> > A commercial support provider for *BSD* would also do a lot of good. I
> > don't mean one-man shops. There are people who will never buy anything
> > without a support contract.
> This theme was mentioned a couple of months back.
> At some stage it _may_ make hard business sense to spend time
> incorporating a company, & spend money marketing support services,
> however it will cost serious money & time to start, & I think it'll probably
> be best not to be formally linked to the before-discussed FreeBSD Inc,
> as it will likely have divergent/divisive aims from most FreeBSD people,
> (like not having fun, doing lots of tedious work, making money, & even using
> other OS's too where business dictates).
I don't think this will *ever* be possible *without* a formal linkage
to the "FreeBSD Inc." organization.
Clearly, without a commitment on the part of "core", there will be no
mechanism whereby the support issues will not grow expotentially.
The *only* way around that is to have a guarantee of some kind that your
commercial support organizations patches will get rolled into the main
line tree. Otherwise, you have just invented a commercial BSD based
on FreeBSD. It will be less expensive for the commercial organization
to maintain their own source tree seperately unless there is some
guarantee that they will not have to reapply "rejected" patches when
they attempt to synchronize source trees.
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.