From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,35ce1c7836290812 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Marin David Condic Subject: Re: SGI GNAT Question? (Long) Date: 1999/03/08 Message-ID: <36E44C4E.C0C7E548@pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 452731592 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: condicma@bogon.pwfl.com References: <7bflkk$78i$1@news.ro.com> <7bhlb2$h4n$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <7bia5u$3lt$1@news.ro.com> <7bkasm$rlt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36DE8585.2B5E6A5C@spam.com> <7bmbr5$j3p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <36DFA6FB.D3A2AD84@spam.com> <7bov12$r8o$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Pratt & Whitney Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: diespammer@pwfl.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dennison@telepath.com wrote: > > The implication in that attitude is that publicly released OpenSource > software is unsuitable, even dangerous for use in a production environment. > It seems to me that this is antithetical to the evolving vision of OpenSource > software. The power in an OpenSource product is in the userbase, not the > company behind it. Doing anything to discourage use of the software by > prospective users is tantamount to slitting your own throat. > Actually, I think it is a very clever marketing strategy and one in which both the supplier and the end user win. Think about it in this light: 15 years ago, if you wanted to have an Ada compiler, you had to shell out some serious cash and what you got was pretty crappy stuff. This put Ada beyond the hobbyist, student, small start-up venture, corporate hacker/developer (someone who may want to use it for non-critical software, but can't persuade his boss to buy it for him.) and others for whom the price was not practical. As a result, Ada languished & never got the audience it deserved. Even its fans were discouraged from using it. Did this help the compiler vendor? Did it help the end user? I think everybody wins with the OpenSource model - even if there are risks. As to a public release being "unsuitable" for development - well if I was building embedded engine controls with the compiler or some other mission critical software or even some internal tools the success of which were critical to the business, I'd buy the support because I need the risk reduction. Cost of failure far exceeds cost of the support. So I couldn't hardly fault someone at ACT for saying "caveat emptor" and not recommending GNAT-sans-support for critical projects. The question is how much risk are you willing to take and if you run into a bug that halts your efforts are you willing to say "well, that's the chance I took..."? I doubt warning somebody of this fact would hurt the product any more than when someone is selling you fire insurance for your house. Yes, once in a while they burn down and the loss is horendous if you don't have insurance - but that doesn't hurt the home sales market much. MDC -- Marin David Condic Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** "Don't say yes until I finish talking." -- Darryl F. Zanuck