91–100 of 112 posts
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.
Reading through the list of projects that the Linux Foundation supports (via infrastructure, governance, events, etc) with the other 181 million is honestly shocking. They are supporting, among like a thousand others - NodeJS/OpenJS, PyTorch, Electron, K8s, vLLM, ONNX, PX4, GraphQL - plus the 'smaller' entries like Zephyr, Containerd, gRPC, KiCAD, ESLint, Fastify, etc. Their portfolio is literally insane. This is the…
Feels a lot like the Mozilla Foundation which also ended to do everything but there Browser.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
one could also argue that software that build on top of it create the ecosystem that can drive linux adoption. This critique is myopic.
And one would argue without actually focusing on Linux the kernel and Linux distro on top for the average user, they're just funding server FOSS for use by fat companies
(In effect, they’re a coordinating body for fat companies. They do indeed fund things in those companies’ interests, but they do it with corporate money.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And one would argue without actually focusing on Linux the kernel and Linux distro on top for the average user, they're just funding server FOSS for use by fat companies
That’s explicitly their mission, though! They’re a trade organization that advances member interests, not a public interest nonprofit. (In effect, they’re a coordinating body for fat companies. They do indeed fund things in those companies’ interests, but they do it with corporate money.)
Maybe they should say that with a huge banner on their website then. How many people give them money thinking it's for the good of FOSS in the idealistic sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not?
It's an industry trade association, for the benefit of its members. You aren't one of its members. (I'd suggest spending 60 seconds researching the difference between a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) on wikipedia or whatever.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s explicitly their mission, though! They’re a trade organization that advances member interests, not a public interest nonprofit. (In effect, they’re a coordinating body for fat companies. They do indeed fund things in those companies’ interests, but they do it with corporate money.)
> They’re a trade organization that advances member interests, not a public interest nonprofit. Maybe they should say that with a huge banner on their website then. How many people give them money thinking it's for the good of FOSS in the idealistic sense?
(FWICT, the overwhelming majority of LF’s money comes from conference fees, and the biggest chunk of the rest comes from corporate dues. Private donations don’t appear to be a significant portion of their income.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A wealth tax than caps one's inflow to something like a million a year makes a lot of sense. To all the billionaire sympathizers who worry about incentives and technological progress, this here is a perfect (and not the only) example of how intrinsic motivation can beat extrinsic motivation by a huge margin. There will always be people who value intrinsic incentives and even more so when there is a lack or limitation…
>There will always be people who value intrinsic incentives and even more so when there is a lack or limitation of extrinsic ones. Society will do well to structure itself primarily around such people. Europe has developed no new big companies in the past two decades precisely because this isn't true. The vast majority of successful companies and products are developed by people motivated by money, and if you try to…
Spotify, Wise, Adyen, DeepMind just off the top of my head, but there are loads more.
The fact that you don’t know about them is because many tech bros in the USA are pretty parochial and haven’t been exposed to international businesses or indeed tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Interesting vote-to-downvote ratio my comment got. Seems there are a lot more people with anti-libertarian beliefs hanging out at HN at the moment than there are people who lean libertarian. Since it was not my intention to engage in ideological battle (you'll notice I framed it as "good for your soul and peace of mind" rather than make any kind of political argument for it), I'll leave it there and not reply to any…
In your argument case, those are all “nice to haves” (like much of the stuff in an upper middle class lifestyle), but it would be very difficult to argue they are necessary to live life, even at a relatively wealthy capacity.
8 million (~3%) towards the Linux kernel 180 million (~65%) towards ancillary project support, which includes a huge ecosystem of useful technologies around linux Their 'corporate operations' overhead is like 5% of expenses. whoop.
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.
Obviously being a slave is not the same as being a millionaire. If you make your argument this reductionist then you don't even sound human anymore, let alone well reasoned.