On 04/24/2013 07:32 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: > > That makes no difference to the ethics of the service. Even if the > > programs are released as free software in whichever way you like, the > > users of the service have no control over what that server does. > > And so with any shared hosting solution, even those running exclusively > with free software. > > If you mean remote server rental, that's a different issue entirely.
No. I really mean "shared hosting". Which is, a single server, with let's say apache, bind, postfix and so on, running. Then customers get a web GUI to control their account in the server, add mailboxes, domains, etc. against a generally very low yearly fee (from 5 to 100 USD per year, generally). I'm the author of one of such management software: http://www.gplhost.com/software-dtc.html This can be setup to do "shared hosting", though you can of course use it for yourself only and use the root user web GUI. I think this is very comparable to have root access and user access on a Unix system. Even someone running as a user is running free software, even though he obviously has a lot less control than if it could "su" to gain root access. > When you rent a remote physical server, you generally have full > control over the software running on it, so it's ok. With a virtual > server, you have control over most of the software running on it, and > maybe you have control over all of that software. If so, it's ok. That isn't what "shared hosting" is. > However, as a user of SaaS, you don't have any control over the software > running on the server which does your computing. I think that's the same issue as with being only a user with no root access in a Unix system (I'm obviously considering we have only free software running on the SaaS here...). Thomas Goirand (zigo) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
