The only worthwhile logo-related comments so far....

[Paul A. Hoadley]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 03:02:58PM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:

> I think with all that snipping - also done by me - my point got
> turned to something very different.

I thought it might have.

> The point is the lack of a company supporting FreeBSD like IBM does
> for Linux, is a reason for companies not to take FreeBSD as they
> cannot turn back to that company if things go wrong.

OK, that point I can buy.  :-)

> As mentioned before, I know that FreeBSD became what it is because
> core exists.

I read your earlier post as saying it has been your experience that
FreeBSD was rejected because of an objection to either the existence
of, or the process of electing, a core group _per se_.  Your actual
point, as clarified above, doesn't strike me as controversial at all.
Lack of formalised, accountable support is an enormous issue.


-- 
Paul.

w  http://logicsquad.net/
h  http://paul.hoadley.name/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-advocacy/attachments/20050213/71288250/attachment.bin