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
