71–80 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Git?
I don't know what you mean. Git is not on the charts shown on that page, and git is not related to blockchain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain
That’s exactly what git is.
I have some experience with the CNCF and oh boy is it a huge powergrab with excuse of inclusivity, wokeness and all the stuff that comes with it. Rarely seen so many self serving people that are in it for themselves as in the CNCF. Yes, downvote away.
Some other comments mention blockchain: one could argue for or against endorsing blockchain technology, but that doesn't seem to be the point of this article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what you mean. Git is not on the charts shown on that page, and git is not related to blockchain.
> A blockchain is a distributed ledger with growing lists of records (blocks) that are securely linked together via cryptographic hashes.[1][2][3][4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain That’s exactly what git is.
Without bending over backwards to defend the Linux Foundation, I'll point out that the 97% number means very little -- the percentage that actually matters is the percentage that doesn't go towards funding open source at all . The Linux Foundation hasn't been solely about Linux for decades; they are (facially) responsible for hosting a very large number of open source projects.
one could also argue that software that build on top of it create the ecosystem that can drive linux adoption. This critique is myopic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually crazy that Linus just takes home 1.5M per year for one of the largest contributions to tech of anyone in the world. Obviously nobody needs more than that per year, but this pay is 1/100 or 1/1000th of many tech executives that have contributed very little comparatively.
> Obviously nobody needs more than that per year ... You are, of course, in a position to know what everybody on Earth needs. What if someone wants to give $10 million away per year to worthy charities? Will you tell them they can't? Or... what if someone wants to own something you consider wastefully expensive? Is it your job to tell them they shouldn't? Or is it wiser to adopt the position of humility and say "Well…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a big difference between 'needs' and 'wants'. I'll defend the argument no one 'needs' more than 1.5 mill per year. I agree with you greed is endless and lots of people want more and will rationalize their hoarding while others, often in their own communities, suffer.
No one really "needs" anything. You can live perfectly well on minimum wage. But really, you could survive perfectly well as a slave. Infact, the world is content for you to die and get nothing. All "need" is "want". All you deserve is what you have leverage for.