|
|
|
|
|
|
by kube-system
1361 days ago
|
|
|
I said the issues are different and you disagreed, so I detailed what I meant. It’s also not reasonable to require the government to just get 10,000 support contracts just to implement a single application. What makes the most sense is what they’re doing here: 1. come up with a strategy for managing these risks 2. Collectively work with OSS developers instead of treating every one of the governments 10 bazillion projects like it needs a separate support contract for a component that is shared |
|
|
I disagreed that things are all that different "if you have a support contract."
> It’s also not reasonable to require the government to just get 10,000 support contracts just to implement a single application.
I agree, but I'm not sure that's relevant? If a single support contract is sufficient for proprietary software - making them responsible for addressing (incl. possibly working around) issues in any dependency - why is that not also viable for FOSS software?
I don't disagree that what they're doing here seems likely to be a good idea, I just think you were initially selling "pay for support for the software you rely on as a big organization" a little short in its general applicability; indeed, this probably be viewed as providing that service internally.