- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Goodbye OpenOffice. LibreOffice, Here I Come!
|
|
|
Comments (39)
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
I don't have any applications that use mono installed, I removed them all using sudo apt-get purge libmono* libgdiplus cli-common libglitz-glx1 libglitz1. I was then able to use a debian repository to reinstall Mono, now I can better track the changes as Mono is developed.
Not using something because of a company logo isn't silly at all.
If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself:
"When going out for petrol, do I only look at the functionality of the petrol?"
Because - last thing I heard - BP had to change all their company logo's on their petrol stations because otherwise they would be left with no customers.
Not that BP gives a damn if you go to their petrol station or not, because they don't. It's not the place where they earn their money. For them, having petrol stations is only a nuisance. If you stop going theire, they won't notice. They couldn't care less if nobody in the US goes to the BP petrol stations anymore. If so, they'll just sell them.
Still, they care about their image. That's why they're thinking about changing logos.
And that's why logos are important, this whole thing is about corporate image, emotions, perception and goodwill. Thinking the whole issue is only about functionality and profits, _that's_ just plain silly.
If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself:
"When going out for petrol, do I only look at the functionality of the petrol?"
Because - last thing I heard - BP had to change all their company logo's on their petrol stations because otherwise they would be left with no customers.
Not that BP gives a damn if you go to their petrol station or not, because they don't. It's not the place where they earn their money. For them, having petrol stations is only a nuisance. If you stop going theire, they won't notice. They couldn't care less if nobody in the US goes to the BP petrol stations anymore. If so, they'll just sell them.
Still, they care about their image. That's why they're thinking about changing logos.
And that's why logos are important, this whole thing is about corporate image, emotions, perception and goodwill. Thinking the whole issue is only about functionality and profits, _that's_ just plain silly.
BP stations still have the same logos as always here in North Carolina. People still go to their stations as much as ever. A few weeks ago a BP station in Wake Forest actually had lower prices than the Wal Mart across the street and cars were lined up to get fuel there. With all due respect, at least in this country, the BP logo and name doesn't really seem to have suffered in terms of sales.
Re: mono -
I'm still using mono because I've got a lot of tomboy notes containing tips and tricks and lessons learned for the systems I administer here at work. I guess It's just a lack of time, or disorganization, or laziness. I'll look into a way to migrate from tomboy to it's mono-free equivalent when I upgrade my work desktop from hardy heron to lucid lynx.
I'm still using mono because I've got a lot of tomboy notes containing tips and tricks and lessons learned for the systems I administer here at work. I guess It's just a lack of time, or disorganization, or laziness. I'll look into a way to migrate from tomboy to it's mono-free equivalent when I upgrade my work desktop from hardy heron to lucid lynx.
Quoting:If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself:
"When going out for petrol, do I only look at the functionality of the petrol?"
For what Reason? In what way is BP any different than any other Multi National corporation?
When I buy Petrol functionality is the only criteria I use (on average all brands of Petrol cost the same), so the only criteria I have left is functionality, and there is only 1 Petrol Station in my general area that sells Ethanol enhanced Petrol, so that's where I go, I don't even know what the brand is.
Caitlyn: Here you go;
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/bp-might-change-name-t...
Up to 40% decline, the article says.
Some people care about ethics, and they're an important share of the population. I'm not claiming everybody acts out of emotion, but an important share of the population does. If large companies do things which are perceived "unethical", their image will suffer. Even if another large share of the population couldn't care less.
You only have to search for "boycott BP" (you'll notice many hits are not about the US, but Africa), "boycott Total" (dare I say Novell?) or whatever to find millions of people who start boycotting some company because they think the company has a bad influence on society. For that share of the population it's not about business, money or rational decisions (if you're a rational person though, congrats to you - but probably you're a minority), it's about "ethics" and emotions.
The stock market is also about emotions, and that's what Oracle cares about. So that's why "a vocal bunch of people not willing to use Oracle-products" is _not_ pointless.
Some people care about ethics, and they're an important share of the population. I'm not claiming everybody acts out of emotion, but an important share of the population does. If large companies do things which are perceived "unethical", their image will suffer. Even if another large share of the population couldn't care less.
You only have to search for "boycott BP" (you'll notice many hits are not about the US, but Africa), "boycott Total" (dare I say Novell?) or whatever to find millions of people who start boycotting some company because they think the company has a bad influence on society. For that share of the population it's not about business, money or rational decisions (if you're a rational person though, congrats to you - but probably you're a minority), it's about "ethics" and emotions.
The stock market is also about emotions, and that's what Oracle cares about. So that's why "a vocal bunch of people not willing to use Oracle-products" is _not_ pointless.
Hans, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me removing bugfixes and downgrading because of a logo is beyond pointless. It very much fits the old saw of cutting your nose to spite your face.
And permit me to say also Caitlyn, that my perception is that Oracle is now a company with ethical stances that I find repugnant. The information I have so far leads me to believe that Oracle is a company whose baseline motives are greed and the desire for power over others. There also appears to be either disdain for or rejection of the principles and ethics of FOSS. You don't sue a fellow supporter of FOSS (without first discussing the problem), but (as far as I know) Oracle has; you don't shut down a superb open sourced Unix operating system (capable of providing good feedback to the parent company) by removing all support from it and ignoring it, but (as far as I know) Oracle has; and finally, you don't set up management situations where a large number of the team involved in a flagship piece of open source software is so upset by what is happening that they are prepared to "fork the code" and form the Document Foundation, but Oracle certainly has.
I now compare Oracle's actions with those of Microsoft. You may consider this is exaggeration, but it's my personal opinion and I don't think I am alone in my concepts either.
Edited: I forgot to add one more item: Provided I have freedom of choice, will I use software produced by Oracle ? You can work out the answer yourself. It would offend every principle of FOSS ethics I have and I think that is where this thread began, although I have not put it quite as bluntly.
I now compare Oracle's actions with those of Microsoft. You may consider this is exaggeration, but it's my personal opinion and I don't think I am alone in my concepts either.
Edited: I forgot to add one more item: Provided I have freedom of choice, will I use software produced by Oracle ? You can work out the answer yourself. It would offend every principle of FOSS ethics I have and I think that is where this thread began, although I have not put it quite as bluntly.
I can't see where Oracle has changed.
I just realized: I've never seen a photo of Larry Ellison with a smile, never mind laughing.
I know, ad hominem. But it was easy to find photos of Sun Microsystems execs smiling. I have next to me a book with Jack Welch on the cover, and he's smiling.
Then again, in his PR pic, Darl McBride is smiling. Steve Ballmer might be smiling, too, but I don't care to find out.
Look for the joie de vivre. Some have it, some don't.
I know, ad hominem. But it was easy to find photos of Sun Microsystems execs smiling. I have next to me a book with Jack Welch on the cover, and he's smiling.
Then again, in his PR pic, Darl McBride is smiling. Steve Ballmer might be smiling, too, but I don't care to find out.
Look for the joie de vivre. Some have it, some don't.
Quoting:You only have to search for "boycott BP", "boycott Total" (dare I say Novell?) or whatever to find millions of people who start boycotting some company because they think the company has a bad influence on society.
But I suspect that people who care enough to participate in such boycots are savvy enough not to be fooled by a change in name or logo.
I think we have finally found the crux of the disagreements:
I have never accepted or subscribed to the notion that proprietary software is somehow unethical. I have never accepted to subscribed to the idea that FOSS is somehow ethical. This is why I am in no way a supporter of the FSF. My reason for supporting FOSS comes from two principles: first, it is the proverbial "better mousetrap". Openness and peer review result in better code at lower cost. Second, monopolies are inherently bad for business and bad for consumers. I support free markets, not monopolies in area where competition can resonably take place. (I support regulated monopolies or government ownership where competition cannot take place or for certain essential services, i.e.: public safety or utilities, but that is tangential to this discussion.) Consequently I don't see Oracle as somehow unethical. Ethics have nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.
I also should have made clear before that there is a difference between boycotting a company that has harmed millions of people and the environment in a gross way and boycotting a logo of a company that has done nothing of the sort. The BP boycott is an attempt to cause financial harm in return. Whether it can have an impact or not is another issue. What Ridcully is doing may make him personally feel good but it clearly has no impact on Oracle whatsoever.
Also, in light of the latest news about Microsoft's lawsuit against Motorola, I suggest people read the patents they are claiming. If they can defend a patent for long file names (something *nix had before Windows) then the can sue every competing operating system out of existence. This isn't an attack on Motorola or Android alone. This is the first shot in an assault on both Linux and the BSDs, including MacOS. Oracle's lawsuit is strictly over Java and does not have the same wide implications. So, no, I do not equate Oracle with Microsoft. Oracle also does not have a monopoly share of any market AFAIK.
I accept that is your belief and you are certainly free to act on it. However, I do not share the view that ethics are involved at all. Using proprietary software does not violate my ethical principles in any way, and yes, that includes Microsoft software. Besides, if I want to stop using proprietary software, including Oracle software, I would need to find another line of work.
Quoting:There also appears to be either disdain for or rejection of the principles and ethics of FOSS
I have never accepted or subscribed to the notion that proprietary software is somehow unethical. I have never accepted to subscribed to the idea that FOSS is somehow ethical. This is why I am in no way a supporter of the FSF. My reason for supporting FOSS comes from two principles: first, it is the proverbial "better mousetrap". Openness and peer review result in better code at lower cost. Second, monopolies are inherently bad for business and bad for consumers. I support free markets, not monopolies in area where competition can resonably take place. (I support regulated monopolies or government ownership where competition cannot take place or for certain essential services, i.e.: public safety or utilities, but that is tangential to this discussion.) Consequently I don't see Oracle as somehow unethical. Ethics have nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned.
I also should have made clear before that there is a difference between boycotting a company that has harmed millions of people and the environment in a gross way and boycotting a logo of a company that has done nothing of the sort. The BP boycott is an attempt to cause financial harm in return. Whether it can have an impact or not is another issue. What Ridcully is doing may make him personally feel good but it clearly has no impact on Oracle whatsoever.
Also, in light of the latest news about Microsoft's lawsuit against Motorola, I suggest people read the patents they are claiming. If they can defend a patent for long file names (something *nix had before Windows) then the can sue every competing operating system out of existence. This isn't an attack on Motorola or Android alone. This is the first shot in an assault on both Linux and the BSDs, including MacOS. Oracle's lawsuit is strictly over Java and does not have the same wide implications. So, no, I do not equate Oracle with Microsoft. Oracle also does not have a monopoly share of any market AFAIK.
Quoting:Provided I have freedom of choice, will I use software produced by Oracle ? You can work out the answer yourself. It would offend every principle of FOSS ethics I have and I think that is where this thread began, although I have not put it quite as bluntly.
I accept that is your belief and you are certainly free to act on it. However, I do not share the view that ethics are involved at all. Using proprietary software does not violate my ethical principles in any way, and yes, that includes Microsoft software. Besides, if I want to stop using proprietary software, including Oracle software, I would need to find another line of work.
Quoting:If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself:
"When going out for petrol, do I only look at the functionality of the petrol?"
Anyone who uses the word "petrol" in their answer probably doesn't live in the U.S. In the U.S., we call it "gasoline" or "gas," not "petrol."
> ...as I said black suit, pee, warm feelling..
Yeah, we noticed. I was being nice and ignoring it. But now I've been reminded again that being nice is particularly appreciated by some LXer moderators, so I'll drop the subject, and the thread.
Yeah, we noticed. I was being nice and ignoring it. But now I've been reminded again that being nice is particularly appreciated by some LXer moderators, so I'll drop the subject, and the thread.
@Bob, no I don't live in the US, but you missed the important bit
I don't think that has been answered.
Quoting:For what Reason? In what way is BP any different than any other Multi National corporation?
I don't think that has been answered.
...and if they are different from other multinationals then how are they different from other big oil companies? I'm sure most of you remember the Exxon Valdez for example. Ask the people of Cordova, Alaska about it. Their fishing industry has never bounced back.
I do think that the oil industry does behave differently than other industries in some ways. Having said that, BP is hardly unique.
OTOH, BP did successfully lobby the U.S. President at the time to overthrow another government. Very few multinationals have succeeded at that level.
I do think that the oil industry does behave differently than other industries in some ways. Having said that, BP is hardly unique.
OTOH, BP did successfully lobby the U.S. President at the time to overthrow another government. Very few multinationals have succeeded at that level.
Caitlyn, neither do I believe proprietary software is of itself, unethical; I use it myself and as I stated in one of my first posts on this thread, I am very pragmatic about using both proprietary and FOSS based software ~ essentially, you and I agree completely on that point. And incidentally, from information I have been given, I am lead to believe that Oracle's databasing product is of itself, excellent. I don't use it, so I don't know that personally.
The problem as always, is found within the individual company that is producing the software and that in turn rests on that company's individual business ethics and principles. It is here that you and I appear to have very differing views of Oracle's ethics and principles and for the moment, neither of us will change our stance. I provided three excellent examples of where I believe Oracle has failed in those ethics and principles; you have addressed none of them.
I am not constrained or disadvantaged in any way by refusing to use software produced by Oracle, therefore I may choose or reject it quite freely. From what I read in your posting above, you do not appear to have that freedom. I fully accept your position and to an extent, sympathise; however each of us operates under very different conditions and restrictions and makes choices that further our own goals. Let's leave it at that. I understand and empathise with your position now only too well; I regret that (from my reading of your posts) even though you accept my position, you cannot, or will not, understand it.
The problem as always, is found within the individual company that is producing the software and that in turn rests on that company's individual business ethics and principles. It is here that you and I appear to have very differing views of Oracle's ethics and principles and for the moment, neither of us will change our stance. I provided three excellent examples of where I believe Oracle has failed in those ethics and principles; you have addressed none of them.
I am not constrained or disadvantaged in any way by refusing to use software produced by Oracle, therefore I may choose or reject it quite freely. From what I read in your posting above, you do not appear to have that freedom. I fully accept your position and to an extent, sympathise; however each of us operates under very different conditions and restrictions and makes choices that further our own goals. Let's leave it at that. I understand and empathise with your position now only too well; I regret that (from my reading of your posts) even though you accept my position, you cannot, or will not, understand it.
Eight years ago, I removed Webmin from my system. It had been a very useful tool, but the primary developer at the time took a public stance against Freedom, a stance which I found extremely revolting.
That stance has long ago disappeared from the Webmin site and propaganda, but I have yet to get over the revulsion.
That stance has long ago disappeared from the Webmin site and propaganda, but I have yet to get over the revulsion.
Quoting:In the U.S., we call it "gasoline" or "gas,"
Sorry, Wine 1.3.3 broke Euroglot.
Quoting:Hans, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Not necessarily, the whole thing was not meant to voice my own opinion, but to show the difference:
As it turned out, Ridcully belongs to the more emotional part of the population, thinking about ethics and such. As it turned out (and of course I already knew), both Caitlyn and TracyAnne belong to the people thinking more rational and I'd say in an utilitarian way.
Of course, it might happen these two groups don't understand each other. The thing I tried to show, is both groups are important, even if the actions of the "emotional" group seems to have no direct financial consequences for some company.
I wil politely refrain from discussing Exxon Mobile, as my personal beliefs will certainly lead to TOS-violations (and one shouldn't bite the hand that feeds).
Nicely put hkwint........And each side should understand where the other is coming from. Too often it doesn't happen. I wonder how we can effectively combine practicality and ethics ? Is there a modern software organisation that does it ? I think that the GPL tries to produce that, but ultimately it all depends on the ethical base of the people controlling the organization....It's an interesting situation and I have no definitive answer.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post