If a risk is considered very low, but the damage if it goes bad is more than someone who bears this risk wants to have to pay, having an insurance market to collectivise the cost of dealing with it seems generally to be sensible. In this case the absolute risk is also arguably reduced by handling it in this way, if such risk results from the decisions of relatively few parties (e.g. patent trolls) who will be inherently less likely to take on a well-funded underwriter in court who will contest a claim than to choose to pick off individual commercial users who can't afford the legal and management costs of defending against unwarranted claims.
Various insurances for small risks which people probably wouldn't buy individually are also increasingly being used as extra incentives when selling things which people are more likely to want to buy, e.g. system support.
The Ubuntu Advantage? Canonical Takes On Red Hat (Linux Magazine)
Posted Jun 10, 2010 19:39 UTC (Thu) by ESRI (guest, #52806)
[Link]
Competition is good.
Article points out two things going for RHEL right now... a large patent portfolio (companies use these as sort of a mutuall assured destruction thing) and a much larger engineering pool capable of addressing distro bugs and issues without relying on "upstream" for everything.
The Ubuntu Advantage? Canonical Takes On Red Hat (Linux Magazine)
Posted Jun 10, 2010 23:07 UTC (Thu) by mmcgrath (subscriber, #44906)
[Link]
> a much larger engineering pool capable of addressing distro bugs and issues without relying on "upstream" for everything.
You'll find that many of those engineers working for Red Hat are upstream or at least part of upstream for several core Linux tools. This is a great advantage since it means that changes they make have a much higher likelihood of making it into the upstream repo instead of as a maintained fork at the distro level.