On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:43:53AM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: > On Wed, June 22, 2005 11:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > "Thijs Kinkhorst" <kink@squirrelmail.org> writes: > >> On Wed, June 22, 2005 10:25, James Troup wrote: > >>> o be a donation, i.e. gratis. Debian can't pay for it's own hosting. > >> > >> I was wondering about this statement. Debian receives monetary donations > >> and owns quite a lot of money - wouldn't paying for critical parts of > >> infrastructure like ftpmaster be money well spent? > > > > I think the point is that we ask for a donation before we spend money > > on it. > > Sure, but the statement quoted above rules it out entirely. "can't pay" is > pretty definitive. I'm wondering why it's that certain that we can't pay > for it. > > Furthermore, actually paying for it does not create a problem like now > where the hosting gets cancelled suddenly. Hah, as if. When you're *paying* for hosting then they don't think twice about cutting your bandwidth/service/connectivity/power and/or confiscating your server without warning. Consumers are easily replaced. When it's donated then at least they feel bad about it; when you're a consumer then there is no such ethical problem for the host. Anyway, we don't have that kind of money. High-level hosting costs a fortune on a recurring basis. There are few things that could be fatal to Debian, but introducing a requrement for an income of several grand per month is one of them. Besides which, it makes economic sense to have the donation come from the hosting company, with no money changing hands. Anything else is grossly inefficient. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature