Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:08:47PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote: - Original Message - From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But let's not start citing examples of government officials who have violated these principles -- we all know there are plenty). Anyway, regardless of how impartial the tech committee members are believed to be, the upstart guys and the systemd guys probably should not have participated in the vote for default init system. -Rob There was no conflict of interest. Every voter has some interests and the outcome of a vote determines the common interest. But there is no conflict of interest during a vote. A conflict happens when somebody is entrusted by a group to guard a common good and he/she has her/himself interests in that good. This thread is about the inability to accept a outcome of a democratic process. Now they claim to own the right debian way and to protect that some un-debian persons have to be stopped. I have seen that before... -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017120611.gb30...@newton.itcfollmann.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 17/10/14 23:06, Henning Follmann wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:08:47PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote: - Original Message - From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But let's not start citing examples of government officials who have violated these principles -- we all know there are plenty). Anyway, regardless of how impartial the tech committee members are believed to be, the upstart guys and the systemd guys probably should not have participated in the vote for default init system. -Rob There was no conflict of interest. Every voter has some interests and the outcome of a vote determines the common interest. But there is no conflict of interest during a vote. As succinctly put here (have you read this Marty?):- https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00390.html A conflict happens when somebody is entrusted by a group to guard a common good and he/she has her/himself interests in that good. This thread is about the inability to accept a outcome of a democratic process. Now they claim to own the right debian way and to protect that some un-debian persons have to be stopped. I have seen that before... ?? https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/10/msg00308.html -H Kind regards -- Passion is a knife without morality ~ apropos of little -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544100e7.9090...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/16/2014 11:30 PM, Marty wrote: On 10/16/2014 08:41 PM, Ric Moore wrote: But, I consider it idiotic to bash Red Hat as ~anyone~ with the guts can do what Bob Young did. Just gather some talented people together around a kitchen table and create your own distro. That is perfectly legal and now they are worth billions, by starting exactly from that point. :) Ric I agree and appreciate your stories, which are an important part of the history of Linux. I'm trying to keep the issue hypothetical because a) I'm not a member b) it's a question and concern, not an accusation nor a conviction, and c) otherwise, it could come across as innuendo about companies or individuals in an environment that it already overheated. That's a bigger concern that the original question so it defeats my purpose. I'm also satisfied that I've given it (maybe more than) enough attention in this forum, and I understand now that this is the wrong place to pursue it anyway. So soon? It was getting interesting! -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54416641.5020...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 08:06:11 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:08:47PM -0400, Rob Owens wrote: - Original Message - From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But let's not start citing examples of government officials who have violated these principles -- we all know there are plenty). Anyway, regardless of how impartial the tech committee members are believed to be, the upstart guys and the systemd guys probably should not have participated in the vote for default init system. -Rob There was no conflict of interest. Every voter has some interests and the outcome of a vote determines the common interest. But there is no conflict of interest during a vote. You're a man after former Chicago Mayor Richard J Daley's heart! A conflict happens when somebody is entrusted by a group to guard a common good and he/she has her/himself interests in that good. Or, when his paycheck or bribe might cause him to vote a certain way. This thread is about the inability to accept a outcome of a democratic process. Now they claim to own the right debian way and to protect that some un-debian persons have to be stopped. I have seen that before... Keep telling yourself that. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017182937.53614...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
- Original Message - From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But let's not start citing examples of government officials who have violated these principles -- we all know there are plenty). Anyway, regardless of how impartial the tech committee members are believed to be, the upstart guys and the systemd guys probably should not have participated in the vote for default init system. -Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2067826345.12141048.1413482927746.javamail.zim...@ptd.net
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Rob Owens wrote: - Original Message - From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. Avoiding perceived conflict of interest is just as important as avoiding actual conflict of interest, because it undermines confidence in the leadership. Most conflict-of-interest regulations that I know of (USA-based) reflect this. (But let's not start citing examples of government officials who have violated these principles -- we all know there are plenty). Anyway, regardless of how impartial the tech committee members are believed to be, the upstart guys and the systemd guys probably should not have participated in the vote for default init system. Very nicely put. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54400b34.5080...@meetinghouse.net
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Thu 16 Oct 2014 at 14:08:47 -0400, Rob Owens wrote: From: Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Conflicts of interest are not just financial. Even an unpaid developer should probably not be voting as a technical committee member on whether to make his project the Debian default. He could vote for his project because of the glory that comes with being the Debian default. Or maybe he truly believes it is the best. But he knows his project better than any of the alternatives. He is invested in it. He should be the expert petitioning the decision-makers, but he should not be one of the decision-makers. I really think this concept is obvious and was really surprised that Debian allowed a vote for default init system to occur in a technical committee whose members have vested interests in one init system or another. CONGRATULATIONS. You have won the 'Nudge Nudge. Wink Wink' prize for this week's postings on debian-user. You are entitled to a free copy of 'How I Noshed Systemd' published by the Unrealistic Press. An email with download details will follow shortly. Meanwhile, would you employ your skills to analyse this text? [1]: I don't agree with that conclusion. When it comes to technology choices, you win some and you lose some. If upstart wins, I will be happy. If systemd wins, I will also be happy, because it's long overdue that Debian *make a decision*; and for all that there are aspects of systemd that make me uncomfortable, it will still be far better than the status quo. Looks ok, doesn't it? But - an upstart supporter mentioning systemd. There must be a financial consideration involved or something fishy. You will get to the heart of it. Systemd better? How can he think that? Bugger any consideration of his integrity and his standing in Debian. Just go for him. This is particularly important because we are somewhat low on facts so anything which keeps the pot boiling and disrupts the usual business in debian-user is to our advantage. [1] Seen in #727708. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141016212143.gi23...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/15/2014 08:02 PM, Marty wrote: On 10/15/2014 04:19 PM, Ric Moore wrote: This is fortuitous! Not a bad gig at all. I'm sure some soreheads think that we debated WORLD DOMINATION during lunch, or how to screw over Debian, but sadly we mostly discussed what was the Right Thingtm Do you mean, job-related ethics? to do there just as we do on this list. I'm glad you replied because you're just the person to query. When you discussed job-related ethics at lunchtime, did the subject of conflict of interest ever come up, regarding voting in Debian? Debian who?? Ha! We had problems enough that Debian was about the furthest thing from our minds. When I was there most users were still using modems, and Win Modems came along to mess with people's minds. It works under Windows! That alone kept us busy. If it's impossible to imagine, then consider a purely hypothetical case. A developer is working on a package that could get widespread adoption within Debian, but some kind of technicality stands in the way, requiring a vote. As an employee, is there a conflict if he votes? I know I'm the joker on this list but now I'm serious. serious smiley would go here We had no votes, except on company picnics and who would go to the install fests and choosing fun stuff to do. Otherwise, it was indeed a for-profit and most decisions were top-down. Not down-up. After all, everyone at RedHat had been a user first, before landing a paying job. So, to everyone heaping scorn on RedHat, go here: http://jobs.redhat.com/ So you mean, the place for people with inferiority complexes? :) Heh, we had every stripe of human beings with assorted behaviors working there. Back in 1999 we had ties amongst the tie-dyes. If someone got jerked off, there was a room with pinball machines to reduce stress. Skateboards and roller blades. I was 50 and everyone around me was a 20 something. In short, working there was a ball. As soon as the suits went home at 5, networked Quake flared up on office desktops like a lit match and it was on. Matthew Szulik returned one day, after leaving and forgetting something on his desk, and the whole place sounded like a war zone, as he re-entered. People yelling over their cubes at who they just fragged with much glee. The look on his face was priceless. I've never seen a man's jaw drop that far! You do have to keep in mind, the devel-uber-geeks have TONS of intelligence, but are usually short on people skills. So, our job in Support was to run interference for the devels, translating what they replied into English ...geek-speak in, people-speak out, to the clients in response to their problems. But, we sure as hell had no vote as to how all things worked as a company. That is not to say they didn't care though. People there worked their butts off, because they cared. Getting paid to do what you care about was a huge plus. But, I consider it idiotic to bash Red Hat as ~anyone~ with the guts can do what Bob Young did. Just gather some talented people together around a kitchen table and create your own distro. That is perfectly legal and now they are worth billions, by starting exactly from that point. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/544065a0.7020...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/16/2014 08:41 PM, Ric Moore wrote: But, I consider it idiotic to bash Red Hat as ~anyone~ with the guts can do what Bob Young did. Just gather some talented people together around a kitchen table and create your own distro. That is perfectly legal and now they are worth billions, by starting exactly from that point. :) Ric I agree and appreciate your stories, which are an important part of the history of Linux. I'm trying to keep the issue hypothetical because a) I'm not a member b) it's a question and concern, not an accusation nor a conviction, and c) otherwise, it could come across as innuendo about companies or individuals in an environment that it already overheated. That's a bigger concern that the original question so it defeats my purpose. I'm also satisfied that I've given it (maybe more than) enough attention in this forum, and I understand now that this is the wrong place to pursue it anyway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54408d5e.2020...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141015071110.ga16...@chew.redmars.org
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. The fact is, that linux is actually a success, but it has never been it's objective. It's a consequence of what we like in it: freeness, efficiency, and stability. Market share should not be the objective, it should stay a simple secondary effect. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5c3d04630c750c113ba8e530bacbb...@neutralite.org
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 10:41:12, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. The fact is, that linux is actually a success, but it has never been it's objective. It's a consequence of what we like in it: freeness, efficiency, and stability. Market share should not be the objective, it should stay a simple secondary effect. Well said. See also this: http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/journal/2012-01/004.html Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141015100953.gc23...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. Definitely, I hope that Debian won't take that road. It it does, then, I'll switch. I'm taking a look at netBSD, even if I guess that I'll have a hard time being successful in feeling as comfortable with it than with Debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/d03f4a85b74311e6b5c80fd2dbab9...@neutralite.org
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. I would have 'thought' all users want it to be useful - but surely I miss your point? (was there a point? I can only work with the words you write and it reads like sophist rhetoric, assume the first nonsense is not and it follows that neither is the second). As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. I could quote you Adam Smith on commerce and conspiracy - though I seriously doubt he ever meant there are no non-business conspiracies. He was smarter than that. But it'd be more pertinent to note that servers cost money to run and Debian (and the FSF) do a good job of not allowing any contributions in labour or money to control it's production or direction. To allow the former would be both foolish and ignore the nature of Free Open Source Software. I can't think of any distro that doesn't accept assistance from business. With the possible exception of Hairshirtix (forked from SelfFlagellantOS) but I'm pretty sure they haven't produced any actual working code. ;) Definitely, I hope that Debian won't take that road. Likewise, and I'm sure Intel don't want RedHat driving anymore than RedHat want Google in control - even if IBM was prepared to let them, and in the end it's still down to the programmers. And can only buy so much with a paycheck. (last time I checked Linus gets paid to work on the kernel). It it does, then, I'll switch. I'm taking a look at netBSD, even if I guess that I'll have a hard time being successful in feeling as comfortable with it than with Debian. Here's a good place to start your looking:- http://www.netbsd.org/contrib/org/ Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543e4e85.7010...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Comments inline below: On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 06:37:57 Scott Ferguson wrote: On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. I would have 'thought' all users want it to be useful - but surely I miss your point? (was there a point? I can only work with the words you write and it reads like sophist rhetoric, assume the first nonsense is not and it follows that neither is the second). As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. I could quote you Adam Smith on commerce and conspiracy - though I seriously doubt he ever meant there are no non-business conspiracies. He was smarter than that. I used to run Red Hat on some of my servers. We paid RH for support. Years ago when I worked for Philips T M we sold service contracts. The economic incentives for the seller are much the same as when you sell support. You make the most money when you supply the least support. That would give RH an economic incentive to make sure things are as reliable as possible. Businesses buy these contracts because they can not afford downtime. The upside for the business is they have a contract specifying a response. It is expensive to send folks out to fix stuff. Red Hat contributes a lot of patches. They pay people to work on the kernel. IBM employs the author of Postfix who provides support on the Postfix list. These companies are investing in Linux because it makes economic sense for them to have Linux as solid and reliable as possible. We all benefit from these investments. But it'd be more pertinent to note that servers cost money to run and Debian (and the FSF) do a good job of not allowing any contributions in labour or money to control it's production or direction. To allow the former would be both foolish and ignore the nature of Free Open Source Software. I can't think of any distro that doesn't accept assistance from business. With the possible exception of Hairshirtix (forked from SelfFlagellantOS) but I'm pretty sure they haven't produced any actual working code. ;) Definitely, I hope that Debian won't take that road. Likewise, and I'm sure Intel don't want RedHat driving anymore than RedHat want Google in control - even if IBM was prepared to let them, and in the end it's still down to the programmers. And can only buy so much with a paycheck. (last time I checked Linus gets paid to work on the kernel). Another thing to note is that people have to eat. If companies like IBM and RH did not pay developers to work on Linux those people would have to work somewhere else. Maybe they would be at Google, Microsoft or Facebook. I have been hearing a lot of unwarranted chatter about the evils of the PID 1 replacement because Red Hat used. I do not hear so much about people pulling the patches contributed by Red Hat out of the kernel. All you people are accomplishing is raising the price of tinfoil. It it does, then, I'll switch. I'm taking a look at netBSD, even if I guess that I'll have a hard time being successful in feeling as comfortable with it than with Debian. Here's a good place to start your looking:- http://www.netbsd.org/contrib/org/ Kind regards -- Mike McGinn KD2CNU Be happy that brainfarts don't smell. No electrons were harmed in sending this message, some were inconvenienced. ** Registered Linux User 377849
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Le 15.10.2014 12:37, Scott Ferguson a écrit : On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. I would have 'thought' all users want it to be useful - but surely I miss your point? (was there a point? I can only work with the words you write and it reads like sophist rhetoric, assume the first nonsense is not and it follows that neither is the second). As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? I have never seen Debian sold either. But I was replying to a mail speaking about linux (which is, indirectly, sold with a lot of devices). My point is that there is no need to linux to have commercial sex-appeal to work fine and efficiently, or to make it useful. The fact that companies uses it in their products is simply because it suits their needs better than the alternatives they have checked. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. I could quote you Adam Smith on commerce and conspiracy - though I seriously doubt he ever meant there are no non-business conspiracies. He was smarter than that. But it'd be more pertinent to note that servers cost money to run and Debian (and the FSF) do a good job of not allowing any contributions in labour or money to control it's production or direction. To allow the former would be both foolish and ignore the nature of Free Open Source Software. I can't think of any distro that doesn't accept assistance from business. I never said that Debian, or whatever free software, should refuse contributions because the contributor is financially interested by the quality of the project. I simply said that big companies' input is not necessary (not that it's not useful), and I think I can argue that, AFAIK, either linux or debian, started without such inputs. If there is now that kind of input, it's good, but it's not because those projects wanted to seduce those big companies. Here's a good place to start your looking:- http://www.netbsd.org/contrib/org/ Kind regards Indeed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/9d47fbbc3844c2457dce6e39459c2...@neutralite.org
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Steve Litt writes: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Better Red Hat than just about anybody else. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Elmwood, WI USA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87iojlcsed@thumper.dhh.gt.org
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
2014/10/15 1:47 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk: On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is why bribery is a crime. Well thanks for pointing that out. But this effort can be seen as a way to tilt the voting based on one aspect. And this being _systemd_. Now a group has identified that another group with financial interest is more likely to vote for sytemd. So lets disenfranchise those. That is equally bad. And second financial interest != bribery. This is a very distorted view. My work is based on debian as a development platform. So I do have a financial interest in debian being a stable platform. So I shall be disenfranchised? The depths are really beginning to be plumbed. We have a proposer of an resolution linking financial gain with the work people do in their free time to give us a free OS. This is rapidly followed by a seconder who has found another bandwaggon to jump on. All this is supposed to be for the benefit of Debian. Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character assassination of a group dedicated workers. Do you realize that a lot of your posts, jumping on anti-systemd topics, might appear, to casual examination, to be innuendo and/or character assassination? Any time people believe strongly in something, it becomes difficult to examine their own position carefully. (That's part of the meaning of my other sig.) You need to understand. We have a bunch of old fogies, including myself, whose training included the KISS mantra, Murphy's laws, the proverb, Fast, correct, delivered on time, pick any two., another proverb about how computers excel at making mistakes at high speed, another about how the computer could only do exactly what you told it to, so that bug is your fault, and many other metaphors that helped us understand the limits of the machine that is easy to see as a magic box. That last one is no longer true. You often don't know who wrote the compilers or libraries you use or how they interpreted the standards, so the best you can do is try to avoid corner cases and areas of known disagreement. Looking at the architecture and goals of systemd is, for me, like seeing the world turned upside down. (I could be more explicit, but I'm fully aware by now how it would be received here.) I look at the code and it does not reassure me in the slightest, even though, superficially, the code has significantly improved over the last year. You have to understand that. For people who were trained the way I was, systemd proves itself completely wrong by design. Any attempt to defend it is already tainted, and it's hard to work around that point of view. I know that we have a different set of expectations. Nanosecond instruction timings and multi-gigabytes of main memory make some things that were impossible to even consider when I was in college something in the way of commonplace now. Cellphones? My feature phone has more raw horsepower and more memory than any of the computers I used in college. (Unfortunately, I can't run a C compile on it, and sometimes the irony of that is a bit painful. Maybe that pain is part of why systemd gets my back up.) Some things become possible. Some do not. Instructions still take time, and they just basically aren't going to get any faster with any of the technology that we have any Moore. systemd tries to do too much, and fixing the corner cases will kill it eventually. Processors aren't going to get faster and save the day like they have with so many formerly impossible things. Hopefully, by that point, Poettering will cease to believe he's Supercoder and start having systemd delegate the hard stuff. Or someone will fork the code and fix what he is refusing to fix. He could have designed it that way from the start, but then it would
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Ahoj, Dňa Wed, 15 Oct 2014 11:09:53 +0100 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk napísal: On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) I get systemd. Are you sure, that i want it? Or am i not a user? regards -- Slavko http://slavino.sk signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 08:11:10 +0100 Jonathan Dowland j...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Hi Jonathan, Parse the preceding sentence. We want *Linux* to be successful, but woe betied any *company* ... I want *Linux* to succeed, and it would be nice for that success to float the boats of the companies making Linux succeed, but not the companies trying to completely change the Linux that attracted most of us to it. We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean). Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows software. No doubt, mid 1990's to mid 2000's, Red Hat got us there, and I thanked and celebrated them. What Red Hat is doing now is anti-Linux, as demonstrated by timestamps 1:35 and 2:20 in the following: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdRmnSHHVw4 SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141015123909.55ec1...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:37:37 +0900 Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/10/15 1:47 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk: Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character assassination of a group dedicated workers. Do you realize that a lot of your posts, jumping on anti-systemd topics, might appear, to casual examination, to be innuendo and/or character assassination? Yes. Let's get rid of the innuendo. It is my belief that Red Hat is foisting systemd on Linux for the purpose of making Linux harder to repair and manage, and have hired clever Rube Goldberg software creator Leonart Poettering to create something that works, but in the long term will be a house of cards only specialists (primarily Red Hat specialists, they hope) can work on. Well, that's certainly character assassination (and well deserved in my opinion), but I think I got rid of the innuendo :-) SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141015125352.037f4...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 12:53:52 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:37:37 +0900 Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/10/15 1:47 Brian a...@cityscape.co.uk: Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character assassination of a group dedicated workers. Do you realize that a lot of your posts, jumping on anti-systemd topics, might appear, to casual examination, to be innuendo and/or character assassination? Yes. Let's get rid of the innuendo. It is my belief that Red Hat is foisting systemd on Linux for the purpose of making Linux harder to repair and manage, and have hired clever Rube Goldberg software creator Leonart Poettering to create something that works, but in the long term will be a house of cards only specialists (primarily Red Hat specialists, they hope) can work on. Well, that's certainly character assassination (and well deserved in my opinion), but I think I got rid of the innuendo :-) Can one detect a bit of 'tongue in cheek' here? A modicum of reason being supressed for a laugh? These are your beliefs. They are to be respected. If you also believed that the Earth was flat and the Sun rotated around it, or Elvis was alive and well and living in Barnsley we would also treat those beliefs with the respect they deserved. The practical outcome of having beliefs is not that they have to be advanced time after time and on every conceivable occasion in -user. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/15102014192609.a3807f559...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 14 October 2014 17:10, Don Armstrong d...@debian.org wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who pays them. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. It really shouldn't be. The biggest concern that I have is getting new contributors into Debian and keeping existing contributors from burning out. Companies paying people to work on Debian is one way of getting more contributors and keeping existing contributors happy. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Everyone who contributes to Debian has an interest in what the project does, whether or not its financial. There's a reason why we're contributing, after all. People who are in positions of power in Debian are relatively open about what those interests are and who their employers are. But expecting people not to vote or participate just because they happen to be paid to work on Debian isn't healthy or sustainable. That said, if despite my counter-arguments, this is something you feel strongly about, find a DD who agrees with you, write up a constitutional amendment, and get it proposed on -vote or discussed -project. It's not on topic here. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I learned really early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something -- Richard Feynman What is Science Phys. Teach. 7(6) 1969 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014161017.gb4...@teltox.donarmstrong.com In the UK we have rules about benefiting from being part of a charity or in my case being involved in a housing cooperative. We solve the problem by setting up 'secondary' organisations with which the first has a contract that allows them to purchase services. I'm just thinking that this could help small orgs who can't afford a whole or half a salary as well. Debian Developer Services (?) could take money from companies, issue invoices and pay developers and publish accounts. Just a thought -- Keith Burnett http://sohcahtoa.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAA6tw_FEZ3onnD2z+_5SC3nb0mbzkwOhAb0S=adxtoq3bn_...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/15/2014 07:08 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. Definitely, I hope that Debian won't take that road. It it does, then, I'll switch. I'm taking a look at netBSD, even if I guess that I'll have a hard time being successful in feeling as comfortable with it than with Debian. I don't know what you all do to get paid in order to pay bills and/or raise a family, but working for Red Hat is not a bad gig. Not a bad gig at all. I'm sure some soreheads think that we debated WORLD DOMINATION during lunch, or how to screw over Debian, but sadly we mostly discussed what was the Right Thingtm to do there just as we do on this list. After all, everyone at RedHat had been a user first, before landing a paying job. So, to everyone heaping scorn on RedHat, go here: http://jobs.redhat.com/ ...and here: http://jobs.redhat.com/life-at-red-hat/ If you really know your stuff and/or you fit a need, they might hire you. Secretly, I knew they paid me more than I was worth, which encouraged me to work my butt off in the support center. It was the saddest day of my life to have to quit for personal family concerns. Any of you should get paid to do what you love. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543ed6e5.70...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote: We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean). Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows software. If you knew Caldera, then you would know that it started with capitalization and focus by the retired CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda. What he did was to try to shoehorn Linux into the proprietary world, in order for Linux to become more widely acceptable as the base OS. I installed the base version around 1995 when there was a promo cost of slightly less than $200. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caldera_OpenLinux It went into the deep end when Ray suffered from Alzheimer's and stepped down. The best thing I can say about Ray is this quote from wikipedia: Under Noorda's watch, Novell acquired several companies and products with the goal of countering Microsoft's rapid spread into new markets, including Digital Research, Unix System Laboratories, WordPerfect, and Borland's Quattro Pro. Microsoft CEO Bill Gates claimed that Noorda had a tremendous vendetta against Microsoft and that Noorda had supported the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust investigations of Microsoft in the early 1990s that led to a consent decree restricting its operating system licensing practice. Now that is my kinda guy, as he knew that Linux would grow to be more than a desktop hobby toy. And, he put his own money where his mouth was. He was not responsible for what happened after. I still have a copy of the Caldera install CD and it worked like a charm on an aging ThinkPad. But it was too pitiful to watch Netscape try to update itself. :) Ric -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543edcea.9030...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
2014/10/16 5:46 Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com: On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote: We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean). Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows software. [...] If you knew Caldera, then you would know that it started with capitalization and focus by the retired CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda. Now that is my kinda guy, as he knew that Linux would grow to be more than a desktop hobby toy. And, he put his own money where his mouth was. He was not responsible for what happened after. I still have a copy of the Caldera install CD and it worked like a charm on an aging ThinkPad. But it was too pitiful to watch Netscape try to update itself. :) Ric Yes, Noorda was a good guy. I think Steve was talking about a later CEO.
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Mi, 15 oct 14, 21:37:57, Scott Ferguson wrote: As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ No, that's not meant as a joke. As far as I understand, this is about the only way one can sell FLOSS software. Of course, the Author(s) can always sell commercial licenses, but other that's about the only exception I'm aware. It is my understanding that revenue with FLOSS is made from service contracts (e.g. consultancy, installation, support, etc.). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Wednesday 15 October 2014 22:44:18 Andrei POPESCU wrote: On Mi, 15 oct 14, 21:37:57, Scott Ferguson wrote: As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/ No, that's not meant as a joke. As far as I understand, this is about the only way one can sell FLOSS software. Of course, the Author(s) can always sell commercial licenses, but other that's about the only exception I'm aware. It is my understanding that revenue with FLOSS is made from service contracts (e.g. consultancy, installation, support, etc.). And burning and seling CDs. ;-) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201410152251.56097.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/15/2014 05:06 PM, Joel Rees wrote: 2014/10/16 5:46 Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com mailto:wayward4...@gmail.com: On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote: We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean). Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows software. [...] If you knew Caldera, then you would know that it started with capitalization and focus by the retired CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda. Now that is my kinda guy, as he knew that Linux would grow to be more than a desktop hobby toy. And, he put his own money where his mouth was. He was not responsible for what happened after. I still have a copy of the Caldera install CD and it worked like a charm on an aging ThinkPad. But it was too pitiful to watch Netscape try to update itself. :) Ric Yes, Noorda was a good guy. I think Steve was talking about a later CEO. Ransom Love and the rest did raise some valid points in the beginning, namely MSdos was full of trap doors to kill off competition from DRdos. They deserved to win the court contest. But, Caldera was Ray's intellectual child, and it was the The SCO Group that formed after Ray had to leave, that went to the dark side. So, I tend to think of them as two completely different entities. Just about the entire original staff of Caldera was shown to the curb, when SuSe sauntered in to lord over it all. Oh yeah, they knew BEST! You, go! Everything Caldera stood for ~left with them~. There are a few of us who email each other about once a year, to check to see who is still alive and what they are doing. There was one with a painful divorce after falling on unstable hard times, etc. So, these good people with good hearts and even better minds do not deserve to be lumped in with the utter BS later on that followed. I can't let that one pass. :) Ric p/s I thought YaST sucked. -- My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: There are two Great Sins in the world... ..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome. R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543eefbf.5080...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/15/2014 04:19 PM, Ric Moore wrote: On 10/15/2014 07:08 AM, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. Definitely, I hope that Debian won't take that road. It it does, then, I'll switch. I'm taking a look at netBSD, even if I guess that I'll have a hard time being successful in feeling as comfortable with it than with Debian. I don't know what you all do to get paid in order to pay bills and/or raise a family, but working for Red Hat is not a bad gig. This is fortuitous! Not a bad gig at all. I'm sure some soreheads think that we debated WORLD DOMINATION during lunch, or how to screw over Debian, but sadly we mostly discussed what was the Right Thingtm Do you mean, job-related ethics? to do there just as we do on this list. I'm glad you replied because you're just the person to query. When you discussed job-related ethics at lunchtime, did the subject of conflict of interest ever come up, regarding voting in Debian? If it's impossible to imagine, then consider a purely hypothetical case. A developer is working on a package that could get widespread adoption within Debian, but some kind of technicality stands in the way, requiring a vote. As an employee, is there a conflict if he votes? I know I'm the joker on this list but now I'm serious. serious smiley would go here After all, everyone at RedHat had been a user first, before landing a paying job. So, to everyone heaping scorn on RedHat, go here: http://jobs.redhat.com/ So you mean, the place for people with inferiority complexes? :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543f0b24.2020...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 16/10/14 00:14, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:37, Scott Ferguson a écrit : On 15/10/14 22:08, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 12:09, Brian a écrit : On Wed 15 Oct 2014 at 10:41:12 +0200, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote: Le 15.10.2014 09:11, Jonathan Dowland a écrit : On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:51:07AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. Damned for their success. We want Linux to be successful, but woe betide any company that actually gets us there... Maybe you want. But I think that most users just want it to work fine and efficiently, which does not necessarily imply being sold massively around the world. I would have 'thought' all users want it to be useful - but surely I miss your point? (was there a point? I can only work with the words you write and it reads like sophist rhetoric, assume the first nonsense is not and it follows that neither is the second). As far as I'm aware Debian has *never* been sold anywhere, nor are there plans to - did I miss another meeting down the docks? I have never seen Debian sold either. But I was replying to a mail speaking about linux (which is, indirectly, sold with a lot of devices). My point is that there is no need to linux to have commercial sex-appeal to work fine and efficiently, or to make it useful. The fact that companies uses it in their products is simply because it suits their needs better than the alternatives they have checked. Agreed - I'm not one of those people who believe in desktop wars (which smacks of foolish fanboism). In most case (embedded and server) the end-user has no idea about the OS. As I stated - I can only work with the words that are written - not with what is now, apparently, what you meant to say. Call it clarification if you like. Nor did I believe you said it. He's doing some of the work on Debian; others work with different distributions. They get what they want. Users get what they want. Everyone's a winner. :) Maybe. But, when someone tries to sell stuff a lot, to have a big market share, then that guy must take a large target, which leads to systems which might become less stable or less efficient. And if that guy want to keep his market, then he'll have to avoid people escaping his stuff, this is why vendor locks exists. I could quote you Adam Smith on commerce and conspiracy - though I seriously doubt he ever meant there are no non-business conspiracies. He was smarter than that. But it'd be more pertinent to note that servers cost money to run and Debian (and the FSF) do a good job of not allowing any contributions in labour or money to control it's production or direction. To allow the former would be both foolish and ignore the nature of Free Open Source Software. I can't think of any distro that doesn't accept assistance from business. I never said that Debian, Please - there's no need to be so defensive. I carefully inserted my response *below* what I'm responding to. Just because your name is in the thread doesn't mean every response is about what you said. I can follow who said what - can't you? or whatever free software, should refuse contributions because the contributor is financially interested by the quality of the project. I simply said that big companies' input is not necessary (not that it's not useful), and I think I can argue that, AFAIK, either linux or debian, started without such inputs. If there is now that kind of input, it's good, but it's not because those projects wanted to seduce those big companies. And now you're just lugging goal posts. Sad. You did say you had a problem with Debian using commercially sponsored code - and therefore were considering NetBSD - I simply pointed out that so does NetBSD. I note that you removed my point that all distros use commercially sponsored code. Here's a good place to start your looking:- http://www.netbsd.org/contrib/org/ Kind regards Indeed. Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543f0092.3020...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:06:00 +0900 Joel Rees joel.r...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/10/16 5:46 Ric Moore wayward4...@gmail.com: On 10/15/2014 12:39 PM, Steve Litt wrote: We've actually been in this place before. Wonderful Linux company Caldera became SCO (oversimplification, but you know what I mean). Wonderful Linux company Corel changed their CEO, and promptly accepted money from Microsoft and dropped all their Windows software. [...] If you knew Caldera, then you would know that it started with capitalization and focus by the retired CEO of Novell, Ray Noorda. Now that is my kinda guy, as he knew that Linux would grow to be more than a desktop hobby toy. And, he put his own money where his mouth was. He was not responsible for what happened after. I still have a copy of the Caldera install CD and it worked like a charm on an aging ThinkPad. But it was too pitiful to watch Netscape try to update itself. :) Ric Yes, Noorda was a good guy. I think Steve was talking about a later CEO. It was a bad time for Linux and a complicated situation. I just looked up Noorda, Caldera, SCO and WordPerfect on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_Group I can't tell for sure, but it looks like Noorda was innocent of all betrayal. I'm pretty sure the Caldera/SCO badguy was a slimebag patent troll named Darl McBride. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride About Corel, the other example I used... Corel had bought WordPerfect in 1996, and some time around Y2K came out with both Corel Linux, which was a pretty darn good desktop Linux for the time, and WordPerfect for Linux, which I paid for (and liked). Those times are long past, and I could find little on what happened with Corel, so I looked at my contemporaneous writing from that era: http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200010/200010.htm#_linuxlog Apparently, Corel CEO and board chair Michael Cowpland stepped down on 8/15/2000, and Derek Burney was appointed interrum president and CEO. On 10/2/2000, Corel and Microsoft announced a strategic alliance, involving Microsoft's infusion of $135 million for 24 million non-voting convertable shares. The short story, Microsoft bought Corel and Corel almost immediately stopped making any software for Linux. Both Caldera and Corel were co-opted by Microsoft and turned into Microsoft proxies in the battle against Free Software, but at least Corel didn't turn into patent troll. As I remember, the main non-Microsoft slimebags of the era were Darl McBride of Caldera/SCO, and Derek Burney of Corel. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141016015427.40554...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Conflict of interest in Debian
It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543d0f78.7060...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. Define financial interest and how you enforce this policy. Sorry that is a not a good idea. -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014120506.gb9...@newton.itcfollmann.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
Marty, I think I see why you suggest this: as a corporate user of Debian, I think you would like to see Debian orientations more enterprise-friendly, for example by loosening external software license policy or upgrade frequency. Being myself such a user, I understand that the stability and open-source policy of Debian can be seen as too rigorous by some. Nevertheless, Debian is a general purpose distribution, so one can not simply, not walk into Mordor, but expect that Debian will perfectly match its requirements, as loosen as they may be. In addition, the policy elements which are a problem to you may be precisely what other find attractive with Debian; for example, if the external software license policy is your issue, other persons such as power users or human right activists will appreciate the default absence of proprietary software, especially in the post-Snowden era. At a more prosaic level, the stability of external software versions will be fine for some, like financial institutions, while others, like start-ups, will find it too restrictive. IMHO, you think the problem the wrong way: instead of wanting to alter Debian to fit your needs, I think you should just find the operating system matching your needs; for example, for users finding Debian too restrictive or old-fashioned regarding external software, using Ubuntu will be just fine. If third-party software is your main problem, you can as well use non-official APT repos; main Linux software holding repos have a Debian version of these. Finally, at a down-to-earth level, following your suggestion would probably be problematical: how to be sure a user asserting himself as a corporate user really is one? Hoping it will help, Regards. Le mardi 14 octobre 2014 à 07:56 -0400, Marty a écrit : It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. -- David Guyot Administrateur système, réseau et télécom / Sysadmin Europe Camions Interactive / Stockway Moulin Collot F-88500 Ambacourt 03 29 30 47 85 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is why bribery is a crime. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014110210.7696a...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:50:02 PM UTC+5:30, Henning Follmann wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. Lets say I am a billionaire who's made his bucks selling cigarettes And you are a health-researcher who's made a new study of the co-relation between certain health-issues and tobacco-use. As you are about to publish your research you find that I have expressed a keen interest in meeting you. Would you take it as mere straightforward 'interest'? Or something more sinister? Define financial interest and how you enforce this policy. Yes enforcement is the catch -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/24b424a9-7050-462d-988e-46262e947...@googlegroups.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is why bribery is a crime. Well thanks for pointing that out. But this effort can be seen as a way to tilt the voting based on one aspect. And this being _systemd_. Now a group has identified that another group with financial interest is more likely to vote for sytemd. So lets disenfranchise those. That is equally bad. And second financial interest != bribery. This is a very distorted view. My work is based on debian as a development platform. So I do have a financial interest in debian being a stable platform. So I shall be disenfranchised? -H -- Henning Follmann | hfollm...@itcfollmann.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014160611.ga25...@newton.itcfollmann.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 15/10/14 02:02, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. And how should we interpret that in light of your signature and constant plugging of your business on the list? Perhaps Joey Hess's signature holds the answer? This is why bribery is a crime. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543d3bc5.9000...@gmail.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who pays them. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. It really shouldn't be. The biggest concern that I have is getting new contributors into Debian and keeping existing contributors from burning out. Companies paying people to work on Debian is one way of getting more contributors and keeping existing contributors happy. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Everyone who contributes to Debian has an interest in what the project does, whether or not its financial. There's a reason why we're contributing, after all. People who are in positions of power in Debian are relatively open about what those interests are and who their employers are. But expecting people not to vote or participate just because they happen to be paid to work on Debian isn't healthy or sustainable. That said, if despite my counter-arguments, this is something you feel strongly about, find a DD who agrees with you, write up a constitutional amendment, and get it proposed on -vote or discussed -project. It's not on topic here. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com I learned really early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something -- Richard Feynman What is Science Phys. Teach. 7(6) 1969 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014161017.gb4...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 14/10/14 16:05, Scott Ferguson wrote: And how should we interpret that in light of your signature and constant plugging of your business on the list? Perhaps Joey Hess's signature holds the answer? I presume you mean Joel Rees (yes, I get their names mixed up occasionally too), since Joey Hess's signature just says see shy jo. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543d4da1.1040...@zen.co.uk
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is why bribery is a crime. Well thanks for pointing that out. But this effort can be seen as a way to tilt the voting based on one aspect. And this being _systemd_. Now a group has identified that another group with financial interest is more likely to vote for sytemd. So lets disenfranchise those. That is equally bad. And second financial interest != bribery. This is a very distorted view. My work is based on debian as a development platform. So I do have a financial interest in debian being a stable platform. So I shall be disenfranchised? The depths are really beginning to be plumbed. We have a proposer of an resolution linking financial gain with the work people do in their free time to give us a free OS. This is rapidly followed by a seconder who has found another bandwaggon to jump on. All this is supposed to be for the benefit of Debian. Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character assassination of a group dedicated workers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141014164714.gb23...@copernicus.demon.co.uk
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/14/2014 12:10 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. People have to eat. Almost everyone who works on Debian has someone who pays them. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. It really shouldn't be. The biggest concern that I have is getting new contributors into Debian and keeping existing contributors from burning out. Companies paying people to work on Debian is one way of getting more contributors and keeping existing contributors happy. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Everyone who contributes to Debian has an interest in what the project does, whether or not its financial. There's a reason why we're contributing, after all. People who are in positions of power in Debian are relatively open about what those interests are and who their employers are. But expecting people not to vote or participate just because they happen to be paid to work on Debian isn't healthy or sustainable. I am only concerned about the ethics of it. As an outsider I can't speak about the practicality or sustainability of a voting restriction, but I think such codes are commonplace in nonprofits. In any case I too have a concern about the long-term sustainability of Debian, but as a volunteer organization. If it's not an issue now in Debian, it almost certainly will be in the future. This illustrates a part of my concern: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/whos-writing-linux Say hello to our new bosses? That said, if despite my counter-arguments, this is something you feel strongly about, find a DD who agrees with you, write up a constitutional amendment, and get it proposed on -vote or discussed -project. It's not on topic here. Thanks, I'll consider that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543dc16a.7050...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On 10/14/2014 12:47 PM, Brian wrote: On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 Henning Follmann hfollm...@itcfollmann.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: It seems like free software employment and market share come with increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is why bribery is a crime. Well thanks for pointing that out. But this effort can be seen as a way to tilt the voting based on one aspect. And this being _systemd_. Now a group has identified that another group with financial interest is more likely to vote for sytemd. So lets disenfranchise those. That is equally bad. And second financial interest != bribery. This is a very distorted view. My work is based on debian as a development platform. So I do have a financial interest in debian being a stable platform. So I shall be disenfranchised? The depths are really beginning to be plumbed. We have a proposer of an resolution linking financial gain with the work people do in their free time to give us a free OS. This is rapidly followed by a seconder who has found another bandwaggon to jump on. All this is supposed to be for the benefit of Debian. When I started using Debian it was a hobby toy and something like this would never have come up. Now I have a hard time convincing myself that individual volunteers will ever again have that role or voice. The invisible hand of the market should not be the guiding force in Debian. Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character assassination of a group dedicated workers. I've seen some of that too, and it's sad, as well as undeserved, but it's the kind of dynamic that these conditions might give rise to. An honor or ethics code might defuse some of that, but I leave that for members to decide. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/543dc2b5.4070...@ix.netcom.com
Re: Conflict of interest in Debian
On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 20:35:54 -0400 Marty mar...@ix.netcom.com wrote: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/whos-writing-linux Say hello to our new bosses? Check out what single company has 30% of the gatekeepers. Surprise, surprise. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141015005107.2e973...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
