[ale] Canonical makes Apple look so good...

Tue Mar 8 19:37:17 EST 2011

On 3/8/2011 7:14 PM, Dan Lambert wrote:
> I am amazed at this group sometimes.

Agreed.

>
> Virtually every commercial entity that is mentioned on here is 
> vilified and criticized to the extreme. If any of them don't meet the 
> expectations of this group in every regard, they are instantly put on 
> par with the most despised corporations on the planet.
>
> I understand and appreciate the superior efforts of FOSS devotees, and 
> am particularly impressed by the Debian team of developers, and their 
> contributions to the open source community.
>
> I want to remind everyone of the fact that BUSINESSES are in BUSINESS 
> to make a PROFIT. They are not charities, and some (most) of them use 
> any opportunity possible to extract a small percentage of profit from 
> every aspect they can.
>
> If any of you are in the management of, or own a corporation, you are 
> fully aware of the need to make a profit, or you go out of business.
>
> If any of you want to blast me for my position, go ahead. I work for 
> one of those evil FOR PROFIT businesses. It's kept my family fed, and 
> put my children through school. I used to own my own business, and I 
> can tell you for a fact that working in the corporate world is a hell 
> of a lot easier, because I don't have to worry about how to meet 
> payroll, or how to eke enough profit out to pay my own bills.
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:59 -0500, Tim Watts wrote:
>> You go to a small public beech one sunny day with your beech chair under
>> arm looking for a nice spot. You find it, open your chair there and head
>> back to your car for the rest of your stuff. Upon return, you find one
>> Mr. Shuttleworth&  Co. has replaced your chair with his and moved yours
>> 3 feet from the tide...
>>
>> Not to worry, I'm sure Canonical will put the money to good use funding
>> Unity.</half-snark>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:28 -0500, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>> >  On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 17:07 -0500, Jim Kinney wrote:
>> >  >  On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Michael B. Trausch<mike at trausch.us  <mailto:mike at trausch.us>>  wrote:
>> >  >  >  What Canonical is doing is ethically wrong and is the level of crap I'd
>> >  >  >  expect to see from a politician, not someone who claims to care about
>> >  >  >  the free software ecosystem(s).
>> >  >
>> >  >  I think you hit the nail on the head. Cannonical is NOT about the free
>> >  >  software ecosystem. Cannonical is as much of a corporate leech as
>> >  >  Oracle.
>> >  >
>> >  >  They have always been that way.
>> >
>> >  Perhaps I'm just young, dumb, and naïve; I've seen them as pretty stupid
>> >  sometimes, I've certainly noted their lack of (direct) upstream
>> >  contributions (though they do seem to go out of their way to "launder"
>> >  them through Debian at times), but up until now I've never seen them as
>> >  a truly harmful entity.
>> >
>> >  Now I'm convinced that they need to be ejected from our universe, though
>> >  I suppose that's as useless a statement as any.  It's not like I have
>> >  the power to effect that change.  That's probably a good thing.
>> >
>> >  >  SuSE used to distribute their distro with a closed-source installer.
>> >  >  Thus I quit even tinkering with their stuff. They saw the light,
>> >  >  opened the code and make themselves some serious geek cred hacking
>> >  >  video drivers for X. That was an (almost) excusable infraction.
>> >  >
>> >  >  But to change the affiliate code on software you get to use for free
>> >  >  so the developers get cut out of a few nickles to feed their
>> >  >  caffeine/music habits shows a serious (in my mind) lack of ethics.
>> >
>> >  If only it was to feed their caffeine and music habits.  They were
>> >  donating it all to GNOME.  Nevermind that: it's just as wrong either
>> >  way.
>> >
>> >  I've never really thought that there would ever be a time where I would
>> >  think of a license revocation clause as a good thing, but I'm starting
>> >  to think that it would be.  I know that if I were the people behind
>> >  Banshee, I'd be absolutely livid.  Hell, I'm livid as it is.
>> >
>> >  Of course, they have no grounds to sue, they have no method by which to
>> >  revoke the license to Canonical, and they have no means by which to get
>> >  their (well-deserved!) money without convincing everyone to install
>> >  their own packaged version.  Leaves a nasty, nasty taste in my mouth.
>> >  Just like politicians do.  Nasty.
>> >
>> >  Ubuntu 11.04: The Nasty Nabber.
>> >
>> >  	--- Mike
>> >
>> >  _______________________________________________
>> >  Ale mailing list
>> >  Ale at ale.org  <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> >  http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> >  See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> >  http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org  <mailto:Ale at ale.org>
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
Damon at damtek.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20110308/fb7078f6/attachment-0001.html 