On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Les Mikesell wrote: > Agreed that it's good to know how - but 'there isn't any rpm' should > really mean there isn't any rpm at any well-maintained location, not > just in the base system or that you didn't bother to look. Every time > you build something yourself you are taking on the job of maintaining it > forever and probably leaving people in a lurch when you leave and > someone else has to figure out what non-standard things you did. I think you overstate the matter with a strawman that lacks mutuality of obligation ... If a person (person X) is employed at site Y, and the folks responsible for that site Y are willing to pay person X forever to maintain content forever, perhaps there is a 'leave in the lurch' situation If site Y was willing to pay for documentation to be produced as to how the site was installed, and how it might thereafter be maintained going forward, it is no longer: 'non-standard' But, if site Y was not willing to open their purse, it sure seems to me that one cannot fairly somehow hold person X accountable with the 'guilting' as to: 'leave in the lurch' for entropy and the absence of knowledge of site Y on how to address it without person X Site Y gets the union of: what a commons community will freely offer, whatever deliverables one has paid for, and what one is then willing a subsequent maintainer to pay for when/if entropy happens but this thread has wandered far, far afield -- Russ herrold