Internet Lines: 35 Date: Fri, 6 Jul 90 19:59:46 -0400 From: der Mouse > People who advocate free software have NO idea how critical quality > is! And on another point, *what* quality? We are running an operating system here which is allegedly vendor-supported and presumably has the "quality" you're talking about. I've found at least as many bugs in it as I have in X, and with X, I can *fix* the bugs. On the spot. If you add in the cost of a service contract guaranteeing the sort of response time possible to someone with all the source right there, it's out of reach even for many of the "large" buyers. Note that even a service contract is no guarantee, if the vendor does not acknowledge the bug. We currently have a very serious problem with the kernel from a major vendor (accessing a very large directory over NFS apparently causes occasional system crashes). Said vendor has not acknowledged the problem. Yes, I have had disagreements with providers of free software about whether something's a bug or not (not even as clear cut as the example above). The last time we disagreed on the issue, I simply made the change myself. There is at least one company that I'm aware of (Cygnus Support; my only connection is that I know one of the principals) that's in the business of providing paid support for users of free software, to address the support issue very specifically. So to say that "free == unsupported" and "paid == supported" is wrong. ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz 245 First St. bloom-beacon > |think!rlk (assistant postmaster) Cambridge, MA 02142 harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)876-1111