...particularly when it has nothing to do with the phenomenon in\r\nquestion.

I and several folks around here (Brandi, Drook, Tilly) have been\r\nusing Debian for a long time, largely because we stumbled across\r\nit...and it worked. Very well.

Some of us (/me raises hand) have been vocal in advocating that\r\npeople at least try Debian -- install it and try running it for\r\na few days, adding and removing packages -- before talking shit about\r\nit. The folks who've picked up Debian since (Peter, Scott A, Greg,\r\nMeerkat, others[1]), have all done this. The\r\nencouragement has simply been to give it an honest try. The response\r\nsince is based on the experience, Ross.

\r\n

Linux is Linux - who the hell cares how it gets on your machine?

\r\n

Hell, a computer is a computer. It's the same CPU, RAM, and storage,\r\nregardless of whether it's running GNU/Linux, *BSD, OS/2, or legacy MS\r\nWindows. Who the hell cares what you put on it?

Ross: 98% of GNU/Linux distros are identical. So is 98% of the DNA\r\nbetween you and an ape. That 2% delta makes for a hell of a\r\ndifference. Dittos for Debian.

\r\n

Yet instead of voting for a decent commercial distribution with your\r\ndollars, you all act as if it's some badge of honor to eat free lunch - to\r\nessentially take from the labors of others and return nothing. BTW, if this\r\npride comes from understanding the technical issues, then it's doubly\r\nmisplaced. I understand the tech issues as well as you do, and take no\r\nmisplaced pride from my ability to read and follow instructions.

\r\n

Several points here, Ross:

\r\n\r\n
1. Most of use use what we use (Debian, GNU/Linux, legacy MS Windows,\r\nMac, otherwise) because it does what we expect it to do, and it's more\r\nor less Good Enough. I don't believe there's anyone here using Debian\r\nwho hasn't tried at least one other GNU/Linux distro (I've\r\nused/run/adminned/installed RH, Turbo, SuSE, Mandrake, and Caldera), as\r\nwell as other free (FreeBSD, OpenBSD) and proprietary (SunOS, Solaris,\r\nHP/UX, Irix, NCR SysV) 'Nix, and sundry other platforms (VMS, MVS, Mac,\r\nlegacy MS Windows 3.11 - XP, DOS, Commodore 64, TRS-80....). I don't\r\nknow about you, but I make an effort to crawl out of my shell and try\r\nnew things from time to time. If I like 'em, I stick with 'em. If I\r\ndon't, there's little lost.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
2. "I understand the tech issues..." Best I can tell, you haven't\r\nactually used, installed, or maintained a\r\nDebian system. If this is true, you're talking shit. If it's not,\r\nplease correct me.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
3. Based on the comparative experience I have, summarized above, Debian\r\nis technically superior to any other OS I've had the displeasure of\r\nadministrating. It behaves sanely, does what I tell it to do (unless\r\nwhat I tell it to do would hurt me, in which case it asks me if I would,\r\nreally sir, insist on shooting myself in the foot, and lets me if I so\r\nchoose), documents itself well, and has a shitload of available\r\nsoftware, of which the required install set is still quite\r\nthin. Result: I can configure a system tailored to a specific need,\r\nreadily, with no extra cruft -- and can, at any later time, reconfigure\r\nit as needed with very little pain.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
4. Economics #1: your commercial GNU/Linux distribution cost doesn't\r\nreflect the total production cost of the software included, but only the\r\npackaging, marketing, and localized development (specific to the\r\ndistribution itself) costs. Granted these are real costs, and that\r\nseveral of the larger vendors (RH, SuSE, Caldera) have funded external\r\ndevelopment. But the bulk of development costs are externalized.\r\nGNU/Linux and free software development are in large part an\r\nexternalities-benefits capture mechanism. Debian extends the concept to\r\nthe packaging system, it's otherwise largely similar to commercial\r\ndistros. Note that if you want to pay for Debian ISOs, you can through\r\none of the standard GNU/Linux ISO resellers (CheapBytes, LinuxCentral,\r\netc.). You can even patronize one of the commercial Debian distros:\r\nLibranet, Xandros, Lindows, Progeny.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
5. Economics #2: The Debian model -- policy, a distributed package\r\nrepository, apt-get, an open bugtracking system, and incremental\r\nupgrades -- are largely a function of the needs of a community\r\ndevelopment effort. That is: users and developers across with a wide\r\ngeographic dispersion, varying access methods and speeds (from\r\nsneakernet to modem to broadband). There are compelling financial and\r\nbusiness reasons to not make such features available. When\r\nthey are, as in Red Hat Network, they are limited to single-use for\r\nhobbyists -- sufficient to keep a reasonable user base, but not to make\r\nthings easy for the organization with a multiple systems to maintain,\r\nwithout pitching in financially. This is just one example of what I see\r\nas a pervasive feature of information technology: the field is highly\r\nsensitive to business models creating structures opposed to user\r\ninterests. Microsoft's own policies are another example of this. I'm\r\nbecoming far more, rather than less, convinced that IT works far better\r\nwhen there are indirect, rather than direct, linkages between production\r\nand remuneration, at least in aggregate.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
6. Economics #3: Free beer matters. The IT industry is currently in a\r\nhell of a pit, largely because the biggest, baddest player gets to call\r\nthe shots for all others, using pricing as both a weapon (undercut the\r\ncompetition) and a tool (fund forays into new areas). By dropping the\r\npricing floor to zero, GNU/Linux and free software finds Microsoft's\r\nAchilles' heel. We have a legitimate distribution channel which can\r\naccomodate marginal cost of production (media, duplication, and\r\ndistribution), or simply sharing among users. The economics of\r\ndeveloper compensation are independent, and so long as they can be\r\nmaintained, free software trumps proprietary on a cost basis,\r\nregardless. It also undercuts costs. This is the key point I\r\nidentified in my [link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/Rants/piracy.html|software piracy\r\nessay] many moons ago. Fromm the news out of Redmond, the reality\r\nappears to be hitting home. Remember that MSFT has two franchises from\r\nwhich it extracts 85% profit. But these are the only two\r\noperational activities in which it is profitable, a relatively thin\r\nbusiness foundation, regardless of its size. Once the cracks start,\r\nfailure is a certainty.
   
   
\r\n\r\n
7. "Misplaced pride..." Try it before talking shit about it, Ross.\r\nThe British Army issued one cut of boot -- no lefts or rights -- to its\r\ntroops on this same principle, and seemed to benefit about as\r\nmuch.
   
   
\r\n\r\n

\r\n

I'll stick with SuSE, I'll support them at the cash register, and let the\r\nmob move on by. Mobs make me shudder.

\r\n

Whatever. *shrug*

--------------------

Notes:

\r\n
• You know who you are. And yes, you, *shun*.
\r\n

Edits: typos, minor corrections, and Economics #3.