I wrote:
>
> [...]
> > 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 t
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 ha
>
>Debian IS international, AFAIC, and because of that, we are facing
>terminology problems, even in English 'versions' close as
>Canadian/American. Let's just take on our own to make sure the main
>topic of a message is clearly outlined by more than s ingle term.
>
>Esperanto anyone?
Certe! Se
IL PROTECTED]>
(bcc: Jack A Walker/BII)
Subject: Re: Re: Debian goes big business? [was: Re: Suggestion for RedHat
(was: RH vs Debian)]
I thought Companies were owned by their shareholders. But I'm British.
I hope Debian is international. So it might be worth using care
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
> go
> > > On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
> > >
> > > > I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding
> > > > problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P
> Written by someone in a Europeanish timezone ^
Looks like my timezo
Quoting Greg Vence ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "Eric Gillespie, Jr." wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
> >
> > > I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding
> > > problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P
Written by someone in
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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's
> > revenues
> You're proposing this for Red Hat. That's fine, I'm proposing a similar
> model for Debian. Maybe the membership idea is a good idea, maybe it
> isn't. I can see some advantages, but I can also see some drawbacks. The
> key is to get these ideas out on the table. We'll never know until we try.
>
On Wed, 20 Jan 1999, Mark Phillips wrote:
> I was actually suggesting this for RedHat rather than Debian. I
> believe such a model would fit RedHat much better than Debian. The
> Debian model gives the votes and power to the developers and the role
> of developer is a voluntary position. This i
> 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 corporatio
"Eric Gillespie, Jr." wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
>
> > I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding
> > problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P
> >
>
> Since "corporation" is the legal term for the type of entity I am
Hi,
> An interesting question. The first step is (obviously) to convince enough
> people. Especially the developers' we've been talking about. Surely they
> have opinions?
I'd be interested in such an entity. Count me in.
-Ossama
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Christian Lavoie wrote:
> I starting to think this whole mess started on a word understanding
> problem. I wouldn't name such an organization a 'corporation', =P
>
Since "corporation" is the legal term for the type of entity I am
describing, I don't see what's wrong with ca
> > 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
> > commerciall
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 ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> My point is that this company would one day tries ot improve it's
> revenues and influence the Debian distribution to fi
> > I don't think Debian is usable to found a company on that. No company
> > can actually control Debian, impose release dates and such needed
> > things (for a company). Even if it's feasible, no company ever SHOULD
> > have such rights, for Debian to keep it's spirit.
> >
> You are thinking in t
> > This is BTW one of the weakest points of Debian. It is not very
> > visible as a product and it is comparatively hard to purchase a Debian
> > CD set on the normal market. Third party vendors unfortunately have
> > probably a hard time to plan ahead with Debian given the uncertain
> > release
> > I agree I've been a bit too harsh. Maybe they actually do care (and
they
> > probably do, at least the programmers) about the community. But's
let's
> > face it, their bank account is the number one priority on the list.
> >
> Just don't forget that only those who do have an adequate income
> This is BTW one of the weakest points of Debian. It is not very
> visible as a product and it is comparatively hard to purchase a Debian
> CD set on the normal market. Third party vendors unfortunately have
> probably a hard time to plan ahead with Debian given the uncertain
> release frequency
Christian Lavoie
UIN: 947212
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Yep. But, IMHO, it has something to do with the feeling that if you
> > work for Debian, you're working for the community, including yourself.
> > If you work for Red Hat, you're giving money to someone who doesn't
> > care about YO
21 matches
Mail list logo
