Some very good points here. And it doesn't hurt to discuss them again. But doesn't this really belongs on social? See ya' there, Chad! (don't give up on us!) -Greg
Date sent: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:36:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Rigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: discuss@openoffice.org Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: Java fallout: OO.o 2.0 and the FOSS community > ROTFLMAO!! This is way better than reality TV! More more more! *takes a deep > breath!* Okay. I'm done. > > BTW: Good on ya Chad! I like your vigor, and passion. Just be keen to not let > it get too impulsive :) Don't want to hurt yourself. BTW: I think they're > hiring master debaters on the mars colony :D. I mean, that is assuming you're > up on the US conspiracy theories of 30 years ago > > Rigel > > --- Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >I wouldn't be so quick to paint a picture of Sun as a champion of all > > >that is good. Sun is a company - a commercial entity - and as such, > > >thinks in the same terms as all other companies, eg "How do I make more > > >money? How do I destroy the competition? How do I create a need for my > > >products?" > > > > > > > > > > All companies are made up of people - and as such, can have their own > > motivations, goals, and internal dialogs. Don't assume to be able to > > read people's minds and tell us what they were thinking when they Open > > Sourced OOo. > > > > They might have seen the open source thing as a PR stunt. They might > > have seen it as an experiment into how to get free programmers. They > > might have thought "why did we buy this - we can't even give it > > away.... Wait a second!! That's it!" They might have come to work > > drunk that day. There's really no way of knowing *why* Sun freely gave > > away StarOffice's code, and continues to do so with each new release of > > OOo. But the simple fact is - they did it, and they still do it. > > > > >There are *individuals* in companies that > > >would argue for doing something good simply for the sake of being a good > > >citizen, but this nobility does not apply to corporations. Period. > > > > > > > You are so prejudgous! Just because a group of people has a Co. at the > > end of their name does not mean they are incapable of atruism! Get a > > clue! What are you, some sort of Communist? Corporations have every > > capablity of being giving as an individual does. Becuase, as you > > pointed out, Corporations are made up of individuals - from the CEO to > > the stockholders to the guy who mops the floors. They are not some > > huge, unfeeling, soulless *thing* - they are groups of people - just > > like OpenOffice.org is a group of people. Sure, the primary goal of > > most corporations is to make money - that doesn't mean that everything > > they do is wrapped around that. > > > > I work for a small Company. It's basically a small family-based > > business that grow beyond the family. My boss is a very generous man, > > who does a lot of things that aren't wrapped up in making money. I know > > this is "adentiodal evidence" - but it's one where I am pretty close to > > the source, so I have a much clearer insight into the motivites. If the > > company that I worked for grow to have 10,000 employees instead of 10 - > > would my boss's generousity suddenly disappear? Would the extra week of > > paid vacations spend to help those in need disappear? Would the free > > subscriptions to those in the ministry stop? Would the birthday parties > > go away? Not if my boss was still in charge. > > > > And before you say "he wouldn't be - the shareholders would be" need I > > remind you that shareholders are people too - people with hearts and > > souls and concisiouses. There are some individuals who invest with > > *those* motivations, and not just pure greed. And those are the type of > > shareholders a generous company should work to attract. > > > > >Sun have betrayed the open source community at many critical points. > > > > > > > > That is pure FUD - and BS. If you don't like Sun - then stop using > > their gift. If you don't trust them, then stop using their code. Use > > KOffice or AbiWord, and shut the FUD up. > > > > >Sun and Microsoft have been in bed for quite a while. I remember not > > >long ago a story on Slashdot on a deal between Sun and Microsoft that > > >they would not sue each other into oblivion over patent infringments. > > > > > Oh dear God. It's been discussed to death. Try to be a little more > > creative in your tin-foil-hat nonesense. That's like a year old! And > > it's been completely explained. You are an idiot. > > > > >I also remember that Sun bought into SCO's Linux licensing scam. Surely > > >they could have at least sat on the fence with everyone else? But no, > > >they start making public statements designed specifically to attract > > >companies scared by the SCO licensing scam away from Linux and towards > > >their own offerings. That's a little unethical. > > > > > > > > > > WHat the FUD? Telling people that they are SCO safe is unethical? You > > truly are a moron. > > > > >Unfortunately there is no such thing as 'pure enough'. You're either > > >pure or you're not. While that might seem elitist, it's simply fact. The > > >'rules' are clear and if you don't follow them, then you're not open > > >source. > > > > > > > > For the love of Tux. Get off this mailing list you Free Software > > Freak. Open Source is *NOT* a religion. It's not a test of purity. > > You know what - there is no such thing as *pure* open source. Not even > > GNU or the FSF. Do you know why they aren't "pure" - because nobody can > > tell you what *pure* open source is! It's a made up word. It's just a > > way of describing the acts of individuals. It's not something ordained > > by a deity or even set forth by example in nature. It's not > > scientifically provable either. Therefore, it can be described in > > absolute terms like "pure or not". It is *NOT* a fact. These *rules* > > you speak of were made up by a bunch of people. They do not exist > > outside of there heads. Get *your* head out of your butt and look > > around. It's just software, people. IT IS JUST SOFTWARE. IT IS JUST A > > BUNCH OF 1s AND 0s!!! It does not deserve your worship or your > > loyality. If it's free and you want it - use it. If it's not free and > > you want it - pay for it. If it's free or not and you don't want it - > > leave it alone. > > > > Honestly. Everyone needs to go outside and play. Get a life. Stop > > discussing how free or non-free this program is and that program isn't, > > and go to a movie. Read a book - a *REAL* book, not an ebook. Watch a > > play - in real life, with real people on a real stage, and not a webcast > > of one. Listen to music that doesn't have .mp3 or .ogg attached to it. > > IT IS A PROGRAM, A *FREE* PROGRAM. If you like it - it's yours. If you > > don't - go away. > > > > I can't tell you how physically *ILL* it makes me to see people BITCHING > > because the program that somebody *GAVE TO THEM FREE OF CHARGE* didn't > > do it the right way. "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" - does that > > mean anything to you people? > > > > I think my already trunctated interaction with this mailing list may > > need to end. I have wasted too much of my own life on something that in > > all honesty doesn't matter one little bit. > > > > -Chad Smith > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
