| 1 |
On Mon, Feb 02, 2004 at 10:45:11AM -0500 or thereabouts, Caleb Tennis wrote: |
| 2 |
> This is an awesome GLEP idea, and I'm glad it finally got put into written |
| 3 |
> words. The one suggestion I have, which I am sure is up for a large amount |
| 4 |
> of criticism, is that I think Gentoo should charge a fee for the use of this |
| 5 |
> tree. This is, in my opinion, a premium service, and a I believe it should |
| 6 |
> come with a premium price, even if it's as low as 5 dollars per quarter. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I'll be interested to see what other folks say about that suggestion. I am |
| 9 |
personally opposed to it, but not for the same reasons that I think a lot |
| 10 |
of the other folks will be. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I would hate to exclude certain key features of Gentoo Linux to those folks |
| 13 |
who can't/won't pay for them. I feel a stable tree is a key feature and |
| 14 |
charging for it would do more harm than good. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
A better idea might be to set up a number of private mirror servers and |
| 17 |
charge for access to them. Folks who wished to sign up for this service |
| 18 |
could get guaranteed access to files, better speeds because fewer people |
| 19 |
would be using the servers, etc. Updates would get pushed out to both |
| 20 |
types of servers (private and public) at the same time -- no favoratism |
| 21 |
would be shown. In other words, charge people for better performance, |
| 22 |
rather than additional features. That's the subject of an entirely |
| 23 |
different GLEP, however. |
Archives