LWN: Comments on "Linux Foundation 2021 annual report"

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 22:20:06 +0000

And that has bankrupted a fair few people - ex Northern Rock mostly - who couldn't remortgage with their existing provider because they didn't offer new mortgages, and couldn't remortgage with any one else because they failed the stress test.

And those poor people couldn't afford the Standard Variable Rate but could have easily afforded a discount remortgage ...

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

farnz — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 21:01:25 +0000

For bonus fun, the stress test does not apply when you're remortgaging with your existing provider and the monthly payment is the same or lower than it was before for the life of the mortgage deal. So last time I remortgaged, I could reduce the payment considerably via my current lender, but I would not have met affordability criteria for another lender.

As it happens, my current lender had the cheapest option for me, but had they not been as good, I'd have failed the stress test on another mortgage provider.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

nix — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 20:58:48 +0000

The other fun bit was that (until recently) they couldn't even take your *existing mortgage payments* into account when you were remortgaging. So you might be trying to remortgage from a mortgage on which you're paying £1500/month to one on which you're paying £1000/month and find all the mortgage providers (including the one you're currently using) saying "no, can't give it to you, it's unaffordable" without being allowed to consider that the mortgage you are *now* on is even *worse*.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 20:36:49 +0000

And of course, the sting in the tail is that that rule was introduced to stop lenders being reckless ... except that like most of these rules the regulator never thought it through ...

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

farnz — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 16:58:55 +0000

Just for context on that "hard to borrow" line; the trap is that mortgage lenders can't take rents into account when looking at affordability. So if I'm paying £3,000/month in rent, but could buy with an £1,800/month mortgage, I can get caught by the stress-test in affordability that says "what if interest rates climb, and you have to pay £2,900/month in mortgage?". On my salary, £2,900/month may be more than the lender is willing to accept I can pay - and yet I'm paying more than that already.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 16:06:18 +0000

I'm from the generation that didn't have easy loans. So when you bought a house, couldn't borrow more than 3x salary, and interest rates were 12-15%, getting a decent house wasn't too hard. Sure, you lived on bread and cheese for a year or two, but 10% inflation rapidly shrank your mortgage, your repayments stayed the same, and your pay went up.

(And the generation before me had inflation at 20-25% - if you managed to get a house in the 50's or 60's that was your mortgage paid inside a few years!!!)

Now prices are much higher, inflation is much lower, money is hard to borrow (what! cheap money is everywhere! Yes, for people who don't need it!), and today's youngsters just can't get that starter home. The rich are borrowing to buy up all the housing stock for silly money, and then charging "what the market will bear" so youngsters can't save to get on the ladder.

If you're lucky, you have a job where demand for housing is low, so it's cheap. If you're a youngster in a thriving town, sorry, rents are sky-high ... (My daughter was lucky - her 4-bed detached cost about 2/3 my little pad ...)

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

rbtree — Tue, 14 Dec 2021 14:27:22 +0000

Eh, this is pretty typical for many parts of the former USSR (where I'm from). A decent (not lavish by any means) two-room apartment in most towns/cities would cost you around 10-15 years of what you'd make in that city working an average white collar job.

Living in Moscow and making $2k a month? Here's your crappy single room apartment for $170k, thank you very much. Good luck with saving every penny and paying for it in 8-10 years.

A relative of mine started living in Moscow when the was less than 30 years of age. She just recently paid out the mortgage for her apartment on the edge of the city. She's 50.

Living in the sticks (like I do; not Russia BTW) and making $600 a month? Get ready to shell out $70k for a similar apartment and live on macaroni and bread for the next 10-15 years.

(It's a very rough estimate, I did not spend more than a few minutes checking realty prices; but you get the idea.)

So it seems to me, a large chunk of the world lives like you do in London, sans all the niceties and opportunities it provides.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:52:50 +0000

You are barking on the wrong tree. Free Software difference is not about licenses. It's about the ideology (heck, they, themselves, explain difference better than me). Whileas free software guys think about how to make sure user would get less freedom to tinker with the device they own open source guys go and create things which people, then, actually use (because they can buy or download them).

For open source guy the decision about whether to release something as open source or proprietary is question of practicality and usability but for free software simple move from AOSP to Google Play services is something they be ready to lynch the offender.

But yeah, after open source guys organize everything, talk to the companies which make proprietary software and hardware and produce things… free software guys often start talking about how open source licenses and free software licenses are one and the same and how that means free software and open source software is the same and how that means open source guys should stop cooperating with everyone else and start pushing for the world without non-free software.

Some free software guys are sane and understand that last highlighted “that” is not follow-up for anything else (only a desire of free software movement), some (these are the ones I call “free software zealots”) insist that it's “natural” and that “opens source guys” are just “simply uneducated”.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 18:34:46 +0000

> But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?

The upside is simple: software which exists is always better than software which doesn't exist.

Free software camp in their jihad against non-free software often achieves not the nirvana of plentiful software which everyone can use, but makes certain things just impossible.

Remember that paranoid refusal to provide plugin mechanism for GCC? It took years and creation an open-source alternative before plugins become available (and CLion uses CLang and not GCC for obvious reason).

Basically position of free software guys: we would try to give you OpenMoko, fail and when you would be deciding what to use — iPhone or Windows Phone, we would tell you many times how great is it to have source for the software you use (and which you don't have).

At least that would be the situation an the world without open source guys.

Of course in our world, after free software guys would, inevitably, fail and Open Source guys will succeed (with Android — developed in secret in cooperation with, you know, handset developers and nasty mobile operators who insist on control over devices) they would do a 180° turn and say, that hey, Android is free software, too (as least AOSP one) thus we can, absolutely, claim that free software is on winning spray and pressure these nasty guys who did all the work (but refused to join our jihad against non-free software) to play by our rules.

IOW: free software zealots try to pretend that we could have a choice between OpenMoko and iPhone while open source guys know that an attempt to push for that choice would mean, in reality, choice between iPhone and Windows Phone and go and make Android.

That is the power of open source. It allows you to create things.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 17:33:40 +0000

> This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.

If free software guys would have been winning then I'm sure an attempt to change the terms would have been made.

Unfortunately they are losing and the only reason free software is around at all is because they are willing to tolerate non-copyleft software and are all too eager to appropriate achievements of open-source camp and [try to] paint them as achievement of free software movement.

Changing the definition is not possible in such an environment: it would expose the true state of affairs.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

rahulsundaram — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 15:29:59 +0000

> This came from discussing that open source may allow you to ship closed binaries/devices whereas free software doesn't

The wording here is confusing. This distinction should just be permissive vs copyleft (or reciprocal) licenses.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

ldearquer — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:11:53 +0000

I think you are missng the context here.

This came from discussing that open source may allow you to ship closed binaries/devices whereas free software doesn't

(I know this wording is not technically correct, because once you ship a closed thing, it doesn't qualify as open source anymore, and even free software is itself a subgroup of open source, but I hope it's clear enough :)

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anselm — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 09:07:24 +0000

Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.

According to the Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition, that's not true:

“Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.”
“The license must allow modification and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.”
“The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.”
“The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code.”

(Note that the OSD doesn't say that you must be able to deploy an updated Linux kernel on your tivoised refrigerator. But for the longest time “free software” has been suffering from the same problem. You need to go to the latest version of the GPL to see this addressed, and there is still plenty of “free software” around that is GPLv2-only.)

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

pabs — Mon, 13 Dec 2021 05:34:05 +0000

The Open Source Definition disagrees with your definition of open source.

https://opensource.org/osd

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

tpo — Sun, 12 Dec 2021 21:34:01 +0000

> The big difference between Open Source and Free Software is the mindset behind it. Free Software wants "all software to be free". Open Source is far more pragmatic - "developers have to eat".

I'd say that characterisation is missing it.

It /is/ possible get food on the table with Free Software, there's enough evidence for that. Though under some conditions it might turn out to be too tough to do so.

The difference is I'd say in the original founding FS anecdote: RMS fixed a bug in printer SW. The company took his fix and denied him further tinkering with it. Never again said RMS.

Open Source means you can see how it works. But you can't necessarily change it. Neither you can necessarily copy it.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Sun, 12 Dec 2021 12:01:37 +0000

I'm not saying it's an unalloyed benefit, but as soon as somebody takes BSD and puts it in a closed product, it ceases to be Open Source :-)

Which then adds a definite cost to the closed source people.

And Open source also permits Open Core. Which actually describes GPL products like Ghostscript. And I don't know the base licence of CUPS but I believe that has no problem with Open Core. LibreOffice is MPL, which permits Open Core.

And while Open Core has a bad rap, it enables the production of add-ons that wouldn't otherwise be viable.

The big difference between Open Source and Free Software is the mindset behind it. Free Software wants "all software to be free". Open Source is far more pragmatic - "developers have to eat".

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

ldearquer — Sun, 12 Dec 2021 10:33:37 +0000

> > -Absolutely. The notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators, and use them in surprising ways is really the core idea of open source.

If the main difference between "free software" and "open source" is that with "open source" you can ship closed binaries/devices to the end users, then this sentence seems a bit contradictory to me.

Because the "notion that you can take open source software, and do things with it that were never planned by its original creators" is certainly good for end users too.

I am not saying user freedom is the absolute good on Earth, and I think there may be reasons to prevent it on some devices. But these cases apart, and if you think this "notion" is good, what is the upside of "open source" vs "free software"?

Eating your own dog food (or not)

halla — Sat, 11 Dec 2021 10:19:48 +0000

I work with scribus regularly, pretty much always built from the latest checkout, and I have had no problems with corrupted files, no problems with color management, no problems with generating pdf's beyond the usual headache of dealing with printing services, no problems inserting text or images.

Scribus' development has slowed down a lot, though, with very few developers remaining.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

mdolan — Fri, 10 Dec 2021 17:25:49 +0000

Has anyone actually read the annual report or just looked at the metadata on the file and a 990? I'm happy to discuss how many offers I get for crazy amounts of money each year to leave the LF, but I really like what I do, and I like the people I get to work with who are change agents from the inside.

I do hope people take at least as much time as they've invested in commenting here to learn about what some of the people in these communities are doing to really have an impact. Everything may not meet your personal definition/expectation of free software, but it all moves the ecosystem every year closer to an open model. Many companies and people in those companies may not be ready for your definition of freedom - but they are willing to move a little bit closer in an open model. Don't let that stop you from trying to nudge them a little further for the next project, but there is no magic wand to get the world to suddenly change to your worldview - I'm sorry.

Whether you like it or not, we're all in this together. Each person, each interaction helps nudge the ecosystem further along. It's worth celebrating what the FOSS communities were able to accomplish, at the LF or anywhere. These are real changes and shifts in the landscape that has always been closed. That's the real alternative.

Eating your own dog food (or not)

JanC_ — Fri, 10 Dec 2021 08:13:12 +0000

Now I wonder if Adobe InDesign and/or the rest of the Adobe toolchain is lacking a spell checker… 😉

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anselm — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 23:30:25 +0000

And after these basic things would be fixed you would need apps which can use all that. Which are in wide assortiment on macOS and practically don't exist on Linux.

You're sounding like those people who insist bumble-bees can't fly because of physics. In the meantime, folks – even and especially folks who aren't uber-geeks – are using Linux on the desktop every day and are happy. Get used to it.

Yes, you can make a magazine with Linux. But you also can do it with Unix System 7 and nroff. Why don't you propose Linux Foundation guys to go this route?

Because they're the Linux Foundation, not the Unix System 7 Foundation or the Nroff Foundation. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned the people at the Linux Foundation can use whatever they please. One may be excused, however, for idly wondering if it wouldn't strengthen their message if – seeing they're the Linux Foundation and all that – they, well, used Linux more.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 19:19:30 +0000

Look at London for the same problem here in England. My house on the edge of London (a SMALL house) is worth over TEN times my salary. And I'm earning maybe 150% of minimum wage (a typical wage for a Uni graduate). How on earth is your typical person struggling to earn enough to live going to afford a place to live?

I'm lucky, I bought my place ages ago, I paid a LOT less for it back then ...

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 19:00:45 +0000

Just try to look on the price of apartments in San-Fancisco.

Yes, the fact that prices have grown to the point where large percent of people couldn't afford to live in San-Fancisco is a problem.

No, it's not the good enough reason to ask Linux Foundation members to live in cars.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anton — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 18:53:10 +0000

Are you US citizen or have any US friends? $100K per year wouldn't even be enough to rent decent apartment in California. Not counting any other expenses. Just a decent place to live.

Looking for the average American income, I find that the median annual wage in the USA is $34,248.45 (i.e., half the people in the USA earn less), and the average is $51,916.27. Concerning California, the average (not median) salary is shown as $62,586.

This is a place to stop

corbet — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 17:03:58 +0000

>> I should know better than to feed the troll, but this is hilarious.
>
> And I know better than to talk to self-righteous moron, but maybe there is hope.

Even before heading into the comment I was of the opinion that this discussion had gone as far as it could usefully go. Now it is even more clear. How about we stop here, please? This isn't a kindergarten playground...

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 16:50:33 +0000

> Actually my desktop "tuning" comes from before I used Linux, and I still use it 30 years later, with a few adaptions along the way, but nothing like what both mainstream Linux desktops and Windows require.

Then how is it even relevant to the Linux desktop? You are not even using it, you use special-made OS just for anton — yet claim it that Linux desktop works.

And no, neither Linux nor Windows (and certainly not Macintosh) require any adaptations. They are perfectly usable out of the box. Yes, you may need to become accustomed to the changes in last version, but they work. Except third-party programs usually work on Macintosh and Windows and more often then not refuse to work on Linux. Not even Valve can fix that properly. Although it tries.

> Before she started using Linux, she had a Windows desktop and required a dedicated admin who "tuned" everything for her. The number of support calls has been lower since she switched to Linux.

Well… that's certainly different from everyone's else experience. In my experience and observable experience of most other users of MacOS and Windows… said users usually manage to pull themselves out from tricky situations using no admin and no support calls, although eventually they bring system to the state where not even knowleadgeable admin may salvage it.

At this point it's time to ask any local shop (who would have Windows specialists but wouldn't have Linux specialists) to reinstall Windows.

Indeed, in a case where professional admin is actually available Linux works better than Windows. But that's not how desktop is used today. Rather the norm is the case where knowledgeable admin is missing altogether and support is not available either. Except when you are willing to pay for the reinstallation of fresh system.

You may argue that it's wrong, then it's not how computers are supposed to be used… but it is how they are used, in the majority of cases, and if OS doesn't support this mode then it's not suitable for the desktop.

It's as simple as that.

> I should know better than to feed the troll, but this is hilarious.

And I know better than to talk to self-righteous moron, but maybe there is hope.

> On Debian I just type "apt install emacs"; on Windows the same thing is much more effort (and it took me several years until I could "tune" Windows to not also show a console window when starting emacs).

And just why would I want to install some obscure irrelevant program which nobody ever heard about?

Tell me about something which I may actually see in ads, may learn in colleges, may actually want to install. You know, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Access, maybe Photoshop or even AutoCAD. Heck, even the venerable 1C Accounting program or GARANT would be a great show to see installed on Debian. It's not entirely impossible, but believe me, it's far cry from typing one simple command.

That is what desktop users want. Now, again, you may say it's just wrong and the fact that colleges are producing certified Microsoft Access users but don't produce certified emacs users is bad… but, again, that's how world is right now.

> But then I remember calling our sysadmin about something (not my personal machine), and he told me that he has no time, because he has to install an Adobe program on the personal Windows laptop of a colleague of mine, which apparently requires a day of working out how to get the licensing to work (or, on another call, that he has to do the quartely license renewal of some proprietary software or something); or he calls me because the secretary has a problem with installing some proprietary software on her Mac (how should I know anything about that?).

This looks suspiciously like an attempt to install pirated software to me. Because I, actually, have Adobe Creative Cloud subscription (which I rarely use myself, ironically enough, because I'm mostly a Linux user) and I know it's just a matter of a few mouse clicks (and wait of course, Adobe programs are huge), you really don't need to a day of working out how to get the licensing to work. Certainly there are no need to enter a command line and type anything there.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anton — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 16:05:22 +0000

There is old adage about Linux desktop: “You can tune everything in Linux — and you will be tuning everything” (because otherwise nothing would work).

Even if it was true (in my experience it isn't), what's the relevance to "operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks".

Actually my desktop "tuning" comes from before I used Linux, and I still use it 30 years later, with a few adaptions along the way, but nothing like what both mainstream Linux desktops and Windows require. But I guess I am lucky in basing my setup on programs like twm that have been ignored by those who feel the need to modernize the Linux experience, and also lucky that these programs have not been deleted.

Sure, if you have dedicated admin which will tune everything for you… this may work.

Before she started using Linux, she had a Windows desktop and required a dedicated admin who "tuned" everything for her. The number of support calls has been lower since she switched to Linux.

[apps] are hard to install

I should know better than to feed the troll, but this is hilarious. On Debian I just type "apt install emacs"; on Windows the same thing is much more effort (and it took me several years until I could "tune" Windows to not also show a console window when starting emacs).

Ok, so maybe the reason is that emacs is free software. But then I remember calling our sysadmin about something (not my personal machine), and he told me that he has no time, because he has to install an Adobe program on the personal Windows laptop of a colleague of mine, which apparently requires a day of working out how to get the licensing to work (or, on another call, that he has to do the quartely license renewal of some proprietary software or something); or he calls me because the secretary has a problem with installing some proprietary software on her Mac (how should I know anything about that?).

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 14:54:14 +0000

> This doesn't look like an unusable system to me.

It's not unsable (I use it for last 10 year almost exclusively), just not eminently capable.

Indeed, the harassers start their piece from the following passage:

> The Linux Foundation has published its annual report today. LWN calls it glossy and yeah, boy, it is shiny.

> So shiny that people that work in the publishing industry immediately see this has been produced with the Adobe toolchain which - unfortunately - is one of the big suites of software not yet available for Linux.

IOW: they know Linux is not “eminently capable” and “immediately see” that annual report was produced without trying to portray desktop Linux as something else then what it is.

Then they make a big deal out of that. Why? If they know Linux is not suitable for Joe Average then why do they expect Linux Foundation members would use it not where it works and where it shines but where you can kinda-sorta-maybe make it work… if your pain tolerance is high enough?

> This includes hundreds of professional presentations as well as the production of typeset copy for several books by high-profile publishers such as O'Reilly and a few years' worth of issues of an amateur astronomy magazine, among many other things.

So what? O'Reilly existed before Personal Computer in general or IBM PC in particular, before MacOS or Windows. Which means that at one point it was possible to create a book suitable for publishing there without using these tools. Most likely still possible.

But for last 30 years publishing industry standard was Macintosh. Means it's just natural to use Macintosh for publishing and not natural to use Linux.

Harassing of Linux Foundation members wouldn't change it. Even basic things which were solved in MacOS years ago (in ad-hoc fashion in XX century, and in centralized session about 10 years ago) are still under active development today on Linux.

And after these basic things would be fixed you would need apps which can use all that. Which are in wide assortiment on macOS and practically don't exist on Linux.

Yes, you can make a magazine with Linux. But you also can do it with Unix System 7 and nroff. Why don't you propose Linux Foundation guys to go this route?

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

ballombe — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:57:44 +0000

FWIW, HP stopped sponsoring Debian LWN subscription several years ago...

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anselm — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:37:57 +0000

Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years.

Speak for yourself. I've personally been using Linux as a desktop operating system for almost 30 years now. This includes hundreds of professional presentations as well as the production of typeset copy for several books by high-profile publishers such as O'Reilly and a few years' worth of issues of an amateur astronomy magazine, among many other things.

I also support a number of people (family and friends) who use Linux as their day-to-day operating system, for tasks like web browsing, word processing, e-mail, editing digital photographs, etc., some of them on computers that by today's standards are fairly low-range.

In my experience, desktop Linux requires very little ongoing maintenance (certainly not more than one would expect with comparable Windows machines) and “my” user community is quite happy with it. They especially appreciate that updates are generally very smooth, that malware isn't a real issue, and that they're not compelled to buy new hardware every few years. This doesn't look like an unusable system to me.

Again: Free Software vs Open Source

khim — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:18:19 +0000

> Out of those list of 20 people only two people do actual developments, the others are marketing and bureaucracy that mostly spent their time with praising all the proprietary companies that are LF members...

IOW: the guys who would be paid big bucks for the development of software.

The guys who can actually compile something are not the ones who get top bucks, you know.

Again: Free Software vs Open Source

tlamp — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:12:42 +0000

> “Lavishly paid”? Compared to what? Most (if not all) if these guys can join Google or Microsoft, agree to develop proprietary software and earn 10x more.

Out of those list of 20 people only two people do actual developments, the others are marketing and bureaucracy that mostly spent their time with praising all the proprietary companies that are LF members... So no, only two could do some actual meaningful work in developing proprietary software, and I'd like to think that neither Linus nor GKH would do so out of principle.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

Wol — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 13:12:24 +0000

While it may vary for a lot of people (things like rent and mortgage levels have a big impact), this can clearly be identified as a line below which you do not have the ability to ride out those little things which knock you.

More to the point, its a line where you are wasting money buying things in small quantities, because you cannot afford to take advantage of those little discounts if you buy in bulk. If you can't afford a week's toilet rolls, you can't afford to save money by buying a month's supply for only twice the price ...

Breaking through that ceiling can be HARD...

Cheers,
Wol

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 11:29:40 +0000

> It has been true for me for 28 years when I started using Linux.

There is old adage about Linux desktop: “You can tune everything in Linux — and you will be tuning everything” (because otherwise nothing would work).

That was true 28 years ago, that was true yesterday and it's true today.

> It has been true for my mother for 13 years when she started using Linux.

Sure, if you have dedicated admin which will tune everything for you… this may work.

But most people want a desktop that they can use without reading bazillion HOWTOs and without typing arcane commands in the command line. The majority don't even know what command line is — and don't want to know.

But they want to install and use nice apps. Not possible for the majority of population: very few apps exist (yes, 10000 is “very few” on this scale), the ones that exist are hard to install, and once installed — they need further tweaking to be actually usable.

28 years ago there were no such versions of Linux at all. Today… Android and ChromeOS work like that. But both arrived too late to have good selection of desktop apps thus, for the foreseeable future, they are not something you may want to use on desktop if you are “power user”.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anton — Thu, 09 Dec 2021 11:15:39 +0000

Linux desktop have to actually be an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks.
Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years.

It has been true for me for 28 years when I started using Linux. It has been true for my mother for 13 years when she started using Linux.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 23:53:33 +0000

> This is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of common sense.

And the very same common sense would say that for such “message” to be true Linux desktop have to actually be an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks.

Which is not true today and wasn't true for last 30 years. Linus is all too ready to admit that and Linux Foundation folks think so, too. Their behavior shows that pretty well.

> I don't think one needs to be a “free software zealot” to point out that Linux as an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks would be showcased considerably more convincingly if the figureheads of the premier Linux-promoting industry organisation actually used Linux more in their publically visible activities.

Sure. But one have to be a free software zealot to try to insist that Linux Foundation folks have to showcase something that is not true.

Now, one may try to argue that Linux Foundation have abandoned desktop prematurely and that Linux desktop can, in fact, be salvaged.

That's an interesting POV and may even be true. But as long as Linux Desktop is not suitable for non-programmers (which is, more-or-less the state of Linux desktop today) I don't see how one can fault them for not using it.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 23:14:35 +0000

> Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

That's my question, ultimately.

> passing judgement on mostly-unrelated folks based on the actions of a single troll.

If he were “a single troll” then it wouldn't be a problem. But he's not alone. You may look here and then here and here… that harassing is not a new thing and not something just a single troll does.

Now, thankfully, you are half-right: number of free software zealots is not that large. Apparently it's large enough to justify that botched attempt to hide origins year ago, but this year Linux Foundation decided that since the are not doing anything criminal then there are nothing to hide…

Also: note that the one who are you calling a single troll actually have a name, he's not anonymous. That's not something trolls are doing. No, I'm afraid the truth is much more sad: most likely he actually believes that if someone said that said someone is promoting “open source” (not even free software!) then that someone should immediately become a free software advocate and start fighting for that world without non-free software.

And he's not alone. Take this, e.g.: if you take into account that many free software projects are being starved out (some of them even critical infrastructure), then perhaps more modest numbers would carry a stronger message. Just why should people who are not even saying they are promoting free software should react to the fact that certain projects don't get funding because they refuse to negotiate by trying to “send a stronger message” by picking asceticism route?

> Of the various folks in this thread, you appear to be the only one whose behaviour matches the "zealot" description, harping on and on about folks' motivations

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. Complacency just make such folks more righteous.

And as I have said: I feel nothing but respect for folks like Philip Heron (principal gcc-rs developer) since they are trying to advance things they believe in. But when people start demanding from others, from people who don't share their “death to the non-free software” religion that they should “join the right side” and start fighting for the world without non-free software… that poor attempt to apply cancel culture to free software… it's better to stop it now before it become too toxic.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

anselm — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 22:40:47 +0000

And how exactly the fact that Linux, by virtue of it's license, can be classified as free software makes it immoral for the Linux Foundation members to use Adobe InDesign on Macintosh? Because that's exactly what free software zealots are trying to preach.

I don't think one needs to be a “free software zealot” to point out that Linux as an eminently capable operating system for everyday desktop-type tasks would be showcased considerably more convincingly if the figureheads of the premier Linux-promoting industry organisation actually used Linux more in their publically visible activities. This is not a matter of morality. It is a matter of common sense.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

pizza — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 22:10:39 +0000

> And how exactly the fact that Linux, by virtue of it's license, can be classified as free software makes it immoral for the Linux Foundation members to use Adobe InDesign on Macintosh? Because that's exactly what free software zealots are trying to preach.

Huh? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

> They become more and more obnoxious and more and more maginalized.

Of the various folks in this thread, you appear to be the only one whose behaviour matches the "zealot" description, harping on and on about folks' motivations, and repeatedly labelling and passing judgement on mostly-unrelated folks based on the actions of a single troll.

I have no idea what you're actually trying to say beyond repeating "Free Software is old, busted, and irrelevant; Everyone who says otherwise is an unreasonable zealot / doody-head" until you're frothing at the mouth.

Seriously, chill out.

Linux Foundation 2021 annual report

khim — Wed, 08 Dec 2021 21:19:50 +0000

> It doesn't matter if Torvalds is a "Free Software Person" or not, because *Linux is free software*

And how exactly the fact that Linux, by virtue of it's license, can be classified as free software makes it immoral for the Linux Foundation members to use Adobe InDesign on Macintosh? Because that's exactly what free software zealots are trying to preach.

> More Free Software is being created today than at any previous point in history.

Only by the virtue of the fact that most of the open source software can be classified as free software, too.

Note how FOSS term have fallen out of favor. Note how people are using “open source” more and “free software” less. And no, that's not lack of education (as RMS tries to portray). It's conscious decision.

> Proportionally, it's not a lot, but it never was. Even "open source" software is a minority of the total software produced today.

And that's okay — with open-source folks, but not with free software zealots.

They become more and more obnoxious and more and more maginalized.

But yes, if you would read formally and would say that free software is thriving — because more and more of it is created by folks who couldn't care less about that fact that someone claims he supports open source while simultaneously using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows — then free software would be with us for a long time yet.

But then, please, stop saying that people should using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows if they claim that they are open source supporters.

Two choices, actually:

Either you can say that free software is thriving because lots of it is created by folks who don't share FSF ideals — but then, please, stop that nonsense about the need to open up all the JavaScripts on GitHub and stop trying to say that people shouldn't be using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows if they claim that they are open source supporters.
Or accept that free software (as in: software written by followers of FSF's movement to a world without nonfree software) is dying and is almost dead — and then, please, stop that nonsense about the need to open up all the JavaScripts on GitHub and stop trying to say that people shouldn't be using Adobe products on MacOS or Windows if they claim that they are open source supporters.

And yes, two choices, same conclusion — because that's how our world works. You couldn't first claim that it doesn't matter that Linus shares RMS ideals or not if he makes free software and turn around and try to pretend that amount of free software gives you the right to demand respect for your ideals.

Yes, there are a lot of free software in that world, but creators of said software don't share your ideals! Deal with it.