On 21/01/16 08:21 AM, Marlon Nunes wrote:
> 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
>

Most of the computers I have to lay my hands on are desktops or
workstations running some form of M$ Windows, that is my reality.
In the world in which we live it has been changed enough by GNU/Linux,
that Microsoft openly admits Linux into "their" space, now that is IMHO
good, they really didn't have a choice.

I am bothered by the historical view that every one who shakes hands
with Microsoft seems at best to come away missing a few fingers, and
that list is long.

I personally have been a Linux user since 1997 and switched to Debian
around the turn of the Century after I had found Redhat was limiting my
choices and I had bounced between distros for a while.

In a sense I have a foot in both camps.

That Debian has been perverted so far from its original path and is
running counter to its reason for being as envisioned by the late Ian
Murdock makes me sick to my stomach.

Long live Devuan!

Clarke