Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #179886 > unrolled thread

If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Niklas <doark@mail.com> - 2017-04-07 20:50 +0200
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Niklas <doark@mail.com> - 2017-04-07 22:10 +0200
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 03:30 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-04-08 07:10 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-08 09:20 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-08 11:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-08 22:30 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> - 2017-04-08 11:50 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-08 12:00 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-04-08 13:00 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-08 22:40 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-04-08 15:20 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 01:30 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-09 09:50 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-04-10 15:40 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-10 16:10 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-10 16:20 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-10 16:30 +0200
                      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2017-04-10 16:40 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... tomas@tuxteam.de - 2017-04-10 21:10 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 02:20 +0200
                      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-10 23:30 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 23:40 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-11 16:40 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-12 17:40 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-12 17:30 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-12 18:50 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-12 21:50 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 00:00 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 22:50 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-13 00:50 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 02:20 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 08:50 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-13 11:00 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 22:50 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 23:20 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-12 23:20 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-13 01:20 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 02:00 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 22:50 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-13 01:00 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 02:20 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 02:10 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 05:40 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 03:40 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-04-11 05:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-09 12:30 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:10 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ric Moore <wayward4now@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 03:10 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-04-11 15:00 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 15:20 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2017-04-11 17:10 +0200
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 17:50 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 22:20 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-04-09 23:50 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 00:20 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 08:10 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-10 09:40 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> - 2017-04-10 16:30 +0200
            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-12 11:40 +0200
              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 18:20 +0200
                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-12 23:10 +0200
                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 17:50 +0200
                    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-13 19:40 +0200
                      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 14:00 +0200
                        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-17 23:40 +0200
                          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 16:40 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-18 17:10 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-04-18 17:50 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 02:20 +0200
                                  Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-21 16:40 +0200
                              Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 18:50 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-04-20 12:00 +0200
                                Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-04-20 12:00 +0200
                                  Debian contributor Register of Interests (was Re: If Linux Is About  Choice, Why Then ...) Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2017-05-09 17:00 +0200
                                    Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests (was Re: If Linux Is  About Choice, Why Then ...) <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-05-09 21:10 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-18 17:40 +0200
                            Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz> - 2017-04-18 23:30 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Michael Fothergill <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 18:10 +0200
    Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-13 03:10 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 03:40 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-13 11:00 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-04-13 04:20 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-04-13 09:20 +0200
      Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-04-13 04:20 +0200
        Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... GiaThnYgeia <GiaThnYgeia@openmailbox.org> - 2017-04-13 11:30 +0200
          Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ... Catherine Gramze <rhiamom@mac.com> - 2017-04-13 17:20 +0200

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#180005

On Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:36:33 +0100 Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org>
wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 11:07:13PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Perhaps instead of "..more suited," it should have been "intended"
> > for servers.  After all, wasn't systemd adopted first for RHEL whose
> > market is mainly servers?
> 
> No, it wasn't. It was in Fedora before RHEL.

Fedora is the development and test bed for RHEL much as Debian
Testing is for Stable. But technically, you're correct: systemd was in
Fedora before RHEL. Spliting hairs..  In any case, systemd is truly Red
Hat's baby.

B

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180030

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:09:45AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> Fedora is the development and test bed for RHEL much as Debian
> Testing is for Stable.

That's not a perfect analogy by any means: Fedora is used as a test bed for
technology that later ends up in RHEL, yes, but that's the end of it. One is a
commercial product, the other a community-driven, desktop-oriented
distribution. RHEL is not simply a rebranded, frozen Fedora release. They're
different distributions.

> But technically, you're correct: systemd was in Fedora before RHEL. Spliting
> hairs..

The best kind of correct, and not splitting hairs at all, since Fedora and
RHEL are not the same thing.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180066

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:02:54PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 09:09:45AM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> > Fedora is the development and test bed for RHEL much as Debian
> > Testing is for Stable.
> 
> That's not a perfect analogy by any means: Fedora is used as a test bed for
> technology that later ends up in RHEL, yes, but that's the end of it. One is a
> commercial product, the other a community-driven, desktop-oriented
> distribution.

[1] says:

The Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo) is a community-elected
body empowered by the Council to manage the technical features of the
Fedora distribution and specific implementations of policy in the Fedora
Project.


[2] lists 9 current FESCo members, at least 3 of whose are Red Hat
employees. Specifically, [3], [4] and [5].


[6] also has some interesting things to say about Red Hat involvement in
Fedora.


Describing Fedora as 'community-driven' distribution is a gross
oversimplification. It's not that I disagree with initial assessment -
they don't sell you Debian stable like Red Hat does for RHEL.

Reco

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FESCo

[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee?rd=FESCo

[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ausil

[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin 

[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sgallagh

[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Council

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180096

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:44:08PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> Describing Fedora as 'community-driven' distribution is a gross
> oversimplification. It's not that I disagree with initial assessment -
> they don't sell you Debian stable like Red Hat does for RHEL.

Red Hat employees do have significant involvement in Fedora. This is true.
May I ask, what model would you prefer?

Disclaimer: I am a Red Hat employee, but I have nothing to do with Fedora.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180125

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:44:08PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > Describing Fedora as 'community-driven' distribution is a gross
> > oversimplification. It's not that I disagree with initial assessment -
> > they don't sell you Debian stable like Red Hat does for RHEL.
> 
> Red Hat employees do have significant involvement in Fedora. This is true.
> May I ask, what model would you prefer?
> 
> Disclaimer: I am a Red Hat employee, but I have nothing to do with Fedora.

Both, actually.

Debian stable works for me. RHEL works for my current employer.

Being realist I have to accept that it's much easier to use a Linux
distribution for *commercial purposes* if there's some price tag attached
to it (or to the support of said distribution). An ablility to redirect
responsibility to support is priceless.

But for the non-commercial purposes and personal use RHEL is way too
enterprisey for my taste. Too little software, too much 'do it our way'
approach. Hence - Debian for my needs.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180228

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:57:35PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > Red Hat employees do have significant involvement in Fedora. This is true.
> > May I ask, what model would you prefer?
> 
> Both, actually.

Your answer that follows indicates that you misunderstood my question.

Red Hat do indeed employ people who work on Fedora, much as the do for X,
GNOME, the kernel, systemd, and a whole raft of other technologies. Your
suggestion was that this impaired the independence of these projects. My
question is, what would be your ideal situation? How should people who work on
these projects get paid for their work? Or perhaps they shouldn't, and this
stuff should be strictly hobby only? Who should Red Hat employ, or to put it
another way, what should Red Hat employees do if not work in the open?

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180242

On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:38:28PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 02:57:35PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 06:37:03PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > > Red Hat employees do have significant involvement in Fedora. This is true.
> > > May I ask, what model would you prefer?
> > 
> > Both, actually.
> 
> Your answer that follows indicates that you misunderstood my question.

Indeed I had.


> Red Hat do indeed employ people who work on Fedora, much as the do for X,
> GNOME, the kernel, systemd, and a whole raft of other technologies. Your
> suggestion was that this impaired the independence of these projects.

It's inevitable. Those who are paid for their work tend to align with
employer's view of things. I don't see it as a Universally Bad Thing™,
or The Source Of All Evil™. It's just the way things are.


> My question is, what would be your ideal situation? How should people
> who work on these projects get paid for their work?

I honestly do not know. My (tiny) contributions to Debian in the form of
bug reports, patches and answering e-mails on this list here and there
did not provide me with any income ☺.
Never tried developing or maintaining anything. Not my cup of tea.

What I do know - never trust any commercial entity to keep *your* interest
in any priority. Add some non-commercial ones to 'do not trust' list
while we're at it (Mozilla Foundation, Tor Project to name a few).

In the conflict of interest between a single commercial entity and a
community of individuals first one usually wins.
But, in the conflict of interest between *multiple* commercial entities
and a community of individuals second one stands a chance.

I'd like to switch an angle a bit here. Red Hat and community put aside,
who else is interested in Fedora?
For instance, it's impossible to name a single corporation (SPI does not
count) that stands behind a Debian, if there's any.
It's possible to do so for, say, OpenSUSE or (pardon) Ubuntu.


> Or perhaps they shouldn't, and this stuff should be strictly hobby only?

The way I see it - it does not work that way for long.
Sooner or later 'the stuff' transforms to Boring Things™, and any
initial enthusiasm does not keep things running indefinitely. Usually
does not.

So, sooner or later, money come into play (aren't they always do?). The
important thing here for me is 'who pays', not 'who gets paid'.


> Who should Red Hat employ, or to put it another way, what should Red
> Hat employees do if not work in the open?

That's for Red Hat and its employees to decide, not for me.

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180244

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> My (tiny) contributions to Debian in the form of
> bug reports, patches and answering e-mails on this list here and there
> did not provide me with any income ☺.

Likewise; but your contributions are non-the-less appreciated. Thanks!

> I'd like to switch an angle a bit here. Red Hat and community put aside,
> who else is interested in Fedora?
> For instance, it's impossible to name a single corporation (SPI does not
> count) that stands behind a Debian, if there's any.
> It's possible to do so for, say, OpenSUSE or (pardon) Ubuntu.

In the past at least, HP hosted and provided servers and bandwidth for critical
Debian build infrastructure, and (still) sponsor a group subscription to LWN
for Debian developers. So you could answer "HP" here.  One could look at
whoever (possibly still including HP, I haven't checked) provide or host
Debian's infrastructure today.

-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180247

On Tuesday 18 April 2017 11:00:34 Jonathan Dowland wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > My (tiny) contributions to Debian in the form of
> > bug reports, patches and answering e-mails on this list here and
> > there did not provide me with any income ☺.
>
> Likewise; but your contributions are non-the-less appreciated. Thanks!
>
> > I'd like to switch an angle a bit here. Red Hat and community put
> > aside, who else is interested in Fedora?
> > For instance, it's impossible to name a single corporation (SPI does
> > not count) that stands behind a Debian, if there's any.
> > It's possible to do so for, say, OpenSUSE or (pardon) Ubuntu.
>
> In the past at least, HP hosted and provided servers and bandwidth for
> critical Debian build infrastructure, and (still) sponsor a group
> subscription to LWN for Debian developers. So you could answer "HP"
> here.  One could look at whoever (possibly still including HP, I
> haven't checked) provide or host Debian's infrastructure today.

If thats still the case Jonathan, and I suspect you may be in a position 
to confirm or deny, if HP is providing such support to debian, then I'd 
submit that it shouldn't be so well hidden.  Server machines cost money, 
and so does the bandwidth. IMO HP should be thanked for providing that 
service, by our raising HP to a higher position on the potential list of 
products to purchase when we are in need of a printer or home server.

Credit is nicely given at <http://debian.org/partners>, which I see a 
lengthy list of there.  No doubt the rest of that list also deserves our 
support if they are within the geographical range applicable.

Those of us who care, should visit that link to keep ourselves up to 
date, because those who do support debian, deserve our support.

TANSTAAFL principle at work folks.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180300

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 April 2017 11:00:34 Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> In the past at least, HP hosted and provided servers and bandwidth for
>> critical Debian build infrastructure, and (still) sponsor a group
>> subscription to LWN for Debian developers. So you could answer "HP"
>> here.  One could look at whoever (possibly still including HP, I
>> haven't checked) provide or host Debian's infrastructure today.
>
> If thats still the case Jonathan, and I suspect you may be in a position
> to confirm or deny, if HP is providing such support to debian, then I'd
> submit that it shouldn't be so well hidden.

I wish I didn't have to put my conspiracy theorist hat on here, but I
suspect that many in HP's management are fearful of upsetting the 800
pound gorilla/elephant in the room.

Neither Microsoft nor Intel seem to have any desire to understand
where the technology on which they so blithely ride their fortunes
came from originally. And they seem quite willing to say one thing and
do another with one hand and use the other hand to stab anyone handy
in the back with behind-the-scenes market pressure.

There do seem to be many in top management at most of the major
hardware vendors who feel extremely embarrassed to have any visible
association with Linux (and any other openly community-driven
technology). (Further mumbling about bean counters and expected value
and such elided.)

> Server machines cost money,
> and so does the bandwidth. IMO HP should be thanked for providing that
> service, by our raising HP to a higher position on the potential list of
> products to purchase when we are in need of a printer or home server.
>
> Credit is nicely given at <http://debian.org/partners>, which I see a
> lengthy list of there.  No doubt the rest of that list also deserves our
> support if they are within the geographical range applicable.
>
> Those of us who care, should visit that link to keep ourselves up to
> date, because those who do support debian, deserve our support.
>
> TANSTAAFL principle at work folks.

Oh, the lunch has always been free, but there sure are a lot of goons
who seem to have nothing better to do than "protect" the free lunch
from the hungry people who need it. Either way, we need to do our part
to support alternatives whose expected value is not among the current
crop of assumed winners being bet on by the big money.

> Cheers, Gene Heskett
> --
> "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
>  soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
> -Ed Howdershelt (Author)
> Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>
>



-- 
Joel Rees

I'm imagining I'm a novelist:
http://joel-rees-economics.blogspot.com/2017/01/soc500-00-00-toc.html
More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180369

Joel Rees:
>
> I wish I didn't have to put my conspiracy theorist hat on here, but I
> suspect that many in HP's management are fearful of upsetting the 800
> pound gorilla/elephant in the room.
>
> Neither Microsoft nor Intel seem to have any desire to understand
> where the technology on which they so blithely ride their fortunes
> came from originally. And they seem quite willing to say one thing and
> do another with one hand and use the other hand to stab anyone handy
> in the back with behind-the-scenes market pressure.
>

All fine and reasonable but nowhere in your fine analysis on things do
you imply there is anything more than financial interests and if all
this exists in a "free" economy where meritocracy of function and value
wins.

Whenever there is economic power found you will find an intersection
with political power.  One can not survive long without the other, in a
global system of inequality.  If we are talking of
monopolies/oligopolies/cartels/trusts there is a need for political
power to keep this scum alive and blood sucking.  So there is exchange
and it is not always in the form of "official lobbying" and bribery.
There is also exchange in "services".

It is the only way a system of inequality in both arenas can survive and
resist change.  I hope I don't have to break it down in pennies (of what
this actually means).  So don't dare tell me that everything that is
incorporated in a chip or a processor is a pure product of financial
interests of its manufacturer, to be the best and still pretty cheap.



-- 
 "The most violent element in society is ignorance" rEG

"Who died and made you the superuser?"  Brooklinux

"keep rocking in the non-free world" Neilznotyoung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180248

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 04:00:34PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 05:34:56PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > My (tiny) contributions to Debian in the form of
> > bug reports, patches and answering e-mails on this list here and there
> > did not provide me with any income ☺.
> 
> Likewise; but your contributions are non-the-less appreciated. Thanks!
> 
> > I'd like to switch an angle a bit here. Red Hat and community put aside,
> > who else is interested in Fedora?
> > For instance, it's impossible to name a single corporation (SPI does not
> > count) that stands behind a Debian, if there's any.
> > It's possible to do so for, say, OpenSUSE or (pardon) Ubuntu.
> 
> In the past at least, HP hosted and provided servers and bandwidth for critical
> Debian build infrastructure, and (still) sponsor a group subscription to LWN
> for Debian developers. So you could answer "HP" here.  One could look at
> whoever (possibly still including HP, I haven't checked) provide or host
> Debian's infrastructure today.

I stand corrected. They (HP) hid it pretty well, though.
I was under impression that they prefer something more enterprisey
there, like SuSE or RHEL.
To complete the analogy with Fedora one needs to count all DDs who are on HPE
payroll, I guess.

A quick search at [1] did not produce anything useful.

[1] https://www.startpage.com/do/search?query=%40hpl.hp.com%20site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Flists.debian.org

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180317

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:12:47AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 07:40:04PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> > I stand corrected. They (HP) hid it pretty well, though.
> > I was under impression that they prefer something more enterprisey
> > there, like SuSE or RHEL.
> > To complete the analogy with Fedora one needs to count all DDs who are on HPE
> > payroll, I guess.
> 
> I am aware of two ex-HP Debian Developers; Bdale Garbee (who I think is probably
> largely responsible for securing HP's support of Debian) (http://gag.com/bdale/)
> and Keith Packard (https://keithp.com).

And then there's Bruce Perens, who was for about two years on HP payroll (it seems
he was too explicit about his dislike for Microsoft to stay there).

regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlj4hfoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYnqwCeKrBwCKSqT/xu37/wQZ5Zyz+S
fj0AniK0H8fVKuSX41iyX5iaoKT1tNQz
=CS//
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180318

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 07:40:04PM +0300, Reco wrote:
> I stand corrected. They (HP) hid it pretty well, though.
> I was under impression that they prefer something more enterprisey
> there, like SuSE or RHEL.
> To complete the analogy with Fedora one needs to count all DDs who are on HPE
> payroll, I guess.

I am aware of two ex-HP Debian Developers; Bdale Garbee (who I think is probably
largely responsible for securing HP's support of Debian) (http://gag.com/bdale/)
and Keith Packard (https://keithp.com).

For clarity's sake I have absolutely no doubts as to their honesty and integrity.
They're both exemplary F/OSS folks IMHO (I've met Keith once and Bdale twice, I
think) and of huge value to the project.

> A quick search at [1] did not produce anything useful.

A search on email domain is never going to be particularly accurate. I don't
post from @redhat.com, for example. Instead, if people felt this was a concern,
perhaps a process for voluntarily "declaring an interest" could be worked out.

I should stress that I have no concerns about anyone I know, but in the
interests of transparency I would support the discussion and development of the
above. But that ball should probably start rolling on the debian-project list.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180882 — Debian contributor Register of Interests (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...)

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:12:47AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> if people felt this was a concern, perhaps a process for voluntarily
> "declaring an interest" could be worked out.
> 
> I should stress that I have no concerns about anyone I know, but in the
> interests of transparency I would support the discussion and development of
> the above. But that ball should probably start rolling on the debian-project
> list.

Just to report I've followed up on this, and created this page

	https://wiki.debian.org/RegisterOfInterests

and notified -project.


-- 
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ 
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180895 — Re: Debian contributor Register of Interests (was Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 03:56:37PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:12:47AM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> > if people felt this was a concern, perhaps a process for voluntarily
> > "declaring an interest" could be worked out.
> > 
> > I should stress that I have no concerns about anyone I know, but in the
> > interests of transparency I would support the discussion and development of
> > the above. But that ball should probably start rolling on the debian-project
> > list.
> 
> Just to report I've followed up on this, and created this page
> 
> 	https://wiki.debian.org/RegisterOfInterests
> 
> and notified -project.

Just to say that Debian rocks :-)

cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlkSEfkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbFxACfYPYs5gqbukolz7oeDo13ANsP
RngAniI23iwOjuL8OOZIm7+XdK1a/PJQ
=ktKf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180246

Reco:
> So, sooner or later, money come into play (aren't they always do?). The
> important thing here for me is 'who pays', not 'who gets paid'.

I mostly agree with your analysis but here I would add to the "who
pays", "why are they paying" and "what exactly are they paying for" ....
In most cases the last is so a (single), or a few corporations, can
control a market, a monopoly or oligopoly is founded, and in some cases
to be allowed to do so they have to serve "other interests" that are not
readily explained with financial interests alone.  The bad sometimes are
in silent synergy with the evil, but they can improve their image by
donating and sponsoring "the good".  Eventually the good end up
depending on this sponsorship for existence.  This is the ultimate
control and blackmail, and that justifies blindly serving the interests
of all evil.

> Reco

Yes, what are we to change things, but at least we should be able to
freely talk about it, in case a way is discovered.


-- 
 "The most violent element in society is ignorance" rEG

"Who died and made you the superuser?"  Brooklinux

"keep rocking in the non-free world" Neilznotyoung

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180257

On 19/04/17 02:34, Reco wrote:
> It's inevitable. Those who are paid for their work tend to align with
> employer's view of things. I don't see it as a Universally Bad Thing™,
> or The Source Of All Evil™. It's just the way things are.

This alignment is a natural human response and occurs without payment. I 
draw a parallel between paid employment and the Stockholm syndrome :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

See also the use of embedded journalism to subvert objectivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_journalism

Kind regards,

-- 
Ben Caradoc-Davies <ben@transient.nz>
Director
Transient Software Limited <http://transient.nz/>
New Zealand

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#179982

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 9 April 2017 at 21:15, Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 16:25:57 +0100 Michael Fothergill
> <michael.fothergill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 7 April 2017 at 19:27, David Niklas <doark@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On  Mon, 13 Mar 2017 12:30:11 -0700
> > > Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices.
> > > > So why at install time, is there no choice for the init system?
> > > > You get what the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new
> > > > one -- I've done it and it works -- but only after the install.
> > > > It'd be a lot easier, if there were a choice to begin with just
> > > > like whether you want a GUI and which one.
> > > >
> > > > Now, I know with LFS, you get to choose everything, etc.  But is a
> > > > choice of init at install time so outrageous that no one ever
> > > > considered it or is it technically unfeasible or something else.
> > > >
> > > > Just curious.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Because this reply is so late I'm CC'ing you off list.
> > >
> > > I sympathize, I run Gentoo Linux and us OpenRC. I plan on running
> > > Devuan, a Debain derivative that supports lots of different init
> > > systems. Why no one looks at their project and sees the people
> > > involved when making a statistic up for the amount of dissatisfied
> > > systemd users I don't know.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > ​I have been reading through some of this stuff and I think that the
> > debian users who are fans of the sysinit boot up scripts should
> > switch to running Gentoo.
> >
> > I use Gentoo with the openrc option.
>
> Gentoo is a rolling release.  I prefer the "stable" philosophy of Debian
> -- basically only bug and security fixes. I've been running Wheezy
> now for 5 years, and it's, for all practical purposes, the "same" as
> when I installed it.  After such a time, a rolling release would be a
> completely different animal versionwise.
>

​I see what you mean.  But I would say that once you get Gentoo set up you
can choose from the stable install, a testing type install version and a
more sid like version.

I use the stable option.  Furthermore, after a bit of work you end up with
a bang up to date kernel which updates and reuses the kernel config file
when you do a sync update to the portage tree with a newer stable kernel
from time to time as they are released.

In reality you do a sync update every three weeks and make sure you fix any
broken packages if you encounter any.  The community are good at helping
you with that problem.  That is the equivalent of the bug fixes and
security updates in debian.

If you use the binary package option you can create a set of binaries you
can use in other computers you have locally to maintain etc., assuming they
are using the same architecture ie compile once on the master box and run
everywhere on the other machines ie Gentoo on the master box and "DIY
debian" (sort of) on the clone boxes.

At least I think that's how it works if I understand it correctly.  I am
not sure, but maybe you could get away with not updating the binaries in
the clone boxes too often then that might create some extra stability and
low maintenance if you put some thought into it.

Just a thought.

Regards

MF
​



>
> I've tried rolling releases before.  They are usually cutting edge and
> more problematical (Unless they've gotten a lot better).  I want
> something that works for years and doesn't break. That's one of the
> reasons I chose Debian five years ago. Now, because of the systemd
> thing, I'm looking at alternatives.
>
> > Those who are OK with systemd should stick with Debian.
>
> After much reading, I consider systemd more suited to large, busy
> servers than a desktop box or notebook with just one user.  It's
> like being forced to use a huge tractor-trailer rig with lots of chrome
> and lights and 24 gears when a simple mini-van will do. ;-)
>
> B
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#180041

Maybe I started my explaining at the wrong end of the thread and I get
reactions on a personal level about what I am and whether I have the
right or reason to complaint.

So I'll start from scratch.

Let's say we have market players A B and C whose primary clients are
government agencies that have X-needs.  Then we have minute competitors
D E and F, and even more minute players who consult, write code to make
it all work, and abide by this market.  Due to their clientele ABC can
dump stuff on the market to keep DEF at the verge of destruction.  You
see if you know ahead of time that 30% of your production would be sold
at 200% profit, you can sell 70% at 0,01% profit.

Client-X has "needs" that must absolutely be met or there will be no
free lunch, as some 4x-billions spent on hardware that has a market
worth of x-billions.  To satisfy those needs A,B,C, have lots of
non-free work to do.  This work ends up everywhere on the non-free
market.  All a submissive puppet has to do is abide by the market rule.
"It is what puts bread on the table" and all submissive puppets bless
this bread.  Don't dare deny the blessings of the bread putter.

Now, let's say we need a complex hard to audit central "services"
controller to cover up (for some years at least) of all the dirty tricks
ABC have employed before some convicted felon running internationally
from the law blows some whistle and till that whistle is heard loud
enough to call this round of trickery off.  Then some virtuous
corporation comes out and says I blew that whistle, after the fact.

The "choice" of going cheap on ancient hardware is that you all knowing
expert "technical" but not "political" folk are really clueless of what
those non-free eight-core gadgets you port your code on contain.  It
would take years of testing and listening to identify where those
machines leak from.  Geewhiz, most of you can not even swear you can
tell what Ipv6 is all about, yet!   Do you have android anonymizing
systems and packages?  Tell that to their engineers that have leaked
that it is impossible to do so.  7billion people around earth have self
imposed a gps chip and monitoring system in their pocket 24hrs a day.
Even government and corporate servers are suspect of leaking stuff.  It
is a "heartbleeding" situation.

Now, is systemd a step on the right or the wrong direction in auditing
security?  What do security minded experts say and how did their project
leaders vote?  Don't listen to them, they are always paranoid, they like
morse radio code.

I arrest my case your honors, and I will take the rest of my science
fiction scenario elsewhere, but if I wanted lubuntu or gentoo or devuan
I would have been there long ago.  It just so happens that torproject,
tails, among other good projects are in bed with debian not antiX and
other systems.

After all, to say "I am a technical guy not a political one" is a very
politically loaded statement.  Dr Strangelove was a technical guy, not
political at all.  It is those types you have to watch out for.

kAt

-- 
 "The most violent element in society is ignorance" rEG

"Who died and made you the superuser?"  Brooklinux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web