Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame

[Andrew Suffield]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 08:33:21PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Apt description.  So Mr. S showed you the respect due to a potential
> competitor who could be a big advantage if converted to an ally.  I
> really think it's unbecoming of you to deny that (implicitly).  It
> *is* respect for your expertise.
> 
> He did not show you the personal respect of finding out "who Tom Lord
> is" and what you stand for.  Or maybe he did know, and was just
> grandstanding; we'll never know, I suppose.

I met him briefly last year; my impression was that he simply
*ignores* anything that doesn't support the way he wants things to
be. That probably makes some kind of sense from a business
standpoint. So my bet would be that he did know who Tom Lord is, but
was ignoring it.

>     Thomas> At the time I interviewed with them, I came away with the
>     Thomas> strong impression that the Canonical goal would be to
>     Thomas> optimize arch for centralizing development within a single
>     Thomas> organization -- the very antithesis of what Arch is about.
>     Thomas> Subsequent development at Canonical has only strengthened
>     Thomas> my belief in that opinion.
> 
> Sounds like a plan to me.  One I would not want to participate in, one
> that I would warn people I hack with against, but not one that I could
> tell someone thinking to buy stock "that will never fly."  It might.

Ack on all points.

I would also add:

There is nothing unethical about being a competitor to you. But
competitors are not your friends.

The only really bad thing about Canonical is that their PR makes out
that they *are* your friends, and a lot of people are buying it. But
then, I've never found a PR droid who didn't offend my sense of
ethics. So Canonical aren't much different from everybody else.

>     Thomas> The exploitation can be observed in the relative benefits
>     Thomas> received in the complex interactions that took place,
>     Thomas> compared to the many alternatives that were available and
>     Thomas> in light of intentions and actions.
> 
> Boiled down to the essentials, "he's rich, I want some of that."

My personal belief is that freedom and money are antithetical to each
other, but I can't justify that with anything more than the
observation that they always seem to be on opposite sides.