🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cycT021w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (To the Ground) writes...
>rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) writes:
>> In article <1991Oct7.134056.17739@turing.ac.uk> mick@quoich.turing.ac.uk (Mic
>> >We have a problem trying to convince an industrial partner
>> >that the GNU C++ compiler, g++, is `safe' to install at their
>> >site. It is not completely clear what they are afraid of, but
>> >the usual suspects are GNU's free-ness (perceived virus risk) allied to
>> >its no-warranty status.
>> 
>> Virtually ALL software produced in this country is sold WITHOUT
>> warranty; I suspect this is true elsewhere.
> 
>It's NOT true in the UK, which is where the original poster is located.
>In particular, shrink-wrap license agreements are not legally binding in
>this country.
> 
>There is, therefore, some merit to the argument that with commercial software
>you can demand a certain amount of support from the supplier which you can't
>demand with free software or GNU software.

It's true that it's easier to get support for commercial software
than one can with free software, but the non-applicability of 
shrink-wrap licenses is hardly the reason for this.  

Software companies are in business to make money, and dissatisfied 
customers don't buy your next product or recommend the product to 
others.  

Service and warranty are separate issues.  Nobody warrants software.
Many companies provide excellent support and service with commercial
products.  Successful companies employ people whose job it is to see
that customers are satisfied.  

If GNU wants to give quality software away for free, that's fine --
nothing's cheaper than free.  

But if the software doesn't work, or requires me to spend alot of 
time solving problems that I believe I could resolve more simply by 
buying commercial software with professional tech support, well, 
time is money.  

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)