On 2016-01-21 09:32, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 12:08:19PM +0000, Simon Hobson wrote:
>> KatolaZ <katolaz@???> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, not everybody pays his bills developing open source software,
>> > but if I were a Debian developer, who had adhered to the debian Social
>> > Contract [1], I would find it difficult to organise a fest to
>> > celebrate Microsoft offering Debian as an option on its
>> > azure-whatever. Call me a hippy, if you want, but I do see some
>> > incoherence there.
>>
>> What if we s/Microsoft/Rackspace/
>> (you can use pretty well any hosting outfit really)
>> The basic underlying thing that this announcement shows is that
>> ${company} now supports ${OS} on it's hosting platform. Yes, the sole
>> reason they are doing it where ${OS}==Debian is because they think
>> there's money to be made from it. I think you'll find that most of the
>> hosting outfits are in it to make money - sorry if the idea that
>> someone is allowed to make a profit upsets some sensitive types.
>>
>
> I have never had problems with people making money out of Free
> Software. I paid bills for several years in that way. And also Richard
> Stallman himself has done the same, just to make a notable example.
>
> Only, I have never seen a party organised to celebrate, say,
> DigitalOcean (replace it with whatever other provider you have in
> mind) supporting Debian Jessie. The real support to GNU/Linux and
> Debian has come from silent hackers. That's why I get suspicious when
> trumpets start blowing "Linux" or "Debian", especially if the one who
> blows them is a corporate which makes money prevalently with
> closed-source software, and has done all was in its power to denigrate
> Free and Open Source Software in the last 15 years.
>
> [cut]
>
>>
>> Whether supporting Debian on Azure is just logical, or there's an
>> ulterior motive, it's happened and we don't know which reason it is.
>> What I am sure about though is that talking as though there's nothing
>> MS, RH, and certain others do that isn't driven by some "bad
>> intention" sends out a bad message that is off-putting to some and
>> plays into the hands of others.
>> I'm just suggesting that sometimes, reading this list is like being at
>> an evangelical meeting of some hardcore cult - and that *IS* very
>> off-putting to a large number of people.
>>
>
> Sorry, but I can't see any evangelisation taking place here. Just
> civilised discussions, implying the expression of opinions which might
> diverge, at some point. If this is off-putting, then you are probably
> not used to discussions.
>
> My opinion is that whatever comes from a corporate is to be considered
> as potentially harmful, for the simple reason that the natural
> (obvious and correct) aim of corporates is to make money for
> themselves, not to help hackers make their own dreams happen. This is
> not an evangelical message. It's just one opinion, that you can accept
> or reject, but would hardly be able to change without substantial
> evidence.
>
> My2Cents
>
> KatolaZ

+1

--
Stop slacking you lazy bum!