The Debian developers for whom we have statistics are the people who put together Debian. But there is a lot of overlap most Debian packages are maintained by someone closely associated with the group that writes the software that words on Debian.

Originally we were talking about some fairly mundane features. You aren't. You are talking about stuff that really is fairly complex, I'd say more SaaS than IaaS/PaaS.

Site Recovery is an Azure public cloud recovery solution. If I'm running a private copy of Azure then either:

a) I want to recover to the public Azure in which case Microsoft's Site Recovery works fine
b) I want to recover to another private data center in which I want to use a clustering / replication strategy.

AzureAD requires contracts and 3rd party access to work. I imagine Microsoft could give away the management solution but it wouldn't connect to anything.

I don't really see the problem. Having a private Azure and then having Microsoft manage something like my connections to 3rd party SaaS providers doesn't really give them access to much except central access to employee accounts, and those could be hashed to be worthless.

Absolutely I agree that private Azure isn't 100% the same as public but mostly the advantages are on the private side.

To build any good model you want a dev set, a test set and a blind sets. Azure should split the data out by default.

Did Bing suck. I did the Bing vs. Google head to head test about 18 month back a few times. (looks like it might still be online at: http://www.bingiton.com/ And I most typically scored 3-Google, 2-Bing with often Bing having some interesting results Google didn't have. For example Bing tends to do better in hitting a better diversity of current information. Bing may be a bit behind possibly and I'm not even comfortable saying that, but sucks no.

For example: where can I get a copy of SkyDrive/OneDrive/whatever which I can run on my own systems ?

SharePoint will do that.
For that matter you can run the entire Azure suite in your private location: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...

ultimately price didn't matter since OEM licenses for Windows were so cheap that people wouldn't even notice the cost built in to the PC

Exactly! That was unexpected. The assumption had been that the Windows license would be around $150-300 where there would be some room to compete on price. The fact that Microsoft went even cheaper than their standard pricing for netbooks was just devastating to Linux on the desktop.

always been a lot of development going on it hasn't been particularly unified so there is a lot of duplicated effort in order to do a bunch of things in slightly different ways.

Quite true. The diversity has allowed the Linux community to experiment and bounce back from failures. But it has also been tremendously taxing on a limited developer base.

I'm not sure if I see the employment requirement. I know for a fact that the enterprise SDK is usable for 1099s and not just W2s. Moreover even if true, the FSF could just ask Apple and get an exemption for themselves. Apple has a long track record of having strict rules and then exempting on a case by case basis where they believed it was good for the ecosystem.

The disruptive aspect of it was supposed to be "freedom"

Actually no. The disruptive aspect was supposed to be price and pace of development. The assumption was that given Microsoft dominant position they would use it to raise prices sharply and grow revenue and margins not focus on almost monopolistic marketshare. In other words do on the desktop something much more similar to what they did on server. And then like server Linux would be a cheaper alternative.

Similar this low price strategy meant they didn't have to stratify. Microsoft's with XP was able to unifying their much more robust commercial OS (Win NT 4.0 / 2000) with their terrible home / small business OS (Win 95, 98, ME). They then were able to advance quickly in areas like programming languages (Visual Basic, C#) and create a robust and friendly development platform. They were more successful with web (IE 3.0, 4.0, 4.5)...

In other words in places where Microsoft could have tripped they didn't. Also there was a tendency to underestimate how far ahead Microsoft was on areas like Office Suites so even with FreeSoftware improving at 150-250% of the speed that Office was the number of years required to catch up and overtake was too high.

___

Freedom was generally seen as a means to achieve collaboration and cooperation. It the server space it did. In the desktop space it did but even with collaboration and cooperation Microsoft still outpaced the FreeSoftware community.

I don't get the FSF on this

iOS is the epitome of everything we need to avoid to have a free society: a single gatekeeper who claims it is illegal for you to even install software they don't approve on your own device.

The FSF could rectify this easily by running their own enterprise server: https://developer.apple.com/pr... for iOS. Then they let people point at their servers and not Apple's (or in addition to Apple's). It could be as open or as closed as they want it to be. Why year after year after year complain about this problem when you could just fix it?

I've liked the FSF since about 1990 but as a public interest lobby lying doesn't help your cause. I don't get even if they don't want to fix it why they can't accurately describe the situation with iOS.

I lost you. You were asking for statistics and I was saying that we have statistics for Debian Developers. Now you are asking for names, names of who for what?

Alfresco is much more serious than what's he asking for. That's a step up from SharePoint. A typical use case would be: company X wants legal to be able to access documents by different dimensions than how they were generated...

It is built into SharePoint / Office the same way if everything is configured right.

It is. That was sloppy on part I was mainly making the point that systemd does quite a bit more than initialize and shutdown.

    At least on Gentoo OpenRC uses the /etc/init.d directories.

That's just not true. Debian stable is probably on par with RHEL. It certainly was slower than many of the others that were more fluid.

Anyway you don't really have a point. You are just spouting insults.

Wow are you paranoid! "OpenRC was a good idea, it truly was init.d version 3.0" is my devious plot to discourage people from trying OpenRC?

OpenRC is not keeping up with systemd. As a replacement for initd it is doing fine. That's just not terribly relevant long term because upstream is creating systemd dependencies. Whether a few thousand people do or do not use OpenRC doesn't change that.