On Saturday 15 August 2015 21:52:19 Russ Allbery wrote: > It's possible, I suppose, that money has changed hands to get Microsoft to > endorse Ubuntu, but I think it's equally likely that they just looked at > the "enterprise" Linux space to see what the most popular distributions > commercial are, and then some other companies reached out to them to see > what was involved in getting on the list. You are right, either could be the case. I believe it would be unfortunate if we compete for privileged hosting terms with other distros... > Note that one thing in common with all of the supported distributions is > that there is a company behind it. (CentOS is on there only because > OpenLogic put themselves on the hook for it.) I thought CentOS is there because there is no effort to support it since (as RHEL derivative) CentOS promises binary compatibility with RHEL... > Debian is notoriously hard > for companies to actually contact because we don't actually exist as a > formal organization, and there isn't a strategic partnerships coordinator > who is calling their counterpart at Microsoft and chatting about things > like this. I suspect all of those companies have at least one employee > whose job it is to set up things like this. It's possible we're not there > just because we haven't asked in that sort of a way, or don't sufficiently > exist to be able to ask in the way that they would expect. Right. If one company is enough to take responsibility for liaison with one cloud provider then hopefully one of our consultants [1] could be of help... [1]: https://www.debian.org/consultants/ > They don't list Arch or Gentoo or quite a few other > distributions either; it's not like they're singling out Debian in > particular. They don't list any community-maintained distributions, only > ones with companies behind them. It is true but neither size of the audience of Arch and Gentoo combined nor importance of those projects come close to our exposure. To me it is more like as if they overlooked RHEL but included CentOS... Intentionally or not, it is harmful when our own derivative is stepping on our toes like this... > This sort of limited support list (however constructed, possibly via > business deals with money involved) is pretty much universal in the > industry. Sigh... :( > If, like me, you're not a big fan of capitalism in general, > you're probably not a big fan of this manifestation of it, but it's > certainly not illegal and, by capitalism rules, not unethical. I recognise lack of ethics in absence of vendor-neutrality (when they try to influence what should be running in rented VMs) and in designing conditions allowing them to avoid meeting their own SLA under some circumstances... -- Regards, Dmitry Smirnov. --- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.