Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
source link: https://lwn.net/Articles/877844/
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
In 2021, The Linux Foundation continued to see organizations embrace open collaboration and open source principles, accelerating new innovations, approaches, and best practices. As a community, we made significant progress in the areas of cloud-native computing, 5G networking, software supply chain security, 3D gaming, and a host of new industry and social initiatives.
(Log in to post comments)
Eating your own dog food (or not)
Posted Dec 7, 2021 9:51 UTC (Tue) by geert (subscriber, #98403) [Link]
Eating your own dog food (or not)
Posted Dec 7, 2021 16:33 UTC (Tue) by MatejLach (subscriber, #84942) [Link]
Eating your own dog food (or not)
Posted Dec 8, 2021 1:54 UTC (Wed) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Eating your own dog food (or not)
Posted Dec 8, 2021 12:54 UTC (Wed) by fredrik (subscriber, #232) [Link]
Does anyone here work with Scribus regularly? What's your experience?
Eating your own dog food (or not)
Posted Dec 10, 2021 8:13 UTC (Fri) by JanC_ (subscriber, #34940) [Link]
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 7, 2021 17:56 UTC (Tue) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
James Zemlin, Executive Director, $874,951
Mike Woster, Chief Revenue Officer, $598,620
Lisbeth McNabb, Chief Finance Officer, $431,769
Russell Farnell, Former VP Finance, $383,972
Arpit Joshipura, GM Networking & Orchestration, $599,428
Chris Aniszczyk, VP Strategic, $585,437
Brian Behlendorf, Exec Director, $512,085
Daniel Kohn, Exec Director, $508,851
Angela Brown, GM Events, $487,358
Michael Dolan, VP Strategic Progs, $437,085
Clyde Seepersad, GM Training, $393,200
Daniel Cauchy, Exec Director, $392,137
Greg Kroah-Hartman, Fellow, $367,888
Shubra Kar, VP Products, $275,494
Abigail Kearns, Exec Director, $517,492
Jerry Childers, CTO Cloud Foundry, $498,323
Philip Robb, VP Netops, $364,437
Josh AAS, Exec Director, $353,463
Jamie Smith, Chief Marketing Officer, $335,542
And finally, Linux Torvalds, Fellow, $1,608,158
I actually object less to the last than to the former, but it shows what a pittance flows to the Free Software movement today and how it is being drowned in money directed by other interests.
Again: Free Software vs Open Source
Posted Dec 7, 2021 18:09 UTC (Tue) by cagrazia (guest, #124754) [Link]
I wouldn't put the Linux Foundation in the Free Software category. But I, substantially, agree with you.
Again: Free Software vs Open Source
Posted Dec 7, 2021 20:21 UTC (Tue) by donbarry (guest, #10485) [Link]
Again: Free Software vs Open Source
Posted Dec 8, 2021 15:16 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> Certainly the big money behind the Linux Foundation and its lavishly paid executives
“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.
Doesn't look like lavish payment to me when you earn 10% of what you can earn in the other place.
> look at these licenses not from the point of view of software freedom
Of course they do. They embrace tit-for-tat principle. It looks like a good deal to them and they support it.
What they refuse to do… is to embrace crazy goal of a world without nonfree software (not my words, it's very openly stated goal of free software movement) — but then, Linus was always pretty clearly against that goal, even refused to add “or any later version” to the copyright note because he was afraid that FSF zealotry may prompt them to destroy the nice balance which GPLv2 embodied… thus it would be very strange to see Linux Foundation to push in that direction.
Now, if FSF Foundation started paying similar sums… then you may have had a point.
But Linux was never about free software. It was always about open source. From, basically, the day one. From times where “open source” term haven't existed and people talked about “business-friendly free software” instead.
Note that majority of free software is made by such people. RMS may have been genius hacker when he was still writing the code, but GCC have become ubiquitous not because of his efforts, but because of Cygnus.
And other, significant “FSF-owned” projects were made by such people, too. Roland McGrath, Ulrich Drepper and many others… they weren't trying to bring a world without nonfree software. That was never an aspiration, even when they were working for FSF.
Again: Free Software vs Open Source
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:12 UTC (Thu) by tlamp (subscriber, #108540) [Link]
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.
Again: Free Software vs Open Source
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:18 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 4:24 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 8:27 UTC (Wed) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
> but this is not an obscene amount of money at all, this is what
> success should look like.
I do not think it matters that those people get paid "that much". The important question to me is whether so much $$$ corrupts those people. I.e. this simple question: "if you were not paid, would you have decided the same way?".
Many of those people have multiple hats on. One of those hats' duties might be "merge changes in the best interest of Linux". Another hat's duty might be "merge changes in the interest of $$$ corp". Do those different hats lead to concrete conflicts of interest? How are those conflicts of interest resolved?
It's not pretty for this situation to exist in the first place. However maybe that's real life: everyone needs to eat somehow.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 15:26 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> One of those hats' duties might be "merge changes in the best interest of Linux". Another hat's duty might be "merge changes in the interest of $$$ corp"
True. But that's because their compensation is too small, not because it's too big.
Linus gets more than, e.g., Greg Kroah-Hartman — because Greg works for Google and thus is Ok for him to get smaller compensation in Linux Foundation.
> It's not pretty for this situation to exist in the first place.
Oh, sure, it exists. Of course. But would it be good allocation of resources for Linux Foundation to raise Greg's compensation and ask Greg to leave Google to resolve that dilemma? IDK.
But if they would start paying less then this would make the problem more acute, not less acute.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 16:41 UTC (Wed) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
I do not believe that. Can you point to empirical evidence?
What those people earn is "more than enough". There have been studies that showed that increases in wage matter for your well-being up until about 100K and after that no improvement of well-being could be shown.
As a counter example to your hypothesis: my LWN account gets paid by HP. My laptop is an HP one (bought myself). It's a piece of shit: there are so many things that do not work as they should [1]. However, knowing that HP is sponsoring me, I hate to be say so and "hurt" HP: it's painful and makes me cringe -> HP *did* succeed corrupting *me* in this case. OTOH: If my laptop was by Lenovo and it was shit I wouldn't hesitate at all to say so. So here you go with an example that disproves at least the general applicability of your hypothesis.
(Sorry HP, thanks a lot for the LWN sponsorship, but your laptop sucks. To be honest I'd much rather you paid someone to fix all the things with your laptops that don't work under Linux than paying those sponsorships)
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/HP/Envy%2017-c...
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 16:53 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
The studies I am aware of do not agree with your claim - there's a lower bound, below which happiness is not possible, and then increases in happiness are linearly proportional to the logarithm of your increase on the baseline.
For Manhattan, at the time of the study, the baseline was $85,000 per year. Then, you'd expect the happiness gain going from $90k ($5k excess above baseline) to $95k ($10k excess) is the same as going from $95k to $105k ($20k excess), and to get the same gain again, you'd need a $20k rise to $125k. And to get the same gain (3 doublings of excess) as you got going from $90k to $95k when you're on $125k, you'd need to go to $285k.
Thus, the RoI to you on pay increases goes down as you're paid more.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 17:31 UTC (Wed) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2021/06/can-money-bu...
I guess this is what I remembered. However if there are other studies that show a "consistently logarithmic increase" then I have no problem with that.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 18:21 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
So, couple of things:
If you go back to Kahneman and Deaton's study, they did not state that wellbeing stops increasing above $75k - rather, they stated that with the data they had, there were no signs of an increase in happiness above $75k, but noted that their data set did not include enough people earning above $75k to draw conclusions from. It's the media that extrapolated from this to "wellbeing stops increasing", when the researchers said "not enough data".
Matthew Killingsworth had a longer term study than Kahneman and Deaton, which started in 2010, but did not publish results until 2021. Killingsworth had more high earners than Kahneman and Deaton, and due to the length of the study, Killingsworth had data on people who'd seen their pay rise considerably during the study period. This extra data agreed with Kahneman and Deaton up to $75k, but showed that as pay rose beyond that, wellbeing continues to increase, remaining proportional to the log of your income.
One other thing that comes out of Killingsworth's data is that there exists a floor level of pay where you are at risk of being made unhappy by random life events - coincidentally around $75k - because you cannot afford to throw money at the problem. Things like your home heating/cooling system breaking down fall into this category; if my home heating fails, I can afford to just pay 10x the normal price for an emergency replacement of the broken bits, where when I earned less, I couldn't.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 19:41 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Yep. This is the key part of the study. Below a certain amount of income, it is impossible to be not worried about random life events. Every blip can be a tragedy. It doesn't say that beyond that income level, happiness doesn't increase. It is not unreasonable to say that beyond a point, happiness isn't likely to increase proportionally but I don't know that we have seen studies that explicitly show that.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:12 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 8, 2021 17:01 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> So here you go with an example that disproves at least the general applicability of your hypothesis.
Perhaps I misunderstood you example? Or you misunderstood what I was trying to say?
Because to me your story sounds like the best way to justify what I'm saying.
> What those people earn is "more than enough". There have been studies that showed that increases in wage matter for your well-being up until about 100K and after that no improvement of well-being could be shown.
How any of that relevant? 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. Consequentially if you visit the linked in you would see that average pay for the senior software engineer would be $182212+$19282+$107383+$10300 = $319177. Once again: that's average. Not someone like Greg or Linus.
Consequentially few of these guys are getting money solely from Linux Foundation, they have other source of income (mamy? most? haven't investigated, actually). Greg KH, in particular, works for Google and I doubt he does that for free.
As your own story shows this makes him more susceptible to the *corruption* from Google side, isn't it?.
That, in turn, means, that if we want to stop that all of them should be moved to the Linus status who receives money solely from Linux Foundation and from noone else.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 9, 2021 18:53 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]
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.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 9, 2021 19:00 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 19:19 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:57 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 9:23 UTC (Wed) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
It's all about context. Any salary is "fine", provided the person perceiving it can make a living of it.
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.
But we all know the Linux Foundation is first an industry consortium and second about "open source". "Free software" might be even a term you better not use there ;-)
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 14:57 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> But we all know the Linux Foundation is first an industry consortium and second about "open source". "Free software" might be even a term you better not use there ;-)
Precisely and exactly. Free software is… well, I couldn't say it's dead… but it's dying.
And that's a good thing. Zealotry of any kind is not very attractive and that attempt to dictate to the whole world how it should live is not an exception.
That's why I don't see the problem. In fact some of these compensation packages sound pitifully small to me (compared to the importance of people which are getting them). But if people which are getting them are happy then who am I to complain?
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 17:22 UTC (Wed) by tpo (subscriber, #25713) [Link]
It's been **many** years now that you have been repeating this over and over again. But as a fact Free Software is still not dead. Instead the contrary can be very well argued.
> And that's a good thing. Zealotry of any kind is not very attractive and that attempt to dictate to the whole world how it should live is not an exception.
Isn't exactly *this* the very definition of zealotry? Keeping on touting non stop your personal opinion and preference? Seriously. Why what I percieve as your urge to "eradicate Free Software"? Let people with a different preference have their lives and let *them* decide about how they want to license their software? I'd opine that the next important thing after "having enough to eat" would be freedom. The world we live in is not only a world of scarcity and zero sum last man standing fighting for the $$$. There is plenty enough space for Free Software. IMHO.
No one is paying my time writing this - it's "free writing". Is anybody paying you to write your comments? Why not take it easy then and let people write their Free Software for their preferred Free Software World? No one is forcing you to use their Free Software or preventing you from rewriting it in a non-free-software manner.
I guess this post is getting off on a tangent - feel free to reply - however I guess I'll stop here.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 18:06 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> But as a fact Free Software is still not dead. Instead the contrary can be very well argued.
Seriously? What projects can you name which were produced by free software guys recently?
Yes, there was time when free software in general and Free Software Foundation in particular were relevant and produced (although mostly appropriated) important things. Today… I still find it surprising that there are some development in that camp (e.g. gccrs with explicit goal to become fully upstream with the GNU toolchain), but for every such project there are dozen (if not dozen of dozens) other, more important projects from people who don't give a damn about all that free software zealotry (and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that gccrs developers are not, in fact, free software enthusiasts, but, in fact, normal software engineers who were just paid to create it).
> Keeping on touting non stop your personal opinion and preference?
Since when cold, hard facts have become “personal opinion and preference”? It's just a fact that free software projects are not funded and rarely developed while the opposite is true for open source ones. Yet instead if trying to find funding free software zealots are demanding from others that they should do things which they, themselves, couldn't do.
> Why what I percieve as your urge to "eradicate Free Software"?
Seriously? Where have you got that crazy theory? In fact I only ever say anything about free software when free software zealots are attacking.
Can you point me to at least one instance where I have brought free software zealotry not as reaction to someone's suggestion that some other people, these awful heretics, dare to do what's good for them and not what's good for free software — and should be stopped?
If you want more free software — then just go and make more free software. Don't try to attack and shame other into sharing your religion.
I respect people who are doing that (like developers of aforementioned gccrs) deeply.
On the other hand, if you want to stop me or someone else from producing any other kind of software… then it becomes personal and I will be reacting to that.
Why the fact that Linux Foundation members are using InDesign on Macintosh is even relevant to anything in a world where people are not free software zealots and are not fighting for that a world without nonfree software?
For them InDesign and Macintosh are just a tools. And they like them better than Linux desktop and Scribus.
It's their right, why should they be shamed for using the tool they like best? I don't use macOS, but that's not because I feel that Debian is morally superior to it, but simply because I don't like the interface. If they like macOS interface then they should be able to use it without needing to prove that they deserve to do that.
> Let people with a different preference have their lives and let *them* decide about how they want to license their software?
No problem. Stop whining about my choices (and Linux Foundation members choices) and I would stop talking about yours.
As I have said: I'm perfectly Ok with attempts of free software enthusiasts to make more free software. I don't share their beliefs but I respect them.
I only start objecting when they start telling people that their belief are “right”, my beliefs are “wrong” and I (or someone else) should immediately baptize into their religion and stop blasphemy.
That is where I react.
> There is plenty enough space for Free Software.
Sure, but there are not enough space for zealotry. I'm Ok with the desire to write free software. I'm even Ok with desire of some not to touch nonfree software. But I'm not OK with the demands of these same guys try to impose on me.
If you say “I couldn't post on that forum because it requires me to run non-free software” — I'm Ok with that. But when you say “but there are no other way to talk to you”… I just shrug shoulder and say: “hey, you brought that problem on yourself — you solve it”.
I have more respect to poor African guy who couldn't contact me because s/he have no access to the Internet than to first-world guy who decided that he deserves to ignore existence of non-free software and that's responsibility of someone else to solve troubles which that decision brings to him.
His (or her) problems are worth talking about because they weren't result of his or her choices. Free software zealots trouble is the direct result of their decisions — thus they should face the consequences.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 18:38 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
A little thing called 'Linux' comes to mind, deployed on literally billions of devices around the planet.
Additionally, the overwhelming majority of "the cloud" also runs Linux, along with a considerable amount of actively developed Free Software deployed on top of it, which in turn provides the basis for all of the "innovative value add" that everyone and their dog use to sell profiled eyeballs to advertisers.
BTW, "Free Software" in of itself was only ever a small fraction of the software produced, contributed to by a very small minority of the global pool of software developers. Yet it _still_ underpins nearly everything else.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 18:52 UTC (Wed) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link]
Linus is not a Free Software person - he's an open source type. So Linux isn't something produced by free software guys - it's produced by open source people.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 20:49 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
It never stops free software zealots. Anyone who dares to release anything under terms which they can classifie as “free software” immediately is classified “free software guy” and becomes obliged to participate in holy crusade against non-free software.
Which, somehow, makes use of anything even remotely resembling proprietary software shameful and disgraceful.
Anyone who doesn't share that viewpoint becomes their enemy.
Just look here if you don't believe me.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 19:06 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
And here we go again.
> A little thing called 'Linux' comes to mind, deployed on literally billions of devices around the planet.
Yeah. Precisely and exactly: when you ask free software zealot about something free software camp creates they immediately start bringing software created by people who very explicitly don't share his ideals.
Just a couple excerpts from the interview with the creator of that software:
> - Do you think that the phenomenon of Android, Google's operating system for cell phones, is another example of the power of free software?
> -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.
Note the words used by the interviewer. Note the worlds used by Linus. And no, it's not a coincidence:
> - Why do you think people use the term GNU little to talk about Linux?
> - I never used the name GNU. Linux was never a Free Software Foundation project, and the FSF never had anything to do with it.
It doesn't come any clearer than that.
No, Linux doesn't show the power of free software movement. It had nothing to do with it and RMS even tried to squash it in the beginning (by attempting to force Drepper to concentrate on supporting sillborn HURD, not Linux) because if that.
Only when that turned free software zealots turned around and started presenting it as their seminal achievement.
And they still attach anyone who dares to just say the simple truth: the only thing FSF gave Linux — is GPLv2 license. And even then Linus felt the need to ensure that FSF couldn't “alter the deal”.
> Additionally, the overwhelming majority of "the cloud" also runs Linux, along with a considerable amount of actively developed Free Software deployed on top of it, which in turn provides the basis for all of the "innovative value add" that everyone and their dog use to sell profiled eyeballs to advertisers.
Note how you have to twist words. From “new software” to “actively developed” software to hide the fact that all that “free software” was, actually, developed decades ago. When it was easier to appropriate software from “open source” camp because it haven't existed. After that grand separation… what kind of widely-used-in-cloud software was created?
> Yet it _still_ underpins nearly everything else.
So what? Achievements of one guy who considered himself alchemist first, everything else second underpine the modern civilization. This doesn't make his search for the philosopher's stone any less stupid.
And I'm not sure for how long it would underpin “everything else”. Aforementioned “billions of devices” don't use any FSF software. Yes, they use Linux, but precisely and exactly because Linus is a sensible guy and not a free software zealot.
And No GPL in the userspace is explicit goal (though not yet fully realized… they are working on it…). It's considered a problem, not the solution.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 20:14 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
More Free Software is being created today than at any previous point in history.
Proportionally, it's not a lot, but it never was. Even "open source" software is a minority of the total software produced today.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 21:19 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 22:10 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 8, 2021 23:14 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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
Posted Dec 8, 2021 22:40 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 8, 2021 23:53 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 11:15 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 11:29 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 16:05 UTC (Thu) by anton (subscriber, #25547) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 16:50 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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.
This is a place to stop
Posted Dec 9, 2021 17:03 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]
>> 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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 13:37 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
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.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 9, 2021 14:54 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> 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
Posted Dec 9, 2021 23:30 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]
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
Posted Dec 8, 2021 18:49 UTC (Wed) by geert (subscriber, #98403) [Link]
> Macintosh is even relevant to anything in a world where people are not
> free software zealots and are not fighting for that a world without
> nonfree software?
>
> For them InDesign and Macintosh are just a tools. And they like them
> better than Linux desktop and Scribus.
>
> It's their right, why should they be shamed for using the tool they
> like best?
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/bylaws/:
ARTICLE II – Purposes
...
The purposes of this corporation are to support, promote, protect and standardize Linux and other open source software and technologies.
Linux Foundation 2021 annual report
Posted Dec 8, 2021 20:25 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]
> The purposes of this corporation are to support, promote, protect and standardize Linux and other open source software and technologies.
What what kind of drink should you consume to read any part of it as “kill Apple” or “boycott Adobe”?
Note how quoted part says nothing about killing non-free software (and it says nothing about free software, too).
Just about promotion of Linux which doesn't require you to take vow of celibacy or go to exile till Scribus would would good enough to be usable.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK