SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2014

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Patrick J. LoPresti" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Patrick J. LoPresti
Date:
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:29:47 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (50 lines)
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Jos Vos <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 10:49:51AM -0800, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
>
>> [...] (Always remember that companies,
>> like politicians, do not make statements to communicate information.
>> They make statements to achieve a desired result. Their statements may
>> happen to communicate information, but if and only if it helps to
>> achieve their desired result.)
>
> It's probably because of my reading problems that I read this as
> "companies are bad and they are lying all the time".  I know it's not
> said literally, but that's where "reading between the lines" comes in.

Is "reading between the lines" sort of like "putting words in someone's mouth"?

OK, this is going to be way off topic. But what the heck, I am on a
roll. Oh, and I will definitely be making some value judgments this
time.

Of course I do not think companies lie all the time. They tell the
truth when it is in their interest. They mislead and lie by omission
when it is in their interest. And they outright lie when it is in
their interest, if they can do so without legal or reputational risk.

Quick aside: Companies do care about their reputation, but not for the
same reason you or I do. Well, unless you are a sociopath. Companies
care about their reputation to the extent that loss of reputation
translates to loss of sales. Period.

Small companies are often an exception. They are still capable of
behaving like human beings, acting ethically and even altruistically
for its own sake. Large companies are not so capable, because a CEO's
"fiduciary duty" is to generate wealth for shareholders by any and all
legal means. Anything less would be a violation of that duty.

Most companies start small and good, but have steadily increasing
difficultly "not being evil". Red Hat and Canonical, for example, were
unquestionably positive forces for Linux at one time. But it is highly
questionable whether we still live in that time. I think it is very
unclear whether corporate involvement in open source will ultimately
turn out to be a blessing or a curse. We are just now entering the
later chapters of that story...

To summarize my world view: Small corporations are good. Big
corporations are evil. Small government is good. Big government is
evil. I am still searching for a label that captures this view. I am
pretty sure "communist" is not it.

 - Pat

ATOM RSS1 RSS2