Forget this idea of a company that produces yet another fucking distro with just enough changes so its not 100% compatible with whatever it's forked from, and then charge for support.
How about a company that simply sells support services for an existing, community owned distro like Debian. If it makes sense for that company to donate to the Debian project, and/or hire staff to contribute to Debian packages to improve them, thats great too.
It's quite likely there are companies providing the type of thing Im talking about already - I haven't really looked.
My point was more that this is the type of thing people/companies should be looking for in a Linux support contract, rather than another "services" company rolling it's own Linux distro so they can lock customers in with incompatibility.
Way to quote by stripping away the context. Have you not been paying attention too? To things like history of Crimea or its geographical location, for example?
The question remains - what will invading Ukraine, strapped in debt and with nothing to offer, give the invaders to be? The brainless hysteria surrounding this situation is absolutely ridiculous. It's twice as ridiculous if you'd remember that Russians and Ukrainians generally treat each other as close relatives. Annoying at times, but still same blood basically. There are radical nationalists on both sides, but that's marginal. Just look at how Ukrainian team was welcomed at the Olympics - with an ovation. And how things were unfolding in Crimea - with flash-bang grenades and blanks.
It's not about Russia threatening Ukraine. It's about Russia paying back US and EU for stirring shit in Ukraine to drive it away from Russia. This is all macro-political. Ukraine is just a casualty caught in a cross-fire.
Have I been paying attention? Yes, I have been. Have you though?
> To things like history of Crimea or its geographical location, for example?
If history and geography trump the current citizens and laws, then the yanks should all fuck off back where they came from and leave it to the native americans and the mexicans, no?
> Have you though?
Enough to realise that something is fishy.
Russian troops invaded crimea, surrounded the Ukrainian military bases, and then declared it was all "legit" because a referendum had 96% voting in favour of joining Russia, despite polls from previous years showing 34% support.
All but 2 members of the UN Security Council voted to declare the referendum invalid - it was only defeated because Russia has veto power.
Your argument is that Russia doesn't get anything out of this. Like Putin is a completely rational guy who does shit because it makes sense, rather than because he's a whack job who pines for the "glory" of the USSR.
Yeah, that's just some guy on US government payroll pulling numbers from thin air and an Ukrainian politician quoting some other guy who said this and that. That's not "polls from previous years showing 34% support" as you put it.
Bottom line is that Crimea is massively pro-Russian. Unlike you I've actually been there multiple times and have friends who still live there. The overall sentiment has always been that Khrushev was an idiot to detach Crimea from Russia and "gift" it to Ukraine in the 50s. That 97% looks pretty damn close to the reality. If you are interested in this, take a look at BBC coverage of the referendum. The turnout and voting numbers were in fact all legit and no one was going to the voting booths under a gunpoint.
> If you are interested in this, take a look at BBC coverage of the referendum
They quoted a single woman who claimed the Ukrainian government are nazis. Sounds legit.
> have friends who still live there. The overall sentiment
I lived in Australia for 29 years and everyone I know thinks Tony Abbot is a fucking idiot, so he must have rigged the election, right? How many of the 2 million Crimean people do you know well enough to have had discussions about their thoughts on Russia? Anything over a million and you're probably safe.
> The turnout and voting numbers were in fact all legit and no one was going to the voting booths under a gunpoint.
a) facts have to be proven. b) who says you need a gun to rig a poll?
Apart from being illegal according to their own constitution, the referendum gave no option to maintain the status quo - only to become part of Russia, or to become independent. That sounds amazingly legit.
A Russian citizen in Crimea on a one year visa was allowed to vote, which is illegal. There are confirmed reports of people having their identification confiscated before they could vote.
Add to this - Russia invited "observers" to validate the legitimacy of the vote. The leader of the group invited to observe is a Neo Nazi and Adolf Hitler admirer. The "observers" from the group were a Frenchman, a Spaniard and a Hungarian. All three are former members of neo-Nazi parties, and currently members of far-right-wing political parties. Still legit though right?
And of course every country on the UN security council except China and Russia must be just saying it's illegal and illegitimate for shits and giggles, not because of any evidence.
> Crimea agreed after the fact that the Russians were merely securing their own territory, correct?
Those are the results announced by Russia immediately after their military invasion, yes.
It doesn't mean those are the actual results, that the voting was actually done by "the Crimeans", or that the voting was free or fair. 
> If so, then there was no invasion.
No, even if the people of the invaded part of the Ukraine actually agreed after-the-fact, Russia unauthorized intrusion with military forces into what Russia had previously by treaties (in which it also agreed to respect and guarantee the soveriegnty and territorial integrity of the Ukraine, as part of a deal wherein the Ukraine gave up the former Soviet nuclear weapons on its territory) agreed was Ukrainian territory would still be an invasion. It doesn't retroactively become "not an invasion" based on events after the invasion occurs.
> If the Crimeans had voted no, would Russia still be there?
> If the Crimeans had voted no, would Russia still be there?
Do you actually believe that, or are you simply posting here as part of your job?
You have absolutely no clue as to what a free election is if you believe that 97% of the people in Crimea voted to join Russia. I won't even bother posting any details as to the wording of the ballot, or as to all the Russian slanted propaganda prior to the vote. 97% votes only happen in "People's Republics".
Putin and his kleptocrat buddies (nee oligarchs) are busy looting Russia. Hope you're getting your share.
http://zonomi.com may be useful for the "i have a domain but don't want to DIY a DynDNS replacement" crowd. A single zone with up to 10 records can be hosted for free, and one of the features is a simeple GET based update API for DynDNS style operation.
I don't like this idea. Any strong disagreement by one side could reasonably be called intolerance by there other. And then where does it end? Tolerating other people, even when they act in a way contradictory to your own moral convictions is the definition of tolerance.
What Eich did was not illegal. It was disagreeable to many. But tolerant people would chose instead to strive the more for their position without directly attacking him and his career. That is what the intolerant do. Intolerance says "I disagree with your actions and your thoughts therefore I must prevent you from having any power or influence in our society." Tolerance says, "I disagree with your thoughts and actions, therefore I will work to persuade you otherwise. Failing that I will find a way to coexist with you, despite our disagreements. We will build a society that that respects the differences, and protects the weak from abuse by the strong, regardless of their beliefs."
I think we're up to 59% pro as of now, with broad demographic trends pointing toward further shrinkage of the anti-group above and beyond the natural attrition that comes from it no longer being comfortable to express bigoted views.
==> jokes aside, they are pulling in a very different direction from the one of the core PHP devs... this alone makes me expect less from the entire PHP system as a whole. They just made the PHP equivalent of Perl 6 vs Perl 5. But at least they are using their "Perl 6" and it works fine for them.
If we could at least start to see shared hosts offering support for Hack and XHP it would seem more hopeful. (btw, you think PHP devs would like this? I was kinda pondering over it as a business idea...)
> they are pulling in a very different direction from the one of the core PHP devs
when a sole company creates its own modified "version" of an existing language, and that company has a stated motto of "move fast and break things" why would you possibly trust them to maintain any features/compatibility longer than they themselves see a use for it?