Oracle's OpenOffice ver 3.2.1 has been removed.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Sep 30, 2010 6:53 AM EDT |
Ever since I saw Oracle's name written across OpenOffice, I have winced and felt very uneasy about exactly what Oracle's version of OpenOffice was doing on my computer. Yesterday, OpenOffice 3.2.1 (Oracle) was removed from my main work computer and OpenOffice 3.2.0 (Sun) replaced it. That is now where I shall stay until LibreOffice releases its next full upgrade, and then I shall be staying with whatever the Document Foundation provides.....Like more and more people are saying: "Goodbye Oracle, hello Libre Office". |
| caitlyn Sep 30, 2010 9:24 AM EDT |
You downgraded because of the company logo? Really? Sorry, but to me that is just plain silly. Yes, you have a Sun logo but Sun is now owned by Oracle. I also won't rush to change anything until my distro does, and then only if what the Document Foundation puts out is at least equal if not superior to what Oracle puts out. I won't cut my nose to spite my face. Oracle gets zero dollars and zero cents in revenue if I run OOo so I don't see how doing so benefits their business. I am particularly concerned about MS Office compatibilty. Considering that I support Oracle database products as part of my work and that I get paid well to do it I would feel like a hypocrite if I changed just because I don't like Oracle's interactions with FOSS. I'm not going to turn away consulting clients because I don't like their choice of software, particularly if the best applications specific to their business have an Oracle backend. So... how has your downgrade hurt Oracle exactly? |
| bigg Sep 30, 2010 9:31 AM EDT |
OOo was released under the LGPL. If you see that license, you don't need to bother looking at who gave you the software. |
| caitlyn Sep 30, 2010 9:34 AM EDT |
Thank you, bigg. A voice of reason... |
| Ridcully Sep 30, 2010 10:07 AM EDT |
@caitlyn.....You have taken what I have done to absurdity. Reduced to basics, I replaced a slightly later version of OO released by Oracle (OO 3.2.1) with a slightly earlier version released wholly by Sun (OO 3.2.0) before it was taken over by Oracle. If you like, you can call it an act of useless defiance against a commercial entity that is certainly not, in my view, a friend of FOSS, but ultimately it's my choice and not yours. I used both OO3.2.0(Sun) and OO3.2.1(Oracle) and for what I do, found no difference in any aspect of operation. I don't have to support Oracle software as part of my work so I can do as I darn well please. If your work with Oracle products would make you feel a hypocrite over some action or non-action that's your understandable personal feelings and perceptions, but they are not mine. Has it hurt Oracle ? What a silly, silly, silly, silly, silly question ! Of course it hasn't hurt Oracle caitlyn; Oracle wouldn't even know I have done it, much less care, and you knew that before you asked so why bother asking ? All my rejection move does is make **me** feel a little better in returning my version to something that "feels nicer" to me in that it was produced by a team within an organisation that was then more or less friendly to FOSS even if it dragged its feet. If you like, it's the same sort of glow that Stallman gets when he knows that only a certain type of software sits on his computer. Got the idea ? |
| caitlyn Sep 30, 2010 11:11 AM EDT |
No, I don't get the idea. You are doing something meaningless because it makes you feel good. It's still meaningless and pointless. It removes bugfixes but if you like your bugs you are more than welcome to them. Your reaction is over the top to say the least. You are certainly free to do what you darn well please no matter how silly. You posted here about it to start a thread as if this was some important or noble act, hence my reaction. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2010 11:58 AM EDT |
> You are doing something meaningless because it makes you feel good. If it makes him feel good, then it's not meaningless to him. > It's still meaningless and pointless. See above. People often make decisions for purely emotional reasons, but that doesn't make their decisions, or the actions taken as a result of them, meaningless. Unwise, perhaps, but not meaningless. In any case, it's his computer, what software he runs on it is entirely his decision to make, for whatever reasons he chooses. That's what freedom means. |
| bigg Sep 30, 2010 12:00 PM EDT |
> what software he runs on it is entirely his decision to make, for whatever reasons he chooses Only so long as he sticks with FOSS. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2010 12:10 PM EDT |
> Only so long as he sticks with FOSS. True. Microsoft and Apple make a lot of the decisions about what software you can and can't run for you. |
| herzeleid Sep 30, 2010 2:05 PM EDT |
I support the right of any linux users to symbolically protest an entity perceived as being hostile to open source by declining to use their products. It seems a bit mean spirited (and perhaps short sighted) for another linux user, of all people, to criticize their protest as meaningless. |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 30, 2010 3:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:It seems a bit mean spirited [...] for another linux user, [...] to criticize their protest as meaningless.Hertz*, I second your motion. As punishment I suggest forced use of Windows for a period not shorter than one month, with AV additions being optional. Do we have any more votes? YBT * You are the guy cycles are named after, right? |
| tracyanne Sep 30, 2010 4:53 PM EDT |
[quote]You are doing something meaningless because it makes you feel good. If it makes him feel good, then it's not meaningless to him. > It's still meaningless and pointless.{/quote] @JDixion, you should have stopped here. Regardless of sentence 2, it's still pointless. It's also just plain silly, it's cutting of your noes to spite your face. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2010 5:13 PM EDT |
> it's cutting of your noes to spite your face. Only if he needs any extra functionality the Oracle version provides. From his comments, I doubt he does. And actually, given past events on other threads, I should probably have never posted in the first place, but that's another topic. |
| tracyanne Sep 30, 2010 5:18 PM EDT |
@jd, then it was both pointless and meaningless, as caitlyn said, and he lost the bug fixes. The whole exercise was a bit like wearing a black suit and peeing yourself, it gives you a nice warm feeling, but no one notices. |
| jdixon Sep 30, 2010 5:20 PM EDT |
> ...then it was both pointless and meaningless... To you, perhaps. Not to him. |
| tracyanne Sep 30, 2010 5:44 PM EDT |
as I said black suit, pee, warm feelling |
| Ridcully Sep 30, 2010 5:46 PM EDT |
Thanks herzeleid, hit the target in one. Usually I am pretty pragmatic as to what I run on my Linux OS, including a few proprietary items running on Crossover; one of which I find very distasteful to have to use, but if your research work demands it then that is what you do. I fully support the moves by the Document Foundation; I will not, where I have the freedom to do so, give any implied or real support to a commercial entity that has now proven itself hostile to FOSS principles and/or ethics. |
| tuxchick Sep 30, 2010 6:10 PM EDT |
I make sure my systems are 100% Mono-free. Why? Because two, count 'em, two of the Mono devs didn't like the Mono stories I was posting on brand x and sent me several very nasty emails. They made it personal. So it gives me a small warm happy glow to not have Mono on my computers. I don't care if Mono lives or dies, or if they live or die, though if we ever meet in person I am going to find out if they are as brave in person as they are in email. |
| caitlyn Sep 30, 2010 8:16 PM EDT |
I don't have Mono installed either for one very simple reason: I don't use any apps that depend on it. I can't see one good reason why I should install it. |
| tracyanne Sep 30, 2010 9:25 PM EDT |
I don't have any applications that use mono installed, I removed them all using sudo apt-get purge libmono* libgdiplus cli-common libglitz-glx1 libglitz1. I was then able to use a debian repository to reinstall Mono, now I can better track the changes as Mono is developed. |
| hkwint Oct 01, 2010 7:09 AM EDT |
Not using something because of a company logo isn't silly at all. If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself: "When going out for petrol, do I only look at the functionality of the petrol?" Because - last thing I heard - BP had to change all their company logo's on their petrol stations because otherwise they would be left with no customers. Not that BP gives a damn if you go to their petrol station or not, because they don't. It's not the place where they earn their money. For them, having petrol stations is only a nuisance. If you stop going theire, they won't notice. They couldn't care less if nobody in the US goes to the BP petrol stations anymore. If so, they'll just sell them. Still, they care about their image. That's why they're thinking about changing logos. And that's why logos are important, this whole thing is about corporate image, emotions, perception and goodwill. Thinking the whole issue is only about functionality and profits, _that's_ just plain silly. |
| caitlyn Oct 01, 2010 1:10 PM EDT |
BP stations still have the same logos as always here in North Carolina. People still go to their stations as much as ever. A few weeks ago a BP station in Wake Forest actually had lower prices than the Wal Mart across the street and cars were lined up to get fuel there. With all due respect, at least in this country, the BP logo and name doesn't really seem to have suffered in terms of sales. |
| herzeleid Oct 01, 2010 3:47 PM EDT |
Re: mono - I'm still using mono because I've got a lot of tomboy notes containing tips and tricks and lessons learned for the systems I administer here at work. I guess It's just a lack of time, or disorganization, or laziness. I'll look into a way to migrate from tomboy to it's mono-free equivalent when I upgrade my work desktop from hardy heron to lucid lynx. |
| tracyanne Oct 01, 2010 6:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself: For what Reason? In what way is BP any different than any other Multi National corporation? When I buy Petrol functionality is the only criteria I use (on average all brands of Petrol cost the same), so the only criteria I have left is functionality, and there is only 1 Petrol Station in my general area that sells Ethanol enhanced Petrol, so that's where I go, I don't even know what the brand is. |
| hkwint Oct 01, 2010 8:31 PM EDT |
Caitlyn: Here you go;
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/bp-might-change-name-t...
Up to 40% decline, the article says. Some people care about ethics, and they're an important share of the population. I'm not claiming everybody acts out of emotion, but an important share of the population does. If large companies do things which are perceived "unethical", their image will suffer. Even if another large share of the population couldn't care less. You only have to search for "boycott BP" (you'll notice many hits are not about the US, but Africa), "boycott Total" (dare I say Novell?) or whatever to find millions of people who start boycotting some company because they think the company has a bad influence on society. For that share of the population it's not about business, money or rational decisions (if you're a rational person though, congrats to you - but probably you're a minority), it's about "ethics" and emotions. The stock market is also about emotions, and that's what Oracle cares about. So that's why "a vocal bunch of people not willing to use Oracle-products" is _not_ pointless. |
| caitlyn Oct 02, 2010 12:11 AM EDT |
Hans, we'll just have to agree to disagree. To me removing bugfixes and downgrading because of a logo is beyond pointless. It very much fits the old saw of cutting your nose to spite your face. |
| Ridcully Oct 02, 2010 12:24 AM EDT |
And permit me to say also Caitlyn, that my perception is that Oracle is now a company with ethical stances that I find repugnant. The information I have so far leads me to believe that Oracle is a company whose baseline motives are greed and the desire for power over others. There also appears to be either disdain for or rejection of the principles and ethics of FOSS. You don't sue a fellow supporter of FOSS (without first discussing the problem), but (as far as I know) Oracle has; you don't shut down a superb open sourced Unix operating system (capable of providing good feedback to the parent company) by removing all support from it and ignoring it, but (as far as I know) Oracle has; and finally, you don't set up management situations where a large number of the team involved in a flagship piece of open source software is so upset by what is happening that they are prepared to "fork the code" and form the Document Foundation, but Oracle certainly has. I now compare Oracle's actions with those of Microsoft. You may consider this is exaggeration, but it's my personal opinion and I don't think I am alone in my concepts either. Edited: I forgot to add one more item: Provided I have freedom of choice, will I use software produced by Oracle ? You can work out the answer yourself. It would offend every principle of FOSS ethics I have and I think that is where this thread began, although I have not put it quite as bluntly. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2010 12:59 AM EDT |
I can't see where Oracle has changed. |
| gus3 Oct 02, 2010 2:15 AM EDT |
I just realized: I've never seen a photo of Larry Ellison with a smile, never mind laughing. I know, ad hominem. But it was easy to find photos of Sun Microsystems execs smiling. I have next to me a book with Jack Welch on the cover, and he's smiling. Then again, in his PR pic, Darl McBride is smiling. Steve Ballmer might be smiling, too, but I don't care to find out. Look for the joie de vivre. Some have it, some don't. |
| Sander_Marechal Oct 02, 2010 3:26 AM EDT |
Quoting:You only have to search for "boycott BP", "boycott Total" (dare I say Novell?) or whatever to find millions of people who start boycotting some company because they think the company has a bad influence on society. But I suspect that people who care enough to participate in such boycots are savvy enough not to be fooled by a change in name or logo. |
| caitlyn Oct 02, 2010 2:15 PM EDT |
I think we have finally found the crux of the disagreements:Quoting:There also appears to be either disdain for or rejection of the principles and ethics of FOSS I have never accepted or subscribed to the notion that proprietary software is somehow unethical. I have never accepted to subscribed to the idea that FOSS is somehow ethical. This is why I am in no way a supporter of the FSF. My reason for supporting FOSS comes from two principles: first, it is the proverbial "better mousetrap". Openness and peer review result in better code at lower cost. Second, monopolies are inherently bad for business and bad for consumers. I support free markets, not monopolies in area where competition can resonably take place. (I support regulated monopolies or government ownership where competition cannot take place or for certain essential services, i.e.: public safety or utilities, but that is tangential to this discussion.) Consequently I don't see Oracle as somehow unethical. Ethics have nothing to do with it as far as I am concerned. I also should have made clear before that there is a difference between boycotting a company that has harmed millions of people and the environment in a gross way and boycotting a logo of a company that has done nothing of the sort. The BP boycott is an attempt to cause financial harm in return. Whether it can have an impact or not is another issue. What Ridcully is doing may make him personally feel good but it clearly has no impact on Oracle whatsoever. Also, in light of the latest news about Microsoft's lawsuit against Motorola, I suggest people read the patents they are claiming. If they can defend a patent for long file names (something *nix had before Windows) then the can sue every competing operating system out of existence. This isn't an attack on Motorola or Android alone. This is the first shot in an assault on both Linux and the BSDs, including MacOS. Oracle's lawsuit is strictly over Java and does not have the same wide implications. So, no, I do not equate Oracle with Microsoft. Oracle also does not have a monopoly share of any market AFAIK. Quoting:Provided I have freedom of choice, will I use software produced by Oracle ? You can work out the answer yourself. It would offend every principle of FOSS ethics I have and I think that is where this thread began, although I have not put it quite as bluntly. I accept that is your belief and you are certainly free to act on it. However, I do not share the view that ethics are involved at all. Using proprietary software does not violate my ethical principles in any way, and yes, that includes Microsoft software. Besides, if I want to stop using proprietary software, including Oracle software, I would need to find another line of work. |
| ComputerBob Oct 02, 2010 3:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:If you're in the US, this is the question you should be asking yourself: Anyone who uses the word "petrol" in their answer probably doesn't live in the U.S. In the U.S., we call it "gasoline" or "gas," not "petrol." |
| jdixon Oct 02, 2010 4:09 PM EDT |
> ...as I said black suit, pee, warm feelling.. Yeah, we noticed. I was being nice and ignoring it. But now I've been reminded again that being nice is particularly appreciated by some LXer moderators, so I'll drop the subject, and the thread. |
| tracyanne Oct 02, 2010 6:40 PM EDT |
@Bob, no I don't live in the US, but you missed the important bitQuoting:For what Reason? In what way is BP any different than any other Multi National corporation? I don't think that has been answered. |
| caitlyn Oct 02, 2010 7:13 PM EDT |
...and if they are different from other multinationals then how are they different from other big oil companies? I'm sure most of you remember the Exxon Valdez for example. Ask the people of Cordova, Alaska about it. Their fishing industry has never bounced back. I do think that the oil industry does behave differently than other industries in some ways. Having said that, BP is hardly unique. OTOH, BP did successfully lobby the U.S. President at the time to overthrow another government. Very few multinationals have succeeded at that level. |
| Ridcully Oct 02, 2010 8:11 PM EDT |
Caitlyn, neither do I believe proprietary software is of itself, unethical; I use it myself and as I stated in one of my first posts on this thread, I am very pragmatic about using both proprietary and FOSS based software ~ essentially, you and I agree completely on that point. And incidentally, from information I have been given, I am lead to believe that Oracle's databasing product is of itself, excellent. I don't use it, so I don't know that personally. The problem as always, is found within the individual company that is producing the software and that in turn rests on that company's individual business ethics and principles. It is here that you and I appear to have very differing views of Oracle's ethics and principles and for the moment, neither of us will change our stance. I provided three excellent examples of where I believe Oracle has failed in those ethics and principles; you have addressed none of them. I am not constrained or disadvantaged in any way by refusing to use software produced by Oracle, therefore I may choose or reject it quite freely. From what I read in your posting above, you do not appear to have that freedom. I fully accept your position and to an extent, sympathise; however each of us operates under very different conditions and restrictions and makes choices that further our own goals. Let's leave it at that. I understand and empathise with your position now only too well; I regret that (from my reading of your posts) even though you accept my position, you cannot, or will not, understand it. |
| gus3 Oct 03, 2010 3:59 AM EDT |
Eight years ago, I removed Webmin from my system. It had been a very useful tool, but the primary developer at the time took a public stance against Freedom, a stance which I found extremely revolting. That stance has long ago disappeared from the Webmin site and propaganda, but I have yet to get over the revulsion. |
| hkwint Oct 03, 2010 7:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:In the U.S., we call it "gasoline" or "gas," Sorry, Wine 1.3.3 broke Euroglot. Quoting:Hans, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Not necessarily, the whole thing was not meant to voice my own opinion, but to show the difference: As it turned out, Ridcully belongs to the more emotional part of the population, thinking about ethics and such. As it turned out (and of course I already knew), both Caitlyn and TracyAnne belong to the people thinking more rational and I'd say in an utilitarian way. Of course, it might happen these two groups don't understand each other. The thing I tried to show, is both groups are important, even if the actions of the "emotional" group seems to have no direct financial consequences for some company. I wil politely refrain from discussing Exxon Mobile, as my personal beliefs will certainly lead to TOS-violations (and one shouldn't bite the hand that feeds). |
| Ridcully Oct 04, 2010 5:56 AM EDT |
Nicely put hkwint........And each side should understand where the other is coming from. Too often it doesn't happen. I wonder how we can effectively combine practicality and ethics ? Is there a modern software organisation that does it ? I think that the GPL tries to produce that, but ultimately it all depends on the ethical base of the people controlling the organization....It's an interesting situation and I have no definitive answer. |
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!