Void's Forums

A good article on his blog explains that he wont make any deals and why he wont...
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127

Master of Reality wrote:A good article on his blog explains that he wont make any deals and why he wont...
http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/127

Actually the way I read it he is MORE than willing to make a deal with the devil. Just not if it relates to unspecified patents.

[quote]Allegations of “infringement of unspecified patentsâ€

I just figured that bolded "wonderful" bit to be sarcasm... but i could be wrong.

As far as the collaboration bit, If Shuttleworth has been paying any attention he should know that there will be no direction change to helping free software.

I have no objections to working with Microsoft in ways that further the cause of free software, and I don’t rule out any collaboration with them, in the event that they adopt a position of constructive engagement with the free software community.

So surely this could be taken as a rhetorical statement meaning that he would collaborate but thats never going to happen because they will never change direction.

Master of Reality wrote:So surely this could be taken as a rhetorical statement meaning that he would collaborate but thats never going to happen because they will never change direction.

I suppose that's true and I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt. I did think at the time that he could have meant it that way but for some reason it STILL turns my stomach. :)

i think it's being overly generous to assume that all the bits you may not happen to agree with are sarcastic or ironic.

I have to agree with void's first reply. There's plenty of decent* linux software + systems redistributors out there without having to get on board with a company that's corrupt on the inside just because you like their (co-opted) packaging system or (derivative) gui.





* in my opinion

Don't forget - he can't always afford to say all he is really thinking.

Jenda wrote:Don't forget - he can't always afford to say all he is really thinking.

Why not? What could he possibly be thinking that he couldn't afford?

I mean, he has to be politically correct and economically prudent He won't say anything that might damage future business relationships.

That never stopped Linus. I guess it's the "business relationships" that I am worried about when it comes to Shuttleworth. What you are describing sounds more like something I would expect out of Michael Robertson which is why I have absolutely no interest in Lindows (or Linspire or whatever they call it now).

Mark is playing a game. He is trying to build a successful free Linux distro open to the community (succeeded, IMO) as well as build a profitable business alongside it.
He doesn't need to make money, so he won't compromise his own morals to make the business successful. He does, however, want the business succeed as a fulfillment of his game.

Linus is a software engineer. I have never seen him produce any significant thought outside that realm, except for the occasional witty joke.

You sound like you have some insight into this guys mind. Do you know him personally? He appears to have expressed willingness (almost eagerness in my opinion) to make deals with Microsoft which shows me where his morals are. You don't have to do that to have a successful Linux business.

No, I do not know him personally, and didn't intend to make that impression. However, I've been very present (if not very active lately ) in the Ubuntu community for the past 2 years, and because of my activity in marketing, I had frequent contact with many Canonical employees and leaders, including, occassionaly, Mark.

From that title I believe I can claim I have a very good feel of where the company is aiming and how it achieves its goals, as well as the overall spirit of the company and its relationship to the community. Ironically, you get to know this stuff most closely during conflicts - and they all turned out fine from my point of view till now... (I'm planning a little conflict of my own regarding the trademark policy, so we'll see how I talk after that )

As for deals with MS - I'm not aware of eagerness, but a willingness is very much in place. MS is not an evil empire, even though we all hate it - it's just another company. It just so happens that this company has a remarkable way of steamrolling over just about anything just to increase its profits (and it's a cornered rat syndrome in my opinion). What Mark is saying (as I understand it) is that if MS turns their good face to us, we will do the same to them. Notice that he doesn't indicate any opinions of how likely this is I think he's stating that because it's just one step down from "We will never collaborate with MS" which would be a very unprudent move (ever heard of the never say never rule?).

On another note, there's a definite note of sarcasm in the 'wonderful'

Jenda wrote:As for deals with MS - I'm not aware of eagerness, but a willingness is very much in place.

I guess that's my main beef. There should be no willingness. None.

MS is not an evil empire, even though we all hate it - it's just another company.

I'll just have to differ with you on this opinion.

It just so happens that this company has a remarkable way of steamrolling over just about anything just to increase its profits (and it's a cornered rat syndrome in my opinion).

That's just one of it's traits that puts it in the category of "evil empire".

What Mark is saying (as I understand it) is that if MS turns their good face to us, we will do the same to them. Notice that he doesn't indicate any opinions of how likely this is ;) I think he's stating that because it's just one step down from "We will never collaborate with MS" which would be a very unprudent move (ever heard of the never say never rule?).

And I am telling him that he needs to take a history lesson before thinking Microsoft has any capability at all of not gutting your company after "turning a good face". It's happened over and over and over and over and over. If Microsoft has proven one thing it's that you don't want to deal with them.... ever.

"We will never collaborate with MS" which would be a very unprudent move (ever heard of the never say never rule?).

actually i think having nothing to do with microsoft would be very prudent. Since 1975 scores of companies have rued the day they collaborated with microsoft as all of us should know intimately. (ever heard of IBM, CP/M, Apple etc etc etc ad infinitum...)


sorry, after reading all this i (in my capacity as a fairly neutral linux user, who has tried several popular distros) still agree 100% with void main.

i have seen nothing that contradicts void's points that isn't overly optimistic wheedling and general word twisting in an effort to make a run-of-the-mill cut throat business approach somehow seem like a divine visitation to the hallowed realms of the linux church.

Linux distributions can survive without ubuntu, and if ubuntu are "willing" to snuggle up to microsoft on those cold winter nights rather than have the initiative to forge their own path then Linux probably should survive without ubuntu.

One thing i do hope is that the GNU GPL stops this company screwing linux up for everybody else.

He never said he _would_ make any deals with microsoft. He just avoided saying never, and avoided calling MS an evil empire, both of which would seriously harm his reputation with the general public. Of course, the two of you would love to hear him say "fsck microsoft. We're here to kill microsoft."
But that is simply not something you can say when you have a life (more importantly, a public face), even if it is true.

His blog post was as far as you can go towards saying you won't collaborate with Microsoft without losing the respect of your competitors, customers and partners, even though extreme MS-haters like us would like to hear more.

Let's wait for actions to speak louder than words. I'd be willing to bet a finger that Canonical won't make any dangerous deals with MS in the next ten years.