An Open Letter to Larry Ellison
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Apr 29, 2009 2:23 PM EDT |
Yes, promoting Open Office.org is one of the most important parts of promoting Linux. Ms. Haugland wrote a nice letter. Lets hope Mr. Ellison is reading his own mail. |
| gus3 Apr 29, 2009 3:27 PM EDT |
Larry Ellison cares about one thing, and promoting Linux isn't it. Unless it helps Larry Ellison make money, he's not interested. Call me cynical, but I think Ms. Haugland is blowing against the wind. Yes, she wrote a nice letter, but he didn't get where he is by being nice. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 29, 2009 3:32 PM EDT |
Say what you will about OpenOffice, but it's existence is a huge thorn in the side of Microsoft and an equally huge reason for users not to use MS Office (or Windows). If anything untoward happens under Oracle, it'll be forked in a minute. I'm no Oracle or Ellison expert -- all I know is that the guy likes to play smooth jazz -- but I get the feeling that if it means screwing with Microsoft, he's all for it. From that angle, OpenOffice would appear to be an asset. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 29, 2009 3:44 PM EDT |
I remember a UserFriendly comic, where Ellison was giving a talk, and someone says... hold on... http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20011114 Member of the Press: You still haven't haven't beaten Bill Gates at anything, have you. Larry: OOO!!! I...ooh! Why you...aaargh!! Hey Larry! Here's your chance! Addendum: Searching for "Ellison" on UserFriendly has several more quite good walks down memory lane. "Oooo! I hate that man!" |
| tuxtom Apr 30, 2009 1:56 AM EDT |
Quoting:Unless it helps Larry Ellison make money, he's not interested.Why should he be? Capitalism is capitalism. You got a better system? |
| bigg Apr 30, 2009 6:52 AM EDT |
Larry Ellison is someone who gets it. He realized long ago that you cannot win against a competitor who gets to write the rules. He never felt comfortable with Windows, and embraced Linux as soon as it was feasible. I believe he said a couple years ago that 80% of Oracle installations are on Linux. He's well aware of the importance of OOo. In "Softwar" he made a remark about the real Microsoft monopoly being Office, not Windows. It's impossible to know what will happen, but my guess is that OOo will be much better off. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 30, 2009 9:26 AM EDT |
> Capitalism is capitalism. You got a better system? Music to my eyes. |
| gus3 Apr 30, 2009 10:15 AM EDT |
Not arguing that. I just think Ms. Haugland's words will fall on deaf ears. |
| Steven_Rosenber Apr 30, 2009 4:38 PM EDT |
My tip to OO developers: Lose Java. |
| caitlyn Apr 30, 2009 5:41 PM EDT |
>Capitalism is capitalism. You got a better system? Music to my eyes. Probably moving towards a TOS violation here. Actually every successful economy in the world today is a blend of capitalism and socialism. It's true in the U.S., in Europe, Japan, Israel, even China. China's economy didn't take off until they allowed a free market system to begin to develop. Either one, in pure form, just doesn't work. The only question is how much of each to put into the mix and what level of government regulation or control works. The current economic crisis, at least in the U.S., was largely caused by wholesale deregulation which tore down the FDR era reforms to prevent another Great Depression. It began during the Reagan administration and continued in all subsequent administrations. The most damaging piece actually was done in the waning days of the Clinton administration when the Glass-Steagall act was repealed. Some, including Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) predicted a depression within a decade when that happened. He was right, unfortunately. Unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, which we came very close to during the robber baron period in the late 19th century in the U.S., is every bit as harmful as an overly socialist, government controlled system. We went too far in that same direction over the past 8-9 years. The goal of the capitalist is always to generate profits with little consideration for anything else. That motivation, which is basically greed, helped create the housing and banking crises when short-term profits in risky financial products outweighed long term considerations. So, to answer Bob's comment: Yes, I have a better system. It's the one we have settled on since WWII, a blend of capitalism in the form of an open market system tempered by government regulation to protect broader interests. I also believe that certain essential services where competition just isn't realistically possible are best controlled by the government. Where competition is possible is where regulated capitalism works best. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 30, 2009 8:33 PM EDT |
If Oracle actually uses OO.o to 'take it to' Microsoft, then I think Larry will finally get his 'win' against them.. |
| jdixon Apr 30, 2009 9:45 PM EDT |
> The most damaging piece actually was done in the waning days of the Clinton administration when the Glass-Steagall act was repealed. It will probably surprise you to find that I agree completely, though an explanation of exactly why would take far too long. > That motivation, which is basically greed, helped create the housing and banking crises when short-term profits in risky financial products outweighed long term considerations. Don't ignore the role which government interference and mis-regulation played in the matter. There's plenty of blame to go around, and the government deserves its fair share. |
| Bob_Robertson May 01, 2009 8:36 PM EDT |
> My tip to OO developers: Lose Java. Once decoupled from Sun, that is a very real possibility. It's not that I have any problem with Java, only that in an application I do not understand why anyone would want interpreted code. "Run Time" is the one commodity which benefits from being minimized, and since applications are compiled once and run many times, an extra few seconds of compile time seems a trivial cost. > Probably moving towards a TOS violation here. Best then to avoid the subject. However, once breached... Please understand, I'm not begrudging your motivation to do good. I'm trying to de-couple your instinct to help others from the lies you've been told by those who benefit by selling you really thick rose-coloured glasses. > Actually every successful economy in the world today is a blend of capitalism and socialism. And that "success" can be qualified, perfectly, by the magnitude of the former vs. the magnitude of the latter. China is an excellent example, in fact. Tiny Hong Kong, with near total capitalism, was an economic power-house. China, at the same time, with the same people, same language, same culture, and huge population and natural resources, utterly stagnant under near total socialism. Once the reform of the Chinese economy started, people stopped starving. The greater the shift, the greater the benefits for the largest number of people. Britain, before Thatcher compared with after Thatcher, again shows the same pattern. So does New Zeland around 1984. > The only question is how much of each to put into the mix The "only" question then is how much poison a body can take and continue to function. You might be interested in a little book called "Socialism", http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx Ok, 500 pages isn't all that small, but it's small in comparison to other economics texts. Central planning does not work. What you call "regulation" brings into it "Public Choice" economics. The bureaucrat's choices end up benefiting themselves, not the citizens. The businesses being regulated have IMMENSE motivation to corrupt the system, and they do so often by actively lobbying FOR the regulations themselves as a way to protect themselves from competition. It was the wealthy "robber baron" bankers who established the Federal Reserve, for example, because they didn't like being restrained by the gold/silver standard. Once established, there is incredible inertia to never re-examine the effects of a regulatory body. All bureaucracies tend to grow, since an increase in staffing and budget is "success" for a bureaucracy. To actually solve any problem would mean less staffing and lower budgets, the very definition of bureaucratic failure. It's easy to say that some regulation is necessary. So, what problems specifically are you trying to fix? I'm not trying to be misleading here, I really want to know exactly what you think is a problem, because I honestly believe if we dig under the scab we will find, not private property and voluntary interaction, but a problem caused by interference in the market by government. > was largely caused by wholesale deregulation which tore down the FDR era reforms to prevent another Great Depression. The reason you can't point to any actual "deregulation" is because there was none. That's a myth used by the regulators to justify taking more of your money to bail out the bad choices their friends made. You do realize that "Fannie and Freddie" were GOVERNMENT programs, which lobbied politicians and made HUGE campaign contributions in order to expand their lending capabilities? You do realize that the political pressure to make those "sub prime" loans which, as was obvious since they were in fact "sub prime" started under Carter (for all good intentions, if his later life is any indication), was expanded greatly by Clinton as a way of gaining votes from "poor" who wanted to think they could take out loans to own homes? And Bush expanded that even more, always with the explicit assumption that the loans bought by Fannie and Freedie would be backed by the Fed.Gov since they were government agencies. The supposed "deregulation" is usually pointed to letting F/F make/buy even more bad loans. So expanding a government program is now called "deregulation". Sure enough, that is EXACTLY what happened. You also need to learn what "Fractional Reserve Banking" is. Banks are very highly regulated institutions. They are sanctioned for not making enough loans, for carrying "too high" a reserve. Bankers know that some loans will go bad. The reason those "excessive" housing loans were called "sub prime" in the first place was because they were more likely to be defaulted upon. The loans were not "sub prime", the BORROWERS were. But what happens with "fractional reserve" when a bunch of loans go bad at the same time? The bank is instantly insolvent, since the money on deposit is all loaned out, some 9 TIMES over. Each bad loan means 9 TIMES that much money from depositors is lost. The reason for multiple bad loans at the same time is called a "bubble". Boom and bust. The bust comes, and the fractional reserve banking system is left hanging. The more CENTRALIZED that banking system, the greater the bust. Even the Great Depression couldn't happen until after the founding of the Federal Reserve, touted as the institution that would prevent depressions. The Federal Reserve has been debasing the US currency since its inception. Since 1921, each time a correction began, that correction was prevented by dumping more money into the system. Keep in mind that Harding is called a "do nothing" president because he allowed the correction of 1921 (correcting the bubble from money printed to pay for WW1) to occur without interference. It lasted a year and no one remembers it. Hoover declared he would never allow such a correction, and sure enough he started the Great Depression which FDR only made worse. But why the correction? Because the previous boom created by money being dumped into the system had to go bust, to correct the mal-investment. The corrections were worsened, and prolonged, by these interventions. What's even more absurd is that by dumping even more money into the system, they created more bubbles, where the next correction had to correct not only the latest bubble, but the previous bubbles too. Which is why we're here. > Unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, which we came very close to during the robber baron period in the late 19th century in the U.S., is every bit as harmful as an overly socialist, government controlled system. Now this is a sentiment which I just cannot understand. How can killing 250 MILLION PEOPLE by socialism in the 20th century be compared to a time when everything was becoming less expensive? When lifespans and living standards were improving for even the poorest people? Here's a short history about those "robber barons": http://mises.org/story/2317 "{Most} fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors." So we're right back to what JDixon was trying to tell you above: When you try to say that "pure capitalism" is destructive, take a moment and make sure you're not actually talking about problems caused by the people who utilize government power to enrich themselves at the cost of others: Socialists. |
| jdixon May 01, 2009 9:17 PM EDT |
> And that "success" can be qualified, perfectly, by the magnitude of the former vs. the magnitude of the latter. Didn't I have this exact discussion with Dino recently? :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!