Controversy Arises Over SPI Project, Fighting With Elementary OS

[emblemparade]

This is actually a case of both sides being right.

Joshua Drake (SPI director) was behaving a bit childishly: if ElementaryOS had agreed to join SPI, I'm sure he would never blog anything negative about them. It's only because they said no (and possibly answered arrogantly) that he decided to dig up some old complaints about them. It's a bit like asking someone out on a date (because you like them!), and then saying bad things about them online when they reject you.

But it's also true that there was some merit in the old complaints about ElementaryOS. Cassidy James of ElementaryOS made a blog post explaining the donation system. He, too, was behaving a bit childishly when he called people who type in "$0" "cheaters." He obviously got a lot of negative responses to that, and so changed the wording, though the attitude is still pretty much there: it's clear that he believes that people who use eOS (or any free software) should consider paying for it, even if it's just a little. Actually, that attitude is very widespread in the free (libre) software world. He just used really exaggerated wording originally!

I think eOS comes out better here: they made a mistake and quickly changed it. Mistakes happen. SPI is being very un-classy here because of sour grapes: why dig up a deleted word, and why do it when you get rejected for a business offer?

[eidolon]

I happened to find an old interview Bryan Lunduke did with Daniel For?. 1:20-21:20 covers the financial side. In addition to "servers, merch to resell, and occasionally conference/travel costs and development hardware" and taxes, at least some of the money goes to https://www.bountysource.com/teams/elementary/bounties. 32:30-37:00 focuses on bounties specifically.

[SystemCrasher]

How are they AT ALL being aggressive IN ANY WAY? They are saying that you should pay for their software, which if you can afford it you should but if you can't then you can still use it.

First, one more time: this is not "their" software to begin with. They haven't wrote it themselves and so do not have exclusive rights over it.
Second, as far as I understand, it is donation. Yet, aggressively enforced donation looks strange enough.
Third, they yell its "100% free". Which looks really ironic granted their methods.

Basically it looks like hidden attempt to sell copies of SW while yelling its "100% free" and overall it sounds like questionable and fraudulent way of doing things. I guess it's not completely illegal, but they can't expect to get good reputation this way.

It's not like they've changed a couple strings, they've written their own window manager, their own dock, their own desktop ffs.

Still, most of code has been written by others, don't you think so? Of course, "couple strings" is a bit exagerrated since only dumbest of dumbest distros will be as lame as this.

What you guys don't understand is how important ElementaryOS is in converting non-Linux users.

I do understand that if someone wants proprietary-minded ecosystem where vendors are trying to pwn and cheat users here and there, there're already couple of these. No need for one more walled garden and bunch of treacherous restrictive fucks. TBH I fail to see why one would have goal to "convert non-Linux users" on its own.

Nobody else has been able to pull it off as well. It is the only Linux distribution my parents can use without any assistance from me.

Bullshit. I had experience installing ubuntu or derivatives (kubuntu, xubuntu) to quite many dumbass users. After you show them couple of things, they are fine on their own. Kubuntu or Xubuntu is really good for those who used windows for a while due to more or less classic desktop. It also looking good and lacks obvious defects, etc.

You do not have to use the terminal if you don't want to, and it's just overall great.

I can tell more or less the same about Ubuntu and derivatives. Though I can admit that if one disregards terminal, they miss heck a lot of things and doomed to be far less effective than those who learned some basic things about it. You see, even M$ got this idea these days...

GNOME is frustrating by default and customizing it is annoying from the end-user's perspective, and so is Unity. eOS pulls everything off SO well. Ubuntu couldn't do it, Fedora couldn't do it, Linux Mint couldn't do it.

So for those who got used to classic winduz desktop I prefer Kubuntu or Xubuntu (Xubuntu is being good for relatively weak computers). These usually polished enough and do not come with controversial Unity but rather provide "classic" desktop experience. Fedora... okay, its for those who want to test future RHEL right now.

eOS did and with flying colors, because they understand non-techy end users and that is EXTREMELY important if you want Linux to become mainstream.

Well, you can go buy android crap and enjoy by "mainstream linux" plagued by spyware, adware, stealing user data and so on. And lacking most features because ... most users do not need advanced stuff anyway. So you'll be thankful if you got crappy busybox shell at all. Wanna something like this on "more desktop" stack? Any reasons for such wish?

They have to make money to exist, and simply emphasizing that you should pay for it if you use it is just not bad in any way. I'm just so disappointed at all of you. There will never be a day where everything is free and good.

I'm not against of someone getting money as reward for their work. Yet, some methods of getting money could lead to poor reputation. Racket-style donation? Hmm, interesting idea.

[jimbohale]

There is "little" difference...

- If I go to LibreOffice site and initiate download, I'm getting file I've requested FIRST and ONLY THEN mentioned donation page appears. At this point download already progresses and donation is obviously optional. At very least, this implementation does not breaks users expectations.
- Elementary requires payment BEFORE download starts, which is "a bit" different. While it is not illegal, it is quite strange to yell "100% free" first and then be so aggressive in demanding donation. This is somewhat fraudulent attitude and there is mismatch of expectations, which would hardly lead to good reputation. So in SPI shoes I would rather not to deal with these half-scammers. Who knows what they will invent next time? I wouldn't be surprised if they'll pre-install some adware/spyware/malware next time and argue you can uninstall it.

Extra bonus: you have attempted to fool me, don't you? You linked to donation page itself, it does not starts download, only asks for donation. This looks weird, sure. However, if I revisit download area from LO site, download starts right before this page appears. So, nice try. I'm surely able to test "typical" download use case scenario. I'm not sure if it was hotlinking protection or just wrong copy-paste from you, but whatever: you've attempted to give me false impression. I'm sorry to inform you but it failed. I do not see anything wrong in asking for donation itself after download started. Yelling about "100% free" and then placing hard to bypass payment page is really different story in terms of users expctations mismatch.

How are they AT ALL being aggressive IN ANY WAY? They are saying that you should pay for their software, which if you can afford it you should but if you can't then you can still use it. It's not like they've changed a couple strings, they've written their own window manager, their own dock, their own desktop ffs. What you guys don't understand is how important ElementaryOS is in converting non-Linux users. Nobody else has been able to pull it off as well. It is the only Linux distribution my parents can use without any assistance from me. It's the only Linux distribution my grandparents can use that requires no assistance from me. You do not have to use the terminal if you don't want to, and it's just overall great. GNOME is frustrating by default and customizing it is annoying from the end-user's perspective, and so is Unity. eOS pulls everything off SO well. Ubuntu couldn't do it, Fedora couldn't do it, Linux Mint couldn't do it. eOS did and with flying colors, because they understand non-techy end users and that is EXTREMELY important if you want Linux to become mainstream. They have to make money to exist, and simply emphasizing that you should pay for it if you use it is just not bad in any way. I'm just so disappointed at all of you. There will never be a day where everything is free and good.

[SystemCrasher]

You mean like LibreOffice?

http://donate.libreoffice.org/home/d...x86-64_sdk.dmg

There is "little" difference...

- If I go to LibreOffice site and initiate download, I'm getting file I've requested FIRST and ONLY THEN mentioned donation page appears. At this point download already progresses and donation is obviously optional. At very least, this implementation does not breaks users expectations.
- Elementary requires payment BEFORE download starts, which is "a bit" different. While it is not illegal, it is quite strange to yell "100% free" first and then be so aggressive in demanding donation. This is somewhat fraudulent attitude and there is mismatch of expectations, which would hardly lead to good reputation. So in SPI shoes I would rather not to deal with these half-scammers. Who knows what they will invent next time? I wouldn't be surprised if they'll pre-install some adware/spyware/malware next time and argue you can uninstall it.

Extra bonus: you have attempted to fool me, don't you? You linked to donation page itself, it does not starts download, only asks for donation. This looks weird, sure. However, if I revisit download area from LO site, download starts right before this page appears. So, nice try. I'm surely able to test "typical" download use case scenario. I'm not sure if it was hotlinking protection or just wrong copy-paste from you, but whatever: you've attempted to give me false impression. I'm sorry to inform you but it failed. I do not see anything wrong in asking for donation itself after download started. Yelling about "100% free" and then placing hard to bypass payment page is really different story in terms of users expctations mismatch.

[eidolon]

Thanks asdfblah for the imgur cap, the removed blog post wasn't in Google, archive.org nor Bing caches any more.

For the time being, you can still get it from http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...inuxhiker.org/.

[eidolon]

The guys blog really doesn't trash Elementary OS.

To be clear, I never claimed one side was out to torpedo the other, I merely quoted, and drew a reasonable extrapolation from the quote, that being that upcoming blog coverage was mentioned, since Daniel For? mentioned it on G+ before Joshua Drake made his blog entry. As to the pointless melodrama that has subsequently been generated, I don't care.

[curaga]

Thanks asdfblah for the imgur cap, the removed blog post wasn't in Google, archive.org nor Bing caches any more.

[kenjitamura]

To be be fair to Daniel For? of elementary OS, most people aren't in the habit of recording their telephone conversations <insert NSA joke>.

What is known is that at 2015-Feb-12, 00:49:07, Daniel For? wrote on Google+, "But I basically said, 'Okay thanks, I'm not sure I'm interested but if you want to continue in email that would be great?' and his response was, 'no what I'm going to do is go blog about how poor your product is'." And on 2015-Feb-12, 18:26:00, Joshua Drake published his blog entry about the "Machiavellian" elementary OS.

Regardless of whom you are inclined to believe, something must have been communicated during the call regarding upcoming blog coverage.

Ultimately this will neither affect SPI nor elementary OS, and all parties involved will continue not looking beyond their own viewpoints. This is just melodrama for people to overreact about. At least this article wasn't systemd clickbait.

The guys blog really doesn't trash Elementary OS. It's just one long-winded post about how Elementary OS isn't sincere on their website about not being an open source project and a reference to the reddit controversy regarding the explicitly having to type "$0" and the lack of a "$0" button option given on the download page. Both are valid points.

[eidolon]

The only part that reflects bad on SPI is the aggressive sales pitch claimed by one of the elementary members (but to be fair to SPI there doesn't seem to be recorded proof of this).

To be be fair to Daniel For? of elementary OS, most people aren't in the habit of recording their telephone conversations <insert NSA joke>.

What is known is that at 2015-Feb-12, 00:49:07, Daniel For? wrote on Google+, "But I basically said, 'Okay thanks, I'm not sure I'm interested but if you want to continue in email that would be great?' and his response was, 'no what I'm going to do is go blog about how poor your product is'." And on 2015-Feb-12, 18:26:00, Joshua Drake published his blog entry about the "Machiavellian" elementary OS.

Regardless of whom you are inclined to believe, something must have been communicated during the call regarding upcoming blog coverage.

Ultimately this will neither affect SPI nor elementary OS, and all parties involved will continue not looking beyond their own viewpoints. This is just melodrama for people to overreact about. At least this article wasn't systemd clickbait.