RE: Back to Windows??
> > Yes. Debian is one of the better companies. Obviously, or I wouldn't be
> > running Debian releases. But when we wave a purchase contract in Sun's
> > face, they're at our door today, fixing the problem, because if
> > they're not
> > we'll go to someone else. There is no-one at Debian or "Linux"
> > who will do
> > that. If we can't use the new hardware, who cares how much the OS
> > cost. And a company such as Sun will not spend all their time pointing
> > finger at others when their product is about to be lost. I don't
> > care if a
> > well-known manufacturer is stretching the truth about their Linux
> > compatability; who's there to stop them under a free software situation?
> Debian is not a "company" it is a non profit organization to facilitate the
> groups Charter look at debian.org for more details.
> If you want service, support, and/or custom development like what you
> receive from Sun look at VAlinux.
Would you feel better if I had called it an organization? I used company too
freely in this case. Same comments apply; please do a search and replace.
> But in open source development other if interested can pickup the project at
> a later time and move forward with it if there is a demand. How much code
> has be lost or recreated in the proprietary model because the company
> folded, won't sell or doesn't care about the old project any more (insert
> your favorite vapor ware)?
Exactly, it depends on the situation. I'm merely disagreeing with the
implication that free software will be better because its free, which is the
excuse used for the often unfriendly configuration of Linux.