This seems to be a problem of the wrong form of code ownership. Currently Debian seems to use strong code ownership with no guarantee that the code owners ("maintainers") have to be available. There are plenty of other models and the project probably has to find a way to change to one of them. The biggest problem is that normally the best person to fix software is a person who actually has the problem and is an expert in the languages and modules being used. In the rare case when such a person is available, making it difficult for them to contribute will be a massive loss.
I read the article, and he did touch on the endemic issue I've run into of "that patch didn't come from us, so it's rejected (or ignored)".
This is a bit problematic. There are actual real legal reasons for this in cases (if you don't know who wrote it you don't know for sure you have 100% rights to it) as well as a general wish to get things to work in a particular way. It's much better if, instead of rejection by a person, the maintainer can set up automatic rejection based on a script (for example based on wrong formatting / unwanted includes etc). Debian has specific experience in it's ssh system with the risks of patches and probably wants to increase, not reduce quality. Generally though, a project like Debian is never going to advance if it doesn't find a way to get most patches accepted quicky.
It's not the private companies that are a threat. It's government..
The private companies sell to the government. They don't even have to tell you or agree that with you. In fact, even if they wanted to they couldn't.
I have control over who I do business with.
But no way of knowing who the people I do business with do business with unless regulations force them to tell me. That's what matters.
I don't do business with Facebook,
No, but Facebook does business with you. Look up "shadow profiles". Read "Data and Goliath" from Bruce Schneier. After you come back, appropriately chastened, we'll talk further.
I always found it strange to use an Ubuntu server. Whilst it's okay, and often better than most BSD or other systems, it's not as stable as RedHat. So why so many Ubuntu servers? It's simple: that's what the developers are using. Linus is, as occasionally happens, spot on with this one. If you can't get exactly the same set up locally there's always going to be the odd really difficult debugging case that just takes you too much time to justify.
The solution is obvious: start providing ARM Linux laptops with very similar processors to the ones used in servers. I'll buy a few myself.
someone attempts to put the effort in to write a specific useful post about a subject you don't understand and this is how you respond. Wonderful.
You spent more time writing this stupid post of yours than you did actually reading the article.
And probably more time reading spam than reading useful emails. The article reads like a letter from the 1980s when spam didn't exist. Suggestions like "set up an autoresponder" are strictly for the ignorant who have never seriously used email. Expectation that people will effectively respond to all emails are for people who have never had their email address published. The article was 100% about spam, or more specifically, calling out people who have to deal with serious spam problems from a position of total ignorance.
Due to spam, if you want your email to be read then you _have_ to verify separately that it's received. You do this via whatever other channel the recipient has agreed with you, for example an instant messenger. Every sending of an email is a serious event and should be done only with due care and consideration for the recipient. The person writing this article is a boor in a china shop.
They matket an add-on to helpit scale and they offer PostgreSQL as SaaS.
Relax;
Apple did not "own" BSD. They still managed to completely dominate the BSD desktop market to the extent nobody even thinks of it as BSD. PostgreSQL has weak licensing and so their community is vulnerable to commercial takeover.
Slashdot Mirror
I read the article, and he did touch on the endemic issue I've run into of "that patch didn't come from us, so it's rejected (or ignored)".
This is a bit problematic. There are actual real legal reasons for this in cases (if you don't know who wrote it you don't know for sure you have 100% rights to it) as well as a general wish to get things to work in a particular way. It's much better if, instead of rejection by a person, the maintainer can set up automatic rejection based on a script (for example based on wrong formatting / unwanted includes etc). Debian has specific experience in it's ssh system with the risks of patches and probably wants to increase, not reduce quality. Generally though, a project like Debian is never going to advance if it doesn't find a way to get most patches accepted quicky.
It's not the private companies that are a threat. It's government. .
The private companies sell to the government. They don't even have to tell you or agree that with you. In fact, even if they wanted to they couldn't.
I have control over who I do business with .
But no way of knowing who the people I do business with do business with unless regulations force them to tell me. That's what matters.
I don't do business with Facebook,
No, but Facebook does business with you. Look up "shadow profiles". Read "Data and Goliath" from Bruce Schneier. After you come back, appropriately chastened, we'll talk further.
I always found it strange to use an Ubuntu server. Whilst it's okay, and often better than most BSD or other systems, it's not as stable as RedHat. So why so many Ubuntu servers? It's simple: that's what the developers are using. Linus is, as occasionally happens, spot on with this one. If you can't get exactly the same set up locally there's always going to be the odd really difficult debugging case that just takes you too much time to justify. The solution is obvious: start providing ARM Linux laptops with very similar processors to the ones used in servers. I'll buy a few myself.
I don't understand people who can't respond to email. What kind of emails are they getting that are so hard?
just because your life is easy doesn't mean everyone else has an easy life.
This article wasn't about spam, you dingus.
someone attempts to put the effort in to write a specific useful post about a subject you don't understand and this is how you respond. Wonderful.
You spent more time writing this stupid post of yours than you did actually reading the article.
And probably more time reading spam than reading useful emails. The article reads like a letter from the 1980s when spam didn't exist. Suggestions like "set up an autoresponder" are strictly for the ignorant who have never seriously used email. Expectation that people will effectively respond to all emails are for people who have never had their email address published. The article was 100% about spam, or more specifically, calling out people who have to deal with serious spam problems from a position of total ignorance. Due to spam, if you want your email to be read then you _have_ to verify separately that it's received. You do this via whatever other channel the recipient has agreed with you, for example an instant messenger. Every sending of an email is a serious event and should be done only with due care and consideration for the recipient. The person writing this article is a boor in a china shop.
They matket an add-on to helpit scale and they offer PostgreSQL as SaaS.
Relax;
Apple did not "own" BSD. They still managed to completely dominate the BSD desktop market to the extent nobody even thinks of it as BSD. PostgreSQL has weak licensing and so their community is vulnerable to commercial takeover.