The problem with "Don't be evil" is that it's subjective. Google isn't a hardcore idealist because people that refuse to cooperate unless all of their demands are met never really get anywhere (see RMS). Compromise is a fact of life for everyone. Principles shouldn't be compromised, and you have to draw the line, but you also have to cooperate with people who have a different perspective than yourself.
I don't see either censorship in China or the net neutrality proposal (which I don't know much about) as bonafide "evil". You may disagree, but it's hard to say that they are evil or done with evil intent.
Oracle, on the other hand, is pretty easy to call evil because they act out of cruel self-interest practically exclusively. Oracle is always taking cheap shots.
>because people that refuse to cooperate unless all of their demands are met never really get anywhere (see RMS).
RMS would be a clear counterexample. (See Linux, GNU utils, the recent GPLv3 release of Castle Wolfenstein, and many many other victories.) It's a curious sort of logic that says a hardline stance is ineffective because 100% of his goals aren't meant.
Not that moderates don't also serve a purpose, but the radicals are an absolute necessity.
I agree that radicals are important and that RMS particularly is useful because he pushes the dialogue forward and keeps new ideas on the table. It's a good goalpost.
But nobody takes RMS's advice as practical. It's just too extreme. Most people don't believe as RMS stated in his recent Reddit interview that the only way to ethically use a pacemaker or other life-saving device that relies on proprietary software would be to start developing an open-source replacement.
RMS has been somewhat successful, but I think much less than he would have been if he hadn't poured so many resources into the silly points that should have easily been let go, like "GNU/Linux".
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw
Most of Oracle's moves are short term plays. Growing the Java and Unix industries would allow them to sell boxes. These do the opposite, in favor of making cash now.
It's a long-term strategy and Sun ran out of juice. The strategy doesn't work by itself; you do the kinds of things Sun was doing to keep the ecosystem active and healthy, and then you release and aggressively promote a commercial Java IDE and make a ton of cash, and build other products on top of the ecosystem that you sustain.
In my opinion Sun's downfall was a serious overestimation of SPARC's performance. They needed to move and get something else out there.
I don't see either censorship in China or the net neutrality proposal (which I don't know much about) as bonafide "evil". You may disagree, but it's hard to say that they are evil or done with evil intent.
Oracle, on the other hand, is pretty easy to call evil because they act out of cruel self-interest practically exclusively. Oracle is always taking cheap shots.