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 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 > > commercially distributed by a company, the choice wouldn't be taken on > > a 'How can this help the Debian dists and end-users' basis, but on a > > 'How can we get the most bucks' basis. > > > > You're thinking in traditional terms. Someone decides these issues now, > right? Those exact same people would be in charge of this corporation. > They would not be interested in the bottom line, but in what's best for > Debian. The word "corporation" scares a lot of people because of what it's > come to represent. But how a corporation is run is decided internally. > Just because there aren't any democratic corporations doesn't mean we > can't start one. > > This new democratic Debian corporation could sell shrink-wrapped Debian > CDs right next to Red Hat CDs, hopefully cheaper. Combined with Debian's > advantages over Red Hat and word-of-mouth, Debian could possibly eclipse > Red Hat. Even if it doesn't become the best-selling distro, it could still > sell enough to give the developer's jobs. I'm not sure if this would be > considered a for-profit corporation or not. No one's really raking in any > profit, most of the money is going back into Debian and paying for the > packaging and such, but some people are getting paid, so I'm not sure. > > 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 corporation and get a vote. A democratic corporation > indeed. > > This may sound radical, but we'll never know if it will work unless we > try, will we? > > /----------------------------------------------------------\ > | pretzelgod | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > | (Eric Gillespie, Jr.) | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | > |---------------------------<*>----------------------------| > | "That's the problem with going from a soldier to a | > | politician: you actually have to sit down and listen to | > | people who six months ago you would've just shot." | > | --President John Sheridan, Babylon 5 | > \----------------------------------------------------------/
You see, there's something of an answer to your proposal in your very signature :-) 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. Did we learn something from "MS-success story"? MS kills competition by destroying its revenue. Its the scenario that was happening all along. Let the question whether this is fair or not, be put aside in this discussion. Fact is, Linux is on the rise in the situation where all non-MS systems are sinking precisely because of its independence of revenue. No corporation could ever develop such a high-quality OS starving of revenue and with that kind of rival-killing competition from a giant like MS. Linux development model (and therefore Debian as well) is immune against such attacks. 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. 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