McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
Posted Jul 2, 2023 11:06 UTC (Sun) by sadoon (subscriber, #155365)In reply to: McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source by geofft
Parent article: McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
The Venn diagram of FOSS enthusiasts and anti-corporate hipsters is a little less than a circle. It's unfortunate but I understand why it is and I agree with their view most of the time. Most big corporations are evil by default, but that's more of an incentive to support a corporation that's doing genuinely good things for the community as a whole, even if you don't agree with some of their decisions; they've enabled your freedom, and (good) software is hard work that doesn't come from unicorn farts (hobbyist work).
If no one supports RH with money, they'll find another way to make profit and I'll bet that it won't be something to help FOSS.
Posted Jul 2, 2023 15:41 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
Most big corps are evil BY LAW. In order to comply with the law, companies find it difficult to be compassionate, and are forced into psychopathic behaviour.
Don't blame the company, blame the environment they live in. (Think eg the US DoD spending $100/hammer, so they can prove they aren't being ripped off ...)
Posted Jul 2, 2023 16:04 UTC (Sun)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
Not quite. Corporations (of all types) must act *in their shareholders' interest* Typically, this means means maximizing (short term!) financial returns. which inevitably seems to lead to sociopathic evil-ness. However, if the shareholders make it clear they prioritize other things, that's perfectly fine in the eyes of the law!
Generally speaking, corporations that don't keep their shareholders happy tend to find their senior management removed and replaced with ones that promise to do whatever the shareholders want -- which, unfortunately, tends to be "maximum short term financial return. No-so-coincidentally, that's also easy to measure, so of course it becomes an (the?) important metric.
Posted Jul 3, 2023 12:21 UTC (Mon)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (1 responses)
Even that's not strictly true. They must first abide by the goals set out in the Articles of Association that created the business. If the shareholders don't like that, they can be changed, but that may be a much higher bar than a simple majority.
That's how you get social businesses, whose goal at incorporation may be e.g. "ensure affordable housing for people in area X" or even "provide safe drinking water for the people in area X". Handing out large dividends would run counter to that goal. Mostly these kinds of organisation are associations or cooperatives, but sometimes an LLC is chosen.
(Articles of Association are supposed to be on the public record, but can be surprisingly difficult to locate if you don't know where to look.)
Posted Jul 3, 2023 14:04 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I wish that described the situation here in the UK ... they went from mismanaged nationalised industries to - reasonably decent - privately owned companies, to subsidiaries of profit-mad international conglomerates.
They also have the big problem that - like an awful lot of public infrastructure - the government loves dumping responsibilities on them, then taking away their ability to pay for those responsibilities. Then the government gets all upset when everything goes pear-shaped.
Cheers,
McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
Cheers,
Wol
McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
McGrath: Red Hat’s commitment to open source
Wol