On 2 November 2016 at 07:21, Jeff Rouse <jeffr@activestate.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
Your site says: "Why take risks with open source Lua and community
support".
I don't see any risks in open source Lua. What do you have in mind?
The risks for an enterprise is that they need to make sure of issues
like getting timely support, a contractual obligation for service,
assurances and timely security fixes. In many cases they need
the backing of a commercial entity to feel comfortable and in
some cases this is a legal or compliance requirement. To
them it takes risk away. So its important for us to speak to
that. It in no way reflects on how the community supports
the language.
I remember working at an organization that would not use opensource
because they needed someone they could go to for support. But that was
10 years ago - things have changed a lot now, and most companies I
know happily use opensource tools / languages.
Lua itself (including its standard libraries) virtually needs no
support as it is mature, stable and almost bug free.
The thing that may be useful if someone 'supported' a bunch of extra
libraries for Lua, and ensured that these were kept up to date and in
sync with Lua releases, and provided consistent distributions across
major platforms. By support here I mean actually fixing issues and
problems faced by customers.
Regards
Dibyendu
