Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
>
> I hope no one gets angry at me for reviving this thread, but I'm just now
> reading it and I think this could be an important issue.
>
> Christian Lavoie (clavoie@enter-net.com) wrote:
>
> > My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's
> > revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fits its needs. Look
> > at the recent discussions about whether to ship Slink as i386 only, or
> > to wait until m68k and others are ready. If Debian had been
> > commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on
> > a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a
> > 'How can we get the most bucks' basis.
> >
>
> You're thinking in traditional terms. Someone decides these issues now,
> right? Those exact same people would be in charge of this corporation.
> They would not be interested in the bottom line, but in what's best for
> Debian. The word "corporation" scares a lot of people because of what it's
> come to represent. But how a corporation is run is decided internally.
> Just because there aren't any democratic corporations doesn't mean we
> can't start one.
>
> This new democratic Debian corporation could sell shrink-wrapped Debian
> CDs right next to Red Hat CDs, hopefully cheaper. Combined with Debian's
> advantages over Red Hat and word-of-mouth, Debian could possibly eclipse
> Red Hat. Even if it doesn't become the best-selling distro, it could still
> sell enough to give the developer's jobs. I'm not sure if this would be
> considered a for-profit corporation or not. No one's really raking in any
> profit, most of the money is going back into Debian and paying for the
> packaging and such, but some people are getting paid, so I'm not sure.
>
> I can see only two changes in Debian due to this corporation. Development
> would (presumably) go faster because the developers are getting paid, and
> Debian would become more well-known.
>
> I also liked the idea that someone suggested earlier, that people could
> pay dues into this corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation
> indeed.
>
> This may sound radical, but we'll never know if it will work unless we
> try, will we?
>
> /----------------------------------------------------------\
> | pretzelgod | epgilles@olemiss.edu |
> | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | epg@pretzelnet.cx |
> |---------------------------<*>----------------------------|
> | "That's the problem with going from a soldier to a |
> | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to |
> | people who six months ago you would've just shot." |
> | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5 |
> \----------------------------------------------------------/
You see, there's something of an answer to your proposal in your
very signature :-)
Being a Caldera newbie I find Debian idea so interesting that
I'll probably switch. Point is, there is absolutely no
commercial interests driving the development into one direction
or the other. Developers have total control over what and how is
going to be implemented. It's what's made Linux (and other
high-end UNIX systems, such as Solaris, HP-UX) what they are
- versatile OSs that are configurable to the maximum extent.
Windoze, on the other hand, has been developed according to
wishes, not needs, of hobbie users that favour clicking icons
and stuff like that. I like it too, but found that my data is
indefinitely more important and want to use it in the future so
Linux is my best bet. Some of us are tired of relying on
ever-changing APIs that are being developed according to momental
needs (="which rival do we want to wipe out today, Balmer?")
The less organization you have the more development will serve
real needs; developers that code in their spare time usually
know what they're doing and what is needed, and are not directed
by boss that puts generating revenue as priority no. 1.
Do you think it will ever be possible that in a corporation the
work will not be driven by revenue? That shareholders will back
off and leave developers total control over their work? I think
not.
Did we learn something from "MS-success story"? MS kills
competition by destroying its revenue. Its the scenario that was
happening all along. Let the question whether this is fair or
not, be put aside in this discussion. Fact is, Linux is on the
rise in the situation where all non-MS systems are sinking
precisely because of its independence of revenue. No corporation
could ever develop such a high-quality OS starving of revenue and
with that kind of rival-killing competition from a giant like MS.
Linux development model (and therefore Debian as well) is immune
against such attacks.
As for two kinds of developers, paid and unpaid ones, don't you
think there can arise some tensions between the groups? Money
changes much things.
Debian is the only viable non-commercial Linux distribution
nowadays. It's the only major Linux distribution of which
development is propelled by absolutely no commercial interest.
Many many people want it to stay this way. After all, it's the
Linux way.
Jernej
Reply to: