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

[Michael B. Trausch]

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 19:14 -0500, Dan Lambert wrote:
> I am amazed at this group sometimes.
> 
> 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 can't speak for others, but that is hardly my position; I'm just of
the position that for-profits need not take money out of the pockets of
non-profits.  Just because an entity is a non-profit does not mean that
it is fit to have money pulled from its pockets by some for-profit
somewhere.

> 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.

And that they should, so long as it's not stepping on the toes (or
indeed, plainly kicking to the curb) some other entity, for-profit,
non-profit, individual, or otherwise.  Even in business, there are
ethical considerations.  Being a for-profit does not exempt an entity
from those ethical considerations.

> 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.

Indeed.

> 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. 

To each their own.  I'd rather not deal with the drama or the politics
if at all I can avoid it.  That said, if it came down to working a W-2
position again or not eating, I'd obviously take the W-2 over not
eating.

Do I think that there are nasty corporations out there?  You bet'cha.  I
don't subscribe to the view that corporations have to acquire their
revenue by taking it from others.  Quite the contrary, I think that
corporations should get their revenue by providing the best service they
can and making the customer as happy as reasonable without sacrificing
itself.  Happy customers come back; forced customers also come back, but
only grudgingly, and only until there are other viable options.  It is
better to build a business on happy customers than it is to build a
business on the notion that you're the only game in town.

It's also better to build a business through honest work, and not by
turning the revenue stream for non-profits down.

Or said another say, just because one *can* do something, does not mean
that one *should* or *ought to*.  Canonical certainly *can* take money
away from the GNOME Foundation; Banshee is licensed under the terms of
the MIT license.  That neither means that it is a morally (or ethically)
proper action, nor that they should or ought to.  If they are
struggling, there are other ways to survive (and truly, if Canonical
cannot survive by honorable means, it should survive by no means at
all).

Integrity and honor are arguably as important in the world of business
as outside of it.  Should we disagree on that, however, then we've
nothing further to converse about.

	--- Mike