> > On Thu, 21 Aug 1997 22:14:05 -0700 (PDT), George Bonser wrote: > > >On Thu, 21 Aug 1997, Mike Schmitz wrote: > > > >Oh, horsehockey. Bandwidth does not grow on trees. Neither do systems. > >It is impossible to plant a seed and grow a system, it takes money. If > >you can show that you are a non-profit organization, it provides incentive > >for people to assist your project IF they find it worthy of their support. > > That's not a universal concensus. To me it's a turn off. > And your point is? No matter what decision is made, with a group this size, someone is going to be "turned off". Live with it or not.
> > When I first started playing with deb, Debian was an idea. It was a bunch > of files from a bunch of people, that made using linux better. The > distribution existed by the sheer will of the people who built it. The > ethic was that all work was done for free and released under GNU. > And all of the work is still done for free and still released under GPL - so what's your point!? > A donation to 'debian' meant supporting the deveopers directly in some way, > offering bandwidth, and contributing to the project. There were no direct > bills to pay. The project could never fold unless the developers decided > to just walk away. > When you say "donation" above, what do you mean? Time? Hardware? Money? I remember when Ian M. first came on the scene with the idea of the Debian GNU/Linux project - he asked for hardware and money. I didn't feel very comfortable about giving to "some guy on the net" so I donated a little time. I've been with Debian since before 0.91 and can honestly sat that it has improved under the current structure. Now when we "donate" to the project there is some comfort in knowing that it's money going to an organization where there's some accountability. And of course, if I want to donate directly to the developers I can. If I want to donate hardware, I can. If I want to donate services, I can. And hey! If I want to claim a tax deduction, for the donation I can. Admittedly, my contribution to the project has been far less than many. What's been your contribution? > Then Debian suddenly had to get orginized, and become 'something'. It's now a > company. It now wants money. It now has expensives. It now determines what is > and is not 'official'. I don't like it. It was fine the way it was before. > It was not "suddenly". It was discussed by those who have donated their time by being package maintainers, or site administers, or documentation writers. The want of money has never changed. It's always been asked of the public to donate time|energy|hardware|money if they feel it's warranted. The "Official" part of this is the CD. That ABSOLUTELY was necessary. Too many CD's were shipped out by CD ROM vendors that were broken. So Bruce had to take time out to develop a CD ROM image that those entities could use as a master. My advise to anyone, and everyone who is not satisfied with Debian: Do something about it. If you don't like the package format, then develop a new format and present it to the current set of developers. Make you case. If you don't like the direction the developers have chosen for their product, then make your own. Base it on Debian or Red Hat or Slackware if you want - roll your own from scratch if that's what suits you. No one is forcing you to use this product. No one is forcing you to donate *anything* to the people who make this distribution. So either contribute constructively to the project or don't. If you're so bothered by it all, then make a Psychosis Debian CD and see if it sells. If so, great!! If not, too bad. Chuck -- Chuck Stickelman, Owner E-Mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Practical Network Design Voice: (419) 529-3841 9 Chambers Road FAX: (419) 529-3625 Mansfield, OH 44906-1302 USA -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
