| 1 |
Am 20.10.2013 12:52, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
| 2 |
> On 10/20/2013 04:24 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Am 20.10.2013 08:34, schrieb Daniel Campbell: |
| 4 |
>>> hm, Redhat is one of the companies investing the most money into linux |
| 5 |
>>> kernel, userland, graphics... if you 'don't trust them' you are pretty |
| 6 |
>>> much 20 years too late. |
| 7 |
>>> Investing money does not make them any more qualified or deserving of |
| 8 |
>>> making decisions. Red Hat is not the sole user of Linux. They should |
| 9 |
>>> consider themselves lucky that they are even able to profit from |
| 10 |
>>> something that's free. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>>> You're right, though. They've been around for a while, and I've never |
| 13 |
>>> trusted them or any other corporate interest in *nix. There's always a |
| 14 |
>>> catch when dealing with a business. |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>> 'have been around for a while' - replace that with 'are financing more |
| 17 |
>> core developers than anybody else'. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> That's less reason to trust, not more. That's like citing the popularity |
| 20 |
> of something as proof of its quality, when oftentimes it's the exact |
| 21 |
> opposite that's true. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> So they spend a lot of money hiring developers. The more important |
| 24 |
> question is what is their agenda? What do they tell those developers to |
| 25 |
> *make*? You don't hire people without a business plan in mind. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
without Redhat, there would be no linux. gnu software would be massively |
| 29 |
lacking and X would be without drivers. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
So calm down. |
Archives