Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

jriddell.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#31

Post by greatquux »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #27
justin66 wrote: post #23

What is he even talking about here? We never had workers rights at Blue Systems, we were all on self employment contracts. This will continue at Tech Paladin. It is illegal but unenforceable when done on an international setup. But employment rights are not a luxury you can chose to do without if you enjoy your job and want some more flexibility in your work day. They are fundamental and life altering rights that cha…

It’s very common in the tech world to have a relationship between companies and international remote workers which legally meets the definition of employment in one or both countries but which pretends in the contract wording to be an independent contracting relationship. A lot of companies decide that the risk of getting caught in this deception and the penalties which would be imposed in that case are lower than th…

Sure, but how the heck do his adopted kids factor into this?

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#33

Post by tpmoney »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #26
nomdep wrote: post #14

The other side of the story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45266332

Thanks for sharing that. Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state. I am a member/owner of a grocery store organized under NY’s cooperative corporation law, and they defini…

> Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state.

My guess since he’s talking about IRS rules is because the IRS doesn’t recognize those exemptions specifically and so it’s irrelevant for the federal structure of the company which they also have to have. Technically speaking even LLCs don’t really exist at the federal level. The IRS does note that it is a legal structure that states provide, but also notes that depending on how you’re structured, they will treat you as either a non-entity (basically pass through, like a sole proprietorship), as a partnership (collective pass through, no liability shields) or as a full corporation (S or C corp). There is a little bit in Subchapter T around taxing businesses that operate under a “cooperative basis” but it still seems like you’re still either a corporation or a partnership

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#34

Post by jkaplowitz »

greatquux wrote: post #31
jkaplowitz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very common in the tech world to have a relationship between companies and international remote workers which legally meets the definition of employment in one or both countries but which pretends in the contract wording to be an independent contracting relationship. A lot of companies decide that the risk of getting caught in this deception and the penalties which would be imposed in that case are lower than th…

Sure, but how the heck do his adopted kids factor into this?

Yeah, that part of the blog post wasn’t clear to me either. I assume that’s only clear to people with other context that wasn’t included. Maybe whichever agency oversees the welfare of adopted kids where he lives is more skeptical of the financial responsibility and solvency of tech workers with an illegally misclassified contract with an international client/payor than people with a locally recognized legal employment contract with proof of paying into the system?

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#35

Post by justin66 »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #27
justin66 wrote: post #23

What is he even talking about here? We never had workers rights at Blue Systems, we were all on self employment contracts. This will continue at Tech Paladin. It is illegal but unenforceable when done on an international setup. But employment rights are not a luxury you can chose to do without if you enjoy your job and want some more flexibility in your work day. They are fundamental and life altering rights that cha…

It’s very common in the tech world to have a relationship between companies and international remote workers which legally meets the definition of employment in one or both countries but which pretends in the contract wording to be an independent contracting relationship. A lot of companies decide that the risk of getting caught in this deception and the penalties which would be imposed in that case are lower than th…

Interesting, thanks. In the United States contracting so often just means that we have the same shitty job security as the full-time employees who are a little delusional about how safe they are, we occasionally have to talk about renewing the contract, and we get paid twice as much. There's no logic to it but it's not quite as awful as what's painted above.

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#36

Post by jpetso »

WorldPeas wrote: post #3

Not to scaremonger, are we to expect some extent of software rot on KDE because of this change?

No. Jonathan was co-maintaining KDE neon, which now has one developer left and is about to be joined by KDE Linux, another take on a Plasma-based distro. He also handled release manager duties, which have been transferred and running smoothly for a few months now.

He may have contributed in other ways that I'm not aware of, but overall KDE is in a very good spot with many more developers working on stuff.

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#38

Post by jpetso »

nomdep wrote: post #11

This story need some context. Who are Nate and Dave? Why the deal with Steam went automatically to Nate? UPDATE: Apparently it was a deal done months ago with the Blue Systems owner: https://pointieststick.com/2025/03/10/personal-and-professio...

Another take, from a more recent Blue Systems / Techpaladin developer: https://akselmo.dev/posts/bluesystems-to-techpaladin/

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#39

Post by jkaplowitz »

justin66 wrote: post #35
jkaplowitz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very common in the tech world to have a relationship between companies and international remote workers which legally meets the definition of employment in one or both countries but which pretends in the contract wording to be an independent contracting relationship. A lot of companies decide that the risk of getting caught in this deception and the penalties which would be imposed in that case are lower than th…

Interesting, thanks. In the United States contracting so often just means that we have the same shitty job security as the full-time employees who are a little delusional about how safe they are, we occasionally have to talk about renewing the contract, and we get paid twice as much. There's no logic to it but it's not quite as awful as what's painted above.

What I said is even true in the US - employers have payroll and other compliance obligations such as their portion of Social Security and Medicare taxes, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation insurance, sometimes a state-specific requirement for short-term disability insurance, and often more. Plus health insurance and paid time off are usually part of the package for employees at least in the tech world, and COBRA rights exist after losing the job. Plus unionization rights too.

For independent contractors, all of those things are either fully the responsibility of the contractor (such as the Social Security and Medicare taxes) or absent entirely (such as the unionization rights). Whether that’s legal even in the US depends on whether the relationship is misclassified employment or true independent contracting. (These are among several reasons why true independent contractors charge much higher rates than people who just acquiesce to employer misclassification.) The IRS has a many-factor test based on the common law and is absolutely willing to hear reports of alleged misclassification. So are many state and local government agencies.

Re: Adios Chicos, 25 Years of KDE

#40

Post by jkaplowitz »

tpmoney wrote: post #33
jkaplowitz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for sharing that. Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state. I am a member/owner of a grocery store organized under NY’s cooperative corporation law, and they defini…

> Nate’s article links to a comment in which he says the US has no legal cooperative structure “except for limited state-specific exceptions”. I don’t know why those state-specific laws for cooperatives don’t count - they aren’t in any way restricted to operating within the organizing state. My guess since he’s talking about IRS rules is because the IRS doesn’t recognize those exemptions specifically and so it’s irre…

Oh, the example I gave is still a corporation for tax purposes, for sure. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But it doesn’t have shares in the sense that can be bought or sold or even profited from upon redemption, unless I guess the coop were to liquidate in which case the value they get for their membership interest might be higher or lower than they paid. (It’s highly unlikely ever to liquidate - it’s been responsibly managed financially for over 50 years.)

They only have member/owners who are entitled to exactly one vote by virtue of having made the rather nominal member investment (and not having redeemed that investment after leaving the coop), or having joined too soon before the vote to have yet missed the deadline to make that investment.

When I say rather nominal member investment, I mean $100, or $10 for people receiving certain low-income government benefits. (They also have a once-per-lifetime non-refundable joining fee of $25 or $5 respectively.) Nothing like the $100k example Nate gave in his comment for a dominant shareholder not happy with the prospect of being outvoted by others with much smaller investments.

Post reply on HN