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

Tue Mar 8 21:58:40 EST 2011

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:17 PM, Dan Lambert <danlambert at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> If the profits are excess, why would anyone want to invest in a business.
> People (and banks) don't lend money from the goodness of their hearts. They
> expect a return on investment.
>
> No return, no investment.
>
> Anyone can classify capitalism as evil, but they damned sure want to take
> advantage of it if it's not outlawed.
>
> Dan
>
> On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 20:18 -0500, Jim Kinney wrote:
>
> I think you totally missed the point. Cannonical performed a very
> underhanded deed that violates the community trust. Justifying their
> action because they're a business allows other unscrupulous actions
> for the sake of profit. I'm sure people would be gathering their
> pitchforks if they were told that the tire dealer was donating 10% of
> all March sales to a scholarship fund only later it's discovered they
> pocketed the money for their own uses.
>
> Business ethics is, proven once again, an oxymoron.
>
> Most people in business pay themselves from their revenues, not from
> the profits. Profit is what's left after all the expenses are paid.
>
> I argue profit is waste in the economic model. Once a fair trade has
> been consummated, the profit is the waste that could have been cut
> from the resources exchanged and the trade could have still been made.
> Profit pretty much guarantees that the exchange was not equal.
>
> Most people work for a living. That living does not include a profit
> margin. Most profits are not worked for by those that receive it. Most
> profit receivers spend the bulk of their time perpetuating the big
> scam that lets them collect the profits from the efforts of others.
>
> As a former (2 time) business owner, I found that current business
> models are so skewed towards "profits above all else" that the civic
> responsibility didn't even get a heartbeat of attention in most cases.
> It's not just about profits. It's really all about the people and the
> process and the relationships between all of the people both in the
> business and in the community.
>
> bah. this was probably a total waste of time. speaking philosophy to
> ale never goes well.
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Dan Lambert <danlambert at bellsouth.net>
> 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 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>
>>> > 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>

Dan,

If you create a product and you gave to me to use free and I turn
around and change for, but when you complain I only give you a small
percentage for your work. How would you feel? Personal I think we
would be in court where you would be asking for all the profit.

That is the point.

I do free work for openSUSE and I am happy that openSUSE give back to
the banshee 100% of the porfit they make for the plugin. I can tell
you that when I was out at SCALE, that Novell guys were amazed at what
Cannonical was doing. In fact they are amazed that the open source
community is being so calm.

I have a question, does Cannonical give anything back to Debian? I
were the community manager of Debian, I ask Ubuntu to give a
percentage back. Again, I don't know the story between the two. I have
feel bad every time I got a Linux Fest past the Debian table and not
seeing any DVD/CD to pass out because they don't have the money, only
to see everyone running past to the Ubuntu table who has all the swag
and DVD/CD to give out. It makes my heart bleed for Debian.

I know my community is sponsored by Novell. Novell really suppose us,
and yes they take the code and sell it as SUSE Enterprise Linux. Just
like Red Hat sponsor Fedora. Does Cannonical sponsor Debian?

I also know that Novell sponsors a lot open source community. In fact,
visit the Banshee home page, banshee.fm, look who is there sponsors.
Or who the name is registered too.

This is the one thing personal bug me that Novell has a bad name in
the open source community, but sponsor projects and they haven't done
anything like this.

May my view is bias because I am member of openSUSE, but I really feel
that Cannonical needs go way or give back in a big way to those who
have may then the "Rock Stars" they are today.

Chuck

-----------------------------------------
Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux.
-----------------------------------------
openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup
openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member
skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup
freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein
Register Linux Userid: 155363

Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD,  an app you want
to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE
Studio a try. www.susestudio.com.