I do not use Debian. I have Ubuntu on a laptop to support my user base who use Debian, but I run ArchLinux, Fedora, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OSX on all my other computers and servers. I also don't make money on these systems, or I pay for them, and I contribute back extensively. So don't compare me to the likes of Meebo and Twitter.

I also consider Debian to be exactly like these companies who take my work, butcher it, then pass the support costs and blame on to me. Considering I am a prolific contributor to the open source cause, and I've never butchered a Debian package when they've butchered my software, I'm completely justified in criticizing them for their actions.

It seems to me that distro packagers help lower the barrier to entry for would-be open-source developers. Even if your autoconf-based, or pkgconfig-based, or cpan-based, or gems-based project only builds half the time (the "works for me" release model), distro packagers (Debian included) make sure it builds and works for a large user base and on architectures the upstream developer might not have access to.

Respectfully, it is better not to criticize open source developers and maintainers publicly if you want more/better open source software. Everyone gets frustrated and at a certain point people take their toys and go home.

Criticism is fine, as long as it's respectful and constructive, which were two things that were in very short supply in Zed's Debian rant.

Also, Zed writes:

> I also don't make money on these systems, or I pay for them, and I contribute back extensively. So don't compare me to the likes of Meebo and Twitter.

Debian makes no money on its systems, and contributes back extensively too in many cases. So comparing it to the likes of Microsoft and asking for people to "attack" it was really uncalled for.

The article in question: http://sheddingbikes.com/posts/1285659877.html