Re: Canonical's business model
On 1/11/06, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 11:07:43AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > On 1/10/06, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 12:22:03AM -0200, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > > > I don't[sic] the same rant over others Debian related companies
> > >
> > > Have you ever actually subscribed to any Debian mailing lists?
> > >
> >
> > Don't be fooled by From mail headers.
>
> Well, I've sure seen similar things being said about nearly every
> Debian-related company I've ever heard of (Progeny, Linspire, Nexenta,
> etc). I find it hard to see how else you could have missed them.
I agree with "similar things being said" but i'm yet to hear about the
lack of collaboration and give Debian something back. For example: I
don't remember too much people caring about PGI (Progeny) and after
that anaconda "port" to say that they weren't contributing the
installer efforts to us, even when d-i was already there. I remember
talking with Ian Murdock about "anaconda x d-i" during a dinner
(debconf 4), it was clear there that Progeny wasn't doing nothing
evil. It seems that some people is considering Canonical as the evil
itself.
I don't want to say that Canonical is a perfect company and that all
its employees and contributors are commited to free software and care
about the Debian project "health". The point is that they aren't white
or black, they're like others companies helping us. We're in a
position that some volunteers helping them (and they're less than us)
started asking themselves if it was ethical contribute to Ubuntu and
ignore Debian. It won't take too much time to they realize that
contributing to Debian is contribute to Ubuntu but the reverse isn't
always true. We just need to clarify it and brought mentors, utnubu
and similar projects in a new level of visibility and we're doing it
right now, IMHO.
--
Gustavo Franco
Reply to: