> > 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 can > give back adequately. You can't buy anything at all just with moral > attitudes lest further any developer's work.
Agreed. I never said I'm against Red Hat. =P I just think Debian fits my beliefs way better. > > so much. But then, without any single technical reasons, I'd rather see > > Debian as THE major linux player than Red Had, Caldera, SuSE or Slackware. > > > Please feel free to start up a company to sell Debian and generate > some income from this. Any surplus can easily be reinvested in making > Debian and it's cause even more a reality. Morals only can't buy nor > sell anything. I *really* hope someone would stand up and found a > Debian company. So if you think you can... 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. To me, Debian is the real free linux BECAUSE no companies have whatsoever control over it. The FSF is the only one that can actually influence Debian, and I don't think we can compare the FSF's control on Debian to Microsoft's control on Windows, or for that matter, Red Hat's on RH Linux. Like I've said before, there's no technical reasons involved in my choice of Debian. (Well, now that I know what I'm speaking of in terms of dists differences (more or less), there are =) ) I chose Debian for 2 major reasons: - It's the first dists I heard of (www.quake2.com, sometime last year) =P - It's not influence by a particular company. Ultimately, it's not a money-maker. Christian Lavoie
