[ic] Re:[mv] Interchange now a Red Hat product (DANGER...)

Porl porl@namee.com.au
Tue, 06 Feb 2001 17:02:31 +1100

We will wait and see on that...
$10 anyone?

At 01:28 6/02/2001 -0500, you wrote:

>Carl wrote:
> > But getting any assistance on how to connect CCVS to a bank, Redhat
> > didn't have a clue, nor would they give any!
> > But Redhat almost destroyed this (I do like RedHat, its just my dealing
> > with them on CCVS showed that RedHat obtained a great product but didn't
> > have clue as to what it could/could not do). I pray this does not happen
> > with Minivend/IC.
>Noone would like that to happen, I assume. But I wouldn't worry about it.
>You have to allow a company to generate revenue. As they can't make money
>with the software,  they have to build a structure whereby they can
>offer services you have to pay for. Getting an open source program
>explained is such a service. How else should they compete against the big
>companies, who will either open up their source code or dump their
>software prices and who have already service structures like that
>in place ?
>If they would neglect those services or overprice them, then they can't
>make it. If they would give it away the services at no cost, they won't
>make it either.
>This is what Germans call my little "Milchrechnung"
>I guess they have to offer excellent services and you pay a reasonable
>price for everything you can't figure out on your own. How far Red Hat
>could make this the fundamental principle, could become a somewhat ethical
>question of consultancies in general.
>If the consultancy comprises teaching with the goal that the customer is
>empowered to set up and build his system on his own, they will have to
>teach and you pay for it. If the consultancy comprises of building and
>setting up systems, then they don't have to teach, they have to set-up and
>maintain. In reality it most probably will always be a mixture of both,
>because the customer might want to get taught in order to save on
>Or can someone explain another way of making income for a company who
>deals with open source software and doesn't sell hardware ?
>Anyhow, Minivend from day one and I think Tallyman too, as well as
>then IC, stood steadfast behind leaving the source code open. Considering
>the make money fast climate in those early days when both packages were
>still babies, that deserves high respect from the developers and
>so far Red Hat has my respect in that matter as well. I am not sure, if
>SuSE has a complete free of charge open source e-commerce software
>package in its box. I doubt it. Basically customers are willing to
>pay for a good product and a good service. I just don't know how much.
>So, did I extinguish the fire you set with my home-made gardenhose ? <g>
>Interchange-users mailing list