Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #206158 > unrolled thread

Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-11 18:50 +0100
    Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2019-03-11 21:50 +0100
      Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2019-03-11 22:00 +0100
    Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@debian.org> - 2019-03-13 21:30 +0100
      Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great  company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 22:00 +0100
        Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? rhkramer@gmail.com - 2019-03-13 22:30 +0100
          EEE deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 22:50 +0100
          Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a  great company? David <bouncingcats@gmail.com> - 2019-03-14 03:30 +0100
            Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2019-03-14 04:20 +0100
              [OT] EEE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2019-03-14 15:40 +0100
                [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-14 16:30 +0100
                  Re: [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-03-14 17:20 +0100
        Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a  great company? Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@debian.org> - 2019-03-13 22:40 +0100
          Roberto [SOLVED] -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being  a great company? deb <deb@rangingthoughts.org> - 2019-03-13 23:10 +0100

#206158 — Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:


   * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.

   * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.

   * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.

   * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.

      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for 
years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.

   * I have more :-)


Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions

I would ever recommend.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#206172

On Mon 11 Mar 2019 at 13:48:04 -0400, deb wrote:

> 
> re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:
> 
> 
>   * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.
> 
>   * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.
> 
>   * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
> 
>   * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.
> 
>      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for years,
> will see nothing when canonical is sold.
> 
>   * I have more :-)
> 
> 
> Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions
> 
> I would ever recommend.

This is brought to you for your consideration by Agendas R Us. Please
direct all your comments to /dev/null.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206173

On 03/11/2019 03:45 PM, Brian wrote:

NULL set

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206236

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:48:04PM -0400, deb wrote:
>     So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for 
>years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.

Red Hat employs thousands of people who are writing code, so when IBM
acquires them, they will see something. You might have to revise this
point (for Red Hat, at least) up from "thousands" to a higher number.

-- 

⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ https://jmtd.net
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206240 — Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On 3/13/19 4:26 PM, *Jonathan Dowland* wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:48:04PM -0400, deb wrote:
>>      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for 
>> years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.
>
> Red Hat employs thousands of people who are writing code, so when IBM
> acquires them, they will see something. You might have to revise this
> point (for Red Hat, at least) up from "thousands" to a higher number.
>

Interesting..

So you are saying that you do Not think that thousands of people since 
the beginning of Redhat have busted their butt on this or that module 
that went into the "product" Redhat execs [and some thousands] later 
made millions on - but got zero dollars for their efforts from the sale?

Or are you saying if [Some] make money on the backs of open source work; 
that justifies the means to get there?

(I fear this will happen to All meaningful open-source projects.)


And ... just so the cherry-picked point above does not fall out of context;
here was my full thought::



re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:


   * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.

   * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.

   * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.

   * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.

      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for 
years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.

   * I have more


Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions

I would ever recommend.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206243 — Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
>    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.

Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206245 — EEE

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 3/13/19 5:24 PM, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
>>     * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
> Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?
>
>

Seriously?

Never heard of it?

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish


Many a Microsoft competitor has been crushed by this.

I have been part of two; so crushed.


* Some of you folk Really ARE far from the Microsoft realm.

* Remember that I fight it daily; before yelling at me.



ps
Better answers than privacy-stealing gmail

     Privacy-Conscious Email Services
     https://prxbx.com/email/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206249 — Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:24, <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
>>
> >    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
>
> Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206250 — Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Wednesday 13 March 2019 22:19:37 David wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:24, <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
> > >    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish

To further clarify, they buy (the Embrace) then Extend both it and their 
OS in incompatible ways so everyone has to buy the new version, and when 
that very predictably fails to generate the sales surge they were 
expecting, they discontinue it, thereby Extinguishing the competition.

Worked well thru the 90's and 2000's but not being done quite so 
obviously now.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206258 — [OT] EEE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Wed 13 Mar 2019 at 23:19:09 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 March 2019 22:19:37 David wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:24, <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
> > > >    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
> > >
> > > Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
> 
> To further clarify, they buy (the Embrace) then Extend both it and their 
> OS in incompatible ways so everyone has to buy the new version, and when 
> that very predictably fails to generate the sales surge they were 
> expecting, they discontinue it, thereby Extinguishing the competition.
> 
> Worked well thru the 90's and 2000's but not being done quite so 
> obviously now.

Less by Microsoft, and perhaps less by Walmart nowadays, but the
tradition is continued by the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.
while any idea of government regulation is branded as "socialist".

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206259 — [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On 3/14/19 10:35 AM, David Wright wrote:
> On Wed 13 Mar 2019 at 23:19:09 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Wednesday 13 March 2019 22:19:37 David wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:24, <rhkramer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 13, 2019 04:51:57 PM deb wrote:
>>>>>     * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
>>>> Ok, I'll bite -- what is E-E-E?
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
>> To further clarify, they buy (the Embrace) then Extend both it and their
>> OS in incompatible ways so everyone has to buy the new version, and when
>> that very predictably fails to generate the sales surge they were
>> expecting, they discontinue it, thereby Extinguishing the competition.
>>
>> Worked well thru the 90's and 2000's but not being done quite so
>> obviously now.
> Less by Microsoft, and perhaps less by Walmart nowadays, but the
> tradition is continued by the likes of Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc.
> while any idea of government regulation is branded as "socialist".
>
> Cheers,
> David.
>
>

[OT]!

[OT] is what I as after as a subject predecessor :-)


I guess I do not see Microsoft doing this less in 2019.

It just has changed from one product [WordPro, Lotus 1-2-3; Spinrite; 
dBase Netscape] to entire infrastructures.

e.g.

Microsoft is "open sourcing" Windows Calculator and inviting open source 
developers (for free)  to:

  * improve the tool

  * "Learn the Microsoft development Way".

BUT THEY WILL STILL MAKE Money on Windows 10 that uses calculator.


Microsoft buys their way into Linux Foundation as "advisors". Into 
Canonical, etc.  When they pay their million dollar fees; they exercise 
much more influence on Linux than a company calling "Linux a Cancer" should.


An while Microsoft has opened all of their patents to Linux; they are 
STILL suing companies using Linux (and Android) through proxy companies; 
claiming  payments are still due on these patents.

I think that Microsoft is just playing the open source community; until 
Microsoft can control that too.

I live this.


For folks whose knee-jerk response is to say "prove that","show that", 
"show me"  -- see https://startpage.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206261 — Re: [OT] EE, Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 11:19:35AM -0400, deb wrote:
> 
> I guess I do not see Microsoft doing this less in 2019.
> 
> It just has changed from one product [WordPro, Lotus 1-2-3; Spinrite; dBase
> Netscape] to entire infrastructures.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> Microsoft is "open sourcing" Windows Calculator and inviting open source
> developers (for free)  to:
> 
>  * improve the tool
> 
>  * "Learn the Microsoft development Way".
> 
That is not "embrace, extend, extinguish."  However, it is an effort to
gain "mindshare."  They are two very different things.

Besides, there are plenty of examples of open source products which are
primarily or solely developed by a company with minimal or no
contributions from outside developers.

People are individually free to take up Microsoft's invitation or not,
as they so desire.

> BUT THEY WILL STILL MAKE Money on Windows 10 that uses calculator.
> 
You keep bringing this up, but without explaining why it matters.
Seriously, so what?  I've made contributions to open source projects
that have gone on to be incorporated into products which a company then
sold for profit (while also complying with the terms of the open source
license in question).  I knew that was a possibility up front and was
perfectly fine with it.  So again, what does it matter if MS makes money
from the work that someone does and contributes to an open source
project?

Besides, calculator is not the first or only example.  In fact, all the
way back to the FTP client and TCP stack that were originally included
in Windows, Microsoft has leveraged open source, as have many others in
the industry.  There may even be examples that predate those of which I
am not aware.

There are plenty of reasons to dislike Microsoft, but "makes use of open
source software under the terms of the license" is hardly one of those
reasons.

> 
> Microsoft buys their way into Linux Foundation as "advisors". Into
> Canonical, etc.  When they pay their million dollar fees; they exercise much
> more influence on Linux than a company calling "Linux a Cancer" should.
> 
That is a matter of opinion, though I agree with yours in this case.

Though, I don't know why so much is made about the Linux Foundation.  It
is not a charitable organization (like SPI, for instance).  It is a US
501(c)(6) organization, that is to say a trade group.  It exists to
promote the interests of its members.  Oracle, AT&T, and Cisco are also
members, and I would put Microsft in the same category with them.

In that sense, Linux Foundation is no different than CompTIA, CTIA, BSA
(Business Software Alliance), MPAA, or RIAA.

You mention Microsoft's influence on Linux, but it is not clear if you
mean Linux in the precise sense of the Linux kernel, Linux in the sense
of the family of software distributions based upon Linux, or the broader
free and open source software community.  That said, regardless of how
much money Microsoft pays for membership in various organizations, its
size and place in the technology industry means that it exerts
tremendous influence on Linux the kernel, Linux the collection of
distributions, and the broader free and open source community.

For example, if Microsoft implements a security feature, then it may
well influence the implementation of a comparable feature in the Linux
kernel or in the distributions.  Projects like Samba and Wine feel some
form of pressure whenever Microsoft changes something in Windows.
Developments in MS Office affect LibreOffice and OpenOffice.org
development.

Perhaps your concern with Microsoft being a Linux Foundation member has
to do with their ability to influence the direction or specific aspects
of development of the Linux kernel.  I doubt that Linus Torvalds is the
sort of person who could be easily swayed by that type of influence.

> 
> An while Microsoft has opened all of their patents to Linux; they are STILL
> suing companies using Linux (and Android) through proxy companies; claiming 
> payments are still due on these patents.
> 
> I think that Microsoft is just playing the open source community; until
> Microsoft can control that too.
> 
If you think that Microsoft has a chance of "controlling*" the open
source community, then you fundamentally misunderstand the enthusiast
aspect of open source development.  I mean, we have X.org, MariaDB,
LibreOffice, gcc, and many others as a direct result of some form of
resistance against some party or another attempting to exert "control."

Regards,

-Roberto

* As I mentioned previously, Microsoft, by its nature, influences the
  open source community with its development and marketing decisions;
  however, control of the open source community in the sense of
  directing the outcomes of projects is simply not achievable on a
  meaningful scale

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206244 — Re: Jonathan -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:51:57PM -0400, deb wrote:
> 
> On 3/13/19 4:26 PM, *Jonathan Dowland* wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:48:04PM -0400, deb wrote:
> > >      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for
> > > years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.
> > 
> > Red Hat employs thousands of people who are writing code, so when IBM
> > acquires them, they will see something. You might have to revise this
> > point (for Red Hat, at least) up from "thousands" to a higher number.
> > 
> 
> Interesting..
> 
> So you are saying that you do Not think that thousands of people since the
> beginning of Redhat have busted their butt on this or that module that went
> into the "product" Redhat execs [and some thousands] later made millions on
> - but got zero dollars for their efforts from the sale?
> 
You seem to imply that the only possible reason that someone would have
to work on code would be to eventually receive money.

Some people do it for fun, some for recognition, some for money, and
some for a combination of those things.

If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
that they are being misappropriated, then there are organizations that
will help you determine if licenses on your code are being violated.
You could do that and if you find that is the case then you can choose
whether to seek legal remedy.

If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
unhappy that someone else is benefitting financially from your work but
they are otherwise abiding by the terms of the open source license under
which you placed your work, then I encourage you to consider your
objective in working on open source software.  It may be that you
fundamentally misunderstand open source and why people sometimes develop
it without monetary compensation.

> Or are you saying if [Some] make money on the backs of open source work;
> that justifies the means to get there?
> 
What means and to get where?  If I write code and sell it or give it
away under an open source license (whether that be copyleft or
non-copyleft) then what difference does it make if someone makes a
little money or a bunch of money?  So long as the abide by the terms of
the license, that is.

Do you have examples or evidence of Canonical benefiting improperly from
open source licensed software?  That is, not abiding by the terms of the
license.

I, on the other hand, have ample evidence of both Red Hat and Canonical
paying people to write millions of lines of code that have been given
away to open source projects and the larger community as well.

> (I fear this will happen to All meaningful open-source projects.)
> 
> 
> And ... just so the cherry-picked point above does not fall out of context;
> here was my full thought::
> 
> 
> 
> re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:
> 
> 
>   * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.
> 
That is a business decision.  Likely a poor one.  However, I do not see
what it has to do with the issue of compensating those who work on open
source software, which seems to be the main point of your message.

>   * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.
> 
What negative impact, specifically, do you think this will have?  How
does this relate to your central point of compensating open source
developers?

>   * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
> 
Please define "sleep with" in this context.

>   * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.
> 
Canonical is privately held.  It is the owners' prerogative whether to
remain privately held or to try for a public offering.  How does this
relate to your central point?

>      So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for years,
> will see nothing when canonical is sold.
> 
>   * I have more
> 
I find that doubtful.

> 
> Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions
> 
> I would ever recommend.
> 
I have my own reasons for not being particularly fond of Ubuntu, but
they are technical in nature.

Do you happen to have anything concrete?  Or do you only have the sale
of Amazon search results accompanied by a bunch of hand waving?

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#206246 — Roberto [SOLVED] -- #pffffft -- Re: Tangentially: on Canonical being a great company?

On 3/13/19 5:32 PM, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 04:51:57PM -0400, deb wrote:
>> On 3/13/19 4:26 PM, *Jonathan Dowland* wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:48:04PM -0400, deb wrote:
>>>>       So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for
>>>> years, will see nothing when canonical is sold.
>>> Red Hat employs thousands of people who are writing code, so when IBM
>>> acquires them, they will see something. You might have to revise this
>>> point (for Red Hat, at least) up from "thousands" to a higher number.
>>>
>> Interesting..
>>
>> So you are saying that you do Not think that thousands of people since the
>> beginning of Redhat have busted their butt on this or that module that went
>> into the "product" Redhat execs [and some thousands] later made millions on
>> - but got zero dollars for their efforts from the sale?
>>
> You seem to imply that the only possible reason that someone would have
> to work on code would be to eventually receive money.
>
> Some people do it for fun, some for recognition, some for money, and
> some for a combination of those things.
>
> If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
> that they are being misappropriated, then there are organizations that
> will help you determine if licenses on your code are being violated.
> You could do that and if you find that is the case then you can choose
> whether to seek legal remedy.
>
> If you personally have made contributions to open source and you feel
> unhappy that someone else is benefitting financially from your work but
> they are otherwise abiding by the terms of the open source license under
> which you placed your work, then I encourage you to consider your
> objective in working on open source software.  It may be that you
> fundamentally misunderstand open source and why people sometimes develop
> it without monetary compensation.
>
>> Or are you saying if [Some] make money on the backs of open source work;
>> that justifies the means to get there?
>>
> What means and to get where?  If I write code and sell it or give it
> away under an open source license (whether that be copyleft or
> non-copyleft) then what difference does it make if someone makes a
> little money or a bunch of money?  So long as the abide by the terms of
> the license, that is.
>
> Do you have examples or evidence of Canonical benefiting improperly from
> open source licensed software?  That is, not abiding by the terms of the
> license.
>
> I, on the other hand, have ample evidence of both Red Hat and Canonical
> paying people to write millions of lines of code that have been given
> away to open source projects and the larger community as well.
>
>> (I fear this will happen to All meaningful open-source projects.)
>>
>>
>> And ... just so the cherry-picked point above does not fall out of context;
>> here was my full thought::
>>
>>
>>
>> re: Canonical being a great company as postured by one here:
>>
>>
>>    * They have already been caught selling search results to Amazon.
>>
> That is a business decision.  Likely a poor one.  However, I do not see
> what it has to do with the issue of compensating those who work on open
> source software, which seems to be the main point of your message.
>
>>    * the board let go ALL non-corporate members - the People's voice.
>>
> What negative impact, specifically, do you think this will have?  How
> does this relate to your central point of compensating open source
> developers?
>
>>    * they sleep with Microsoft of E-E-E fame.
>>
> Please define "sleep with" in this context.
>
>>    * The owner is hell bent on getting to IPO level.
>>
> Canonical is privately held.  It is the owners' prerogative whether to
> remain privately held or to try for a public offering.  How does this
> relate to your central point?
>
>>       So, like Redhat, thousands of volunteers working the code for years,
>> will see nothing when canonical is sold.
>>
>>    * I have more
>>
> I find that doubtful.
>
>> Ubuntu would be one of the last distributions
>>
>> I would ever recommend.
>>
> I have my own reasons for not being particularly fond of Ubuntu, but
> they are technical in nature.
>
> Do you happen to have anything concrete?  Or do you only have the sale
> of Amazon search results accompanied by a bunch of hand waving?
>
> Regards,
>
> -Roberto
>

You *obviously* know best Roberto.


 > I find that doubtful.

This single line shouts out that our communications are complete.


Have a great day.


I'm marking this one [Solved] and leaving it right there.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web