"At a recent Australian Linux conference, Sam Varghese reported that two Debian developers pointed out that the Debian Project needs more corporate support for 'men, money and machines' to advance the operating system. They're right. It does. They also pointed out that many companies, such as HP, IBM, Silicon Graphics and Google, either use Debian Linux internally, or actually incorporate it into products. For example, HP uses Debian 'Etch' 4.0 in its new t5735 thin-client device. Right again. Debian, either directly or through related Linux distributions such as Xandros, is used both by Linux enthusiasts and Fortune 500 companies. Of course, you couldn't prove that by the vast majority of Debian developers who never see a thin dime from their Debian work. Or, I should add, get access to new hardware, travel expenses to Debian developer conferences and so on."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
especially the comment about "iceweasel". Allow me to ask: Sir, are you a moron?
Hmmmmm. So the robust defence of Debian's idiotic decisions starts. Allow me to re-phrase what you've written below in a way that shows just what kind of a twit you are if you believe this, and just how idiotic this was:
So Debian decided to fork Firefox, diverging the code in ways that doesn't make it Firefox, because they think they know more about the code and security of Firefox than the Firefox developers do?!
Bugger me. That's quite an assumption and quite an ego trip.
I mean hell. Why don't they fork Gnome, or Apache or any of the other bits of open source software they package? Because, of course, we can trust the Debian developers to know more about the security of various open source applications than the developers of those applications themselves.
The reason why Debian isn't trusted in corporate settings is because you can't arbitrarily change code like that for reasons that are of no concern to an end user at all. The integrity of applications is everything. Either the application works in the general way that the upstream maintainers intended, or it doesn't work at all.
Re-read tha last couple of paragraphs above that I wrote, and you will realise how awaaaaaay with the fairies you are if you believe this to be the correct way to run things.
Member since:2006-03-23
" Hmmmmm. So the robust defence of Debian's idiotic decisions starts. Allow me to re-phrase what you've written below in a way that shows just what kind of a twit you are if you believe this, and just how idiotic this was"
i think you will find that you are the idiotic one, your arguments are totally a lie, or at the very least, not correct.
" So Debian decided to fork Firefox, diverging the code in ways that doesn't make it Firefox, because they think they know more about the code and security of Firefox than the Firefox developers do?!"
yeah, they forked it about as much as any other distribution that adds security fixes themselves do. Since you are incapable of finding the facts yourself, i will now give them to you(arent i generous?) since firefox wouldnt allow debian to patch security fixes themselves, without waiting for them to be approved, they were not ALLOWED to call it firefox. So debian had a choice: wait with getting fixes out to users, or rebrand it.
it is NOT a fork, its simply a rebranding, and security fixes.
" Bugger me. That's quite an assumption and quite an ego trip. "
i wonder who is the egoistic one? them or you? you didnt even bother checking if your moronic clueless understanding of events were correct.
"I mean hell. Why don't they fork Gnome, or Apache or any of the other bits of open source software they package? Because, of course, we can trust the Debian developers to know more about the security of various open source applications than the developers of those applications themselves. "
they do the same thing to those projects as to firefox, well, except for branding, as they were only FORCED to rebrand firefox, apache and gnome are more sensible than this.
"The reason why Debian isn't trusted in corporate settings is because you can't arbitrarily change code like that for reasons that are of no concern to an end user at all. The integrity of applications is everything. Either the application works in the general way that the upstream maintainers intended, or it doesn't work at all."
erhm, no. Firefox is not INTENDED to have security bugs by the authors, Debian merely wants to patch these. However, firefox/mozilla must approve those fixes before they are shipped, or debian can not call it firefox. Debian chooses to get security fixes out to the people, you call them stupid. Security isnt of concern for users? well.. speak for yourself.
"Re-read tha last couple of paragraphs above that I wrote, and you will realise how awaaaaaay with the fairies you are if you believe this to be the correct way to run things." If you think for a second that its more important firefox renders some webpage a specific way, than protecting against security flaws, you are a nutjob, and shouldnt be allowed an uplink to the internet. besides, i dont quite think the fixes debian makes have these side effects, but if they do, well, boo hoo.
Member since:
2006-03-23
you are talking about things you do not understand.
especially the comment about "iceweasel". Allow me to ask: Sir, are you a moron?
now let me sum what you are saying up:
"You cannot trust a distribution, which is so lunatic about the security of its users, that they would go to all the trouble of rebranding a package, in order to legally distribute security fixes as soon as its fixed, instead of waiting.."
did you really mean this? or are you just speaking about stuff you know nothing about? either way, both are bad, so stop doing it, you are only embarrasing yourself.