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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,afb4d45672b1e262 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:12:42 -0500 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Any way of persuading GNAT/GCC to implement a true overlay and not a pointer? Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:12:46 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <7NOdne-iYtWmIafZnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@megapath.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-LPaG0XzYELRnGmFkNsQBhpzinqCfJ/0xBZHhjrM3wJPyd5o0bYT2fcei04JoWIT5KGcrvr9CsaWV11h!svXzWtEDZ5+rrC4omOE5T+jL23H6nHYkhIqDGkt6a9Ngk2ivrrZB8limWbErvmp/rFruruMnkzGc!E0eMvDvEiVSesQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3769 Date: 2006-04-10T15:12:46-05:00 List-Id: "Justin Gombos" wrote in message news:PJi_f.1717$7Z6.1073@trnddc06... > On 2006-04-04, Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > > Expecting unusual requirements to be handled for free on important > > projects is just plain silly. > > The best support is often free. I see no issue with the OP using this > forum as a starting point. Neither do I. But that wasn't my point. He appears to have business critical requirements on a product. You cannot expect to have those handled for free. > In fact, it would be beyond silly to start up a support contract for a > single issue, risking the possibility that the paid support can't help > anyway, when the issue could potentially be answered in a public forum > at no cost. Absolutely true; if he has business critical needs, he should have started a support contract long ago. Waiting until you're blocked to try to arrange for help is a major schedule risk -- especially if getting the approval for a support contract takes several levels (as is typical). This discussion highlights one of problems (maybe the only real problem) with the typical open source model. It relies on selling support to generate the revenues needed to support the development. (Developers need to eat!) But truly great software does not need support at all (no bugs, intuitive to use, etc.), and probably requires little training. (I consider a support call an indication of failure.) So, it appears that open source (at least the traditional model) is incompatible with truly great software. [Before you all start a flame-war, please note that commercial closed source development also has pressures at odds with truly great software - in practice, it hasn't delivered it, either. It's conceivable that no model could deliver it in practice...which is very sad.] Free support can be very effective with great software - but if there is too much of it, the software will inevitably fall into disrepair. Randy.