Hi Tollef, > | I don't think the development model is as democratic or open as > | mainstream Debian either. I mean, if you wanted a particular > | feature in Ubuntu but a certain well-known millionaire and space > | tourist was dead against it, do you think it would be implemented > | in his distribution? : ) > > We're usually open to ideas
Just to clarify, when you say 'we' do you mean that you work for Canonical, or are an Ubuntu project member? > and you should have _really_ crazy > ideas for them to be rejected outright. I expect that's the case, but what happens a few years down the line when there's a fundamental disagreement? When I was a Red Hat 5.0 user last century, I really bought the idea that Red Hat was a community-oriented company, and at that stage I simply didn't forsee that the stable distribution would become 'enterprise only' with a price tag to match. I'm not saying that the same thing will happen to Canonical, it's just an example of what can happen when interests diverge over time. > (And if so, we are working > on tools which should make it really easy for you to make ubuntu + > your crazy modifications and support that sanely.) That's very interesting - I'll keep an eye on that. > we _are_ an open community who wants people to join and > help out. I'm sure that's the case, but the degree of openness is relative - I'd say the Debian project and Microsoft are the polar opposites here, with everyone else somewhere in between. I don't think you can run a business as a democracy, and that's not a criticism of Mark Shuttleworth. I'm sure if I was funding a Linux distribution out of my own pocket, I would want to be able to make the key decisions about it too. Cheers! Daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]