5 ms·
> In their words: “This level of service for all users is a priority.” And were those words in a press release, or a contract? > If we believed our free servi
by nateabele 11y ago
> In their words: “This level of service for all users is a priority.”
And were those words in a press release, or a contract?
> If we believed our free service would be in jeopardy. [emphasis added]
Oh look, good intentions. I'm sure everything will be fine then. </sarc>
Question: if it's based on bad experience, repeated ad nauseam, is it still called cynicism?
- kyrra 11y agoI was part of a company purchased by Cisco 2 years ago that has an open source component (Snort[0]). Cisco is continuing to invest in the open source product since it acquired Sourcefire. The big things being Snort 3.0 [1] (rewrite to allow multi-threading inside a single process), and OpenAppId[2] (application detection using Lua). These are things they could have kept internal but they continued to invest in the open source version. I think Cisco realizes that giving some stuff away with opensource helps build confidence with the tech community, it would be stupid for them to kill off these kinds of products and services. [0] https://snort.org/ https://snort.org/ [1] https://snort.org/snort3 https://snort.org/snort3 [2] http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502 http://newsroom.cisco.com/release/1354502
- nateabele 11y agoThat's promising, and I'm glad to hear it. And, while it's certainly prudent of them, they seem like an outlier in that regard. To me the discussion is more about the principle: we're relying on Cisco's (or whoever else's) benevolence (and/or competence). Without writing an essay on the stakeholder theory of value, I just want to say that it'd sure be nice if the users of a service were regarded in some way that's more formal than an FAQ & reassurances.