Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opponents of obscene wealth/income inequality are typically not motivated by envy – that is your own projection.
[flagged]
That says a lot about you
Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
81–90 of 112 posts
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#828 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.
Lots of opensource project use the Linux Foundation to handle their funding. My understanding is that e.g. corporate sponsors for the KiCad project will actually transfer the money to the Linux Foundation but the money is then earmarked for the KiCad project. The advantage for KiCad is then that they don't have the overhead (accounting, receipts, etc.).
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#83The title is misleading in that it makes people think only 3% goes to Linux as a whole, while that number is about the linux kernel only. 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.
Pretty typical for a US non-(for-)profit.
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
That terrible analogy does not produce a useful mental model on any level. You probably need to read Das Kapital.
Let's end this conversation right here before it descends any further into ideological battle. And in the interests of peace, I shall hold my tongue about what I think about Marx, or of you for recommending him in a positive light.
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#85Earlier 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.
This is a global audience. Define 'minimum wage'
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
That terrible analogy does not produce a useful mental model on any level. You probably need to read Das Kapital.
Let's end this conversation right here before it descends any further into ideological battle. And in the interests of peace, I shall hold my tongue about what I think about Marx, or of you for recommending him in a positive light.
The text was given as an example of what socialist believe.
If I said Nazis don't believe X, and held up Mein Kampf as an example, would I be implicitly endorsing it and a positive thing?
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
[flagged]
Pedantically, they're wrong, but the two are closely related.
They both use the parent's hash together with the contents of the block/changes in the commit to compute hash of the current block/commit.
Git supports many parallel branches, while Blockchain uses decentralized consensus mechanisms to keep the entire network in agreement and resolve branches as soon as possible. So yes, the mathematical problems in the two are different, but the data structure is very similar.
Source: my last job was creating developer toolsuits for Blockchain.
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
That terrible analogy does not produce a useful mental model on any level. You probably need to read Das Kapital.
Let's end this conversation right here before it descends any further into ideological battle. And in the interests of peace, I shall hold my tongue about what I think about Marx, or of you for recommending him in a positive light.
Ha, if you think Marx is objectionable then you really need to read Das Kapital.
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#898 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.
Is there a description of the other projects that fall under that heading? I was curious but didn't see it skimming through the document.
Re: Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux
#90Without 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.
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