Re: Anarchy! Yes, Anarchy!

[Mike Schmitz <mschmitz@coinet.com>]

On Aug 21, Paul Wade wrote
> 
> Long live anarchy! Long live the Revolution and the Counter-Revolution!
> Long live the Dedicated Diehard Debianist!
> 
> I will be running a special on 1.3.whatever_it_really_is binary CD's
> starting this weekend and continuing for at least one month. Longer if
> that's what it takes to clean this up. I will make it cheaper to get a
> 1.3.really_current binary CD than the 1.3.1 Official set. Details will be
> up at http://www.greenbush.com/ by noon tomorrow.
> 
> On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Paul Serice wrote:
> 
> > Now for your anarchist side, when governments become overbearing they
> > tend to nationalize -- meaning they take property away from
> > corporations (and other private organizations or individuals) for the
> > supposed general welfare.  So, it is not difficult to see that
> > freedom from intrusive government does not necessarily imply fewer
> > corporations.  As a matter of fact, strong and health corporations
> > arguably contribute as much to your personal autonomy as any other
>   ^^^^^^^^
> > single factor.
> 
> Does Microsoft contribute to my personal autonomy? If so, I prefer
> anarchy. Linux is revolutionary in nature. What if Linus had decided
> instead to develop something that required Windows or SCO Unix? I notice
> that the people behind Debian like to avoid dependencies on commercial
> products. It is a reality that many users could not create their first
> rescue floppy without MS-DOS, but we have to live with it because we don't
> want to be such 'purists' that we have to ship floppies to get people
> started.
>  
> Imitating the large software company is anethema to the philosophies of
> dedicated Linux enthusiasts. The honest thing to do is let the consumer
> know exactly what he is getting. The 1.3.1 Official CD files are
> timestamped July 7. Since then, the stable ftp archive has had at least 2
> changes which warrant a DEFINITE DISTINCTION from those CD sets. Those 2
> changes were the replacement of disks/current. Since these are the images
> that install the base, the change is not trivial. Otherwise they would be
> in a testing or incoming directory. They were installed into stable to fix
> bugs or add features, I assume.
> 
> Therefore, the ftp archive should CLEARLY differentiate itself from the
> 1.3.1 that was pressed onto so many discs that the foolish vendors now
> need to unload. So call it 1.3.3 or 1.3.1R3 or whatever, but make it
> obvious. If you don't do that you will need a corporation to protect the
> developers from personal liability. Why? Because Debian is going to great
> lengths to protect a few vendors who made a bad decision and need to get
> rid of the 'dead horse' inventory. When that is done it will it be okay to
> move things from bo-updates to bo and change the symlink to 1.3.2?
> 
> Maybe the people who bought those CD sets will start thinking they've been
> fooled a bit and will hate Debian more than Microsoft.
> 
> Dave used some strong language because he is rightfully pissed off.
> 
> Now let me say this as a vendor of freshly recorded (1.3.?) Debian CD-R
> products:
> 
> F___ the CD vendors. All of them including myself. If I wanted to just
> duplicate a CD image, I would copy a Slackware or Redhat CD and actually
> make a profit. Those of us who actually organize CD images would be better
> off if Debian would go back to the good old numbering scheme and
> concentrate on the concept of painless upgrading. That way people who
> found an old 1.1.x CD could pop in one of our 1.3.999 discs and upgrade
> their system without a lot of hassles.
> 
> I say increment the release numbers. I doubt that the vendors who are
> still stuck with 1.3.1 inventory will decide to press the next release
> whenever it comes out.
> 
> If there is a need (and a market) for cheap Debian CD's let me be honest
> enough to tell everyone the costs:
> 
> 1000 CD-ROM's $750
> Paper sleeves 5 cents
> Sturdy mailer 20 cents
> 
> So it costs about $1.80 for a binary/source set with 2 colors printed on
> the discs. It costs another 78 cents to mail them to US customers. Grand
> total of $2.58. These vendors are charging $8.99 with shipping and
> handling and they need protection? I suppose the rationale is that they
> are paying good wages to the people who put the discs in the sleeves and
> seal the mailer.
> 
> I preferred it before when it went from 1.2 to 1.2.18 in about 7 months. I
> mean the upgrades were free, right? Look at it this way: if you had to pay
> $50.00 per upgrade to a commercial OS that would be a $900.00 value!
> 
> When I was asked if the 'Official CD' would hurt my business, I said it
> wouldn't because of the revision frequency of Debian. I didn't expect this
> new fuzzy numbering system to go along with it! Well, it has hurt my
> business. But don't expect me to give up and go away.
> 
> Oh, I almost forgot. F___ Microsoft, too!
> 
> Paul Wade
> Greenbush Technologies Corporation
> 

I will state up front that I am not at this time a developer. Thus, I 
realize I have no vote in the matter. It has been brought up on the users
list, therefore I will speak up on the matter. I have felt, and do consider 
myself in alignment with David Cinege and Paul Wade. I do not think that 
_any_ decision should be made on business, marketing, or political reasons,
Whatever the cost, ONLY quality of the code and distribution should be 
considered. I believe that only harm can come from asking any government's 
sanction of the project, and money can only corrupt it. I apologize if my 
opinion is not shared by the majority, but it is mine, and all are free to
disagree.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Mike Schmitz     mschmitz@bend-or.com    http://www.bend-or.com/~mschmitz   
  Don't blame me - I voted libertarian!    http://www.lp.org/                 
  Use Debian Linux - the free Gnu/Linux    http://www.debian.org/             
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------