Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat (was: RH vs Debian)]
Eric Gillespie, Jr. wrote:
>
> On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Jernej Zajc wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Then you must not be paying attention. As I have said in nearly every
> message, this would not be a public corporation. The only shareholders
> would be the same people who control Debian today. The only change is that
> they will be paid and therefore will not need other jobs.
Yes, I found that from later messages (I have a slight delay
getting mesgs from this list). The basis would stay the same,
and from selling CDs developers could be paid. But... [scroll down]
> > 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.
> >
>
> Only if we let it. We're not animals. We're human. We can control
> ourselves. Just because it rarely happens doesn't mean it can't happen.
It can happen, of course, it's just that it's different. Such a
situation most likely deteriorates into "soem are more equal than
others", as known from Aldous Huxley.
I do think it possible, mind you, but I also think it would pose
some problems that otherwise would never arise.
But then, with the right attitude anything is possible.
> > 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
>
> None of this would change. As for your comment about the "Linux way", I
> don't buy it. Over the course of the last year Linux has become *heavily*
> commercialized. I am dead against that. What I propose is the exact
> opposite, securing the developers and users as the sole controlling force
> behind Debian.
Has it? Was development of 2.2.0pre commercially driven? I didn't
know that. Distros are being commercialized, that I do see. But
not kernel development, or have I missed something?
Jernej
Reply to: