On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 10:13 +0000, Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Tollef,
[snip]
>
> I'm sure that's the case, but the degree of openness is relative - I'd
> say the Debian project and Microsoft are the polar opposites here,
> with everyone else somewhere in between. I don't think you can run a
> business as a democracy, and that's not a criticism of Mark
> Shuttleworth. I'm sure if I was funding a Linux distribution out of
> my own pocket, I would want to be able to make the key decisions
> about it too.
You are mixing 2 independant variables:
- type of License
- type of "government"
Think, instead :
closed
source
|
democracy ----+----- dictarorship
|
FLOSS
Slackware, RH, Ubutnu are open source dictatorships, Debian, of
course, is a FLOSS democracy, and MSFT is a closed-source dictator-
ship. Can't think of any closed source democracies, though.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.
(N.B. - This is hyperbole, not a heartfelt part of my core
beliefs.)
Windows sucks. No, really. Any butt-wipe pseudo-OS that *needs*
kludges like PC-Anywhere or RDP for remote access, and only
allows 1 login at a time shouldn't be allowed to exist, and it's
developers should be shot.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part