Oh. It’s you again. Good to see your shallow takes haven’t changed.
Can’t you have the foresight to actually read and research why things like the FOSS projects we rely on are validated? Linux is owned by no one, and is used by everyone who wants to. Plain and simple. More adoption and more contributors means a better experience for the end user and the developer.
Corporate users are a feature, not a bug, and if anything, their adoption does more to cement the success of the project more than anything else. Plus, the Linux kernel can be wrapped into many different distros designed for transparency, why not pick your favorite one, instead of the “corporate standard”?
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 hours ago
I don’t remember you, but I get Dunning-Krueger vibes from things you write which seem to be typical “Linux as a success story” quotes without insight.
I prefer to observe them in the wild. I mean, that is what’s called research, but it strongly seems that you by research mean something else.
This is as fallacious as “scientific communism” and for the same reason. Because there are dimensions of this where the general consensus of those actually applying resources is neutrality, where it works as you say, and there are dimensions where it’s not.
Or you might read that Karl Popper’s article on the blind zones of dialectics. Corporate participation in a big common open project works similarly to dialectics.
Having a stronger Prussia did nothing of the sort for the HRE, and having Ustinov as minister of defense with all his power did nothing of the sort for the USSR, and Google did nothing of the sort for the Web.
But I prefer to live this through with many things today, rather than try to fix it to my limited ability.
Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 hours ago
Took you off the blocklist 'cause you’re a great source of entertainment. Really elevates my day after my morning coffee.
I lurk a lot, and I tend to remember names in active communities after a few days. There’s some amazing people in our communities, who contribute in good faith and with rational citations.
And then there’s you. Refusing to perform a simple trip to Wikipedia to find the proper evidence in writing that validated the “Typical Linux success story” to begin with.
Let me save you the trip by the way: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel (Wikipedia article)
git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/…/GPL-2.0 (Direct link to the GPL 2.0 license, since you likely don’t have the initiative to scroll 10% down the page)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus's_law (Linus’s law Wikipedia article, take the time to read and download The Cathedral and The Bazaar so you can read arguments for the current model that aren’t fresh from your ass)
Oh and Caesar from Fallout: New Vegas called, he wants his misrepresentation of dialectics and philosophy back, you ignoramus prick.
vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 3 hours ago
It’s very telling to even expect that someone here doesn’t know what GPL is.
It’s probable that I’ve been a Linux user and interested in it for longer than you, and I’ve read Raymond’s thing at least 12 years ago. I’ve also read some counterarguments.
BTW, at this current point in time I’m again closer to the “bazaar” than to the “cathedral” side of the argument. And Linux isn’t.
In general, having a text in support of something is not a final argument. Honestly it’s weird to encounter it being used as such from someone who’s likely literate more than in first generation.
I’m fine with arguments fresh from my ass if those are more than you can present. And that’s how arguments among intelligent people work, FYI.
It’s unfortunate that your intelligence doesn’t allow you to see how clumsy this is, to call someone names instead of, again, providing arguments.