10

10 comments

[–] x0x7 4 points (+4|-0) Edited

I noticed his video isn't licensed under creative commons. What he's saying is that people whose work is majorly not open source can't possibly contribute something positive to it without producing some sort of corruption in what it's meant to be.. hmmm...

What I dislike most though isn't that Intel contributes to Linux but that these companies run open source operations to get free labor and to dominate parts of tech that give them control over other connected parts of the stack. For example Chrome. It's mostly developed via Chromium. Basically people doing free work for google so that google can dominate web standards that help their business model and can develop features on their websites (youtube) knowing ahead of time what the specifics of the standard will be. And then require other open source projects like firefox to develop their features list.

Bill Gates basically said that you're cucked if you are doing free work. Well you are major cucked if you are doing free work for a corporation. Anyone who works on Chromium is doing negative work towards a free and open web. If you want to contribute to a free and open web build something that breaks standards.

[–] E-werd [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

What he's saying is that people whose work is majorly not open source can't possibly contribute something positive to it without producing some sort of corruption in what it's meant to be.. hmmm...

I would guess his major concern here is aimed at Microsoft in particular. Consider their (previous?) internal strategy of Embrace, extend, and extinguish. This seems to fit right into all of Microsoft's linux and general open source strategies. I think .NET Core is a long-term strategy to get wide adoption in the linux community and make it a major dependency, though it would have to be a super long-term strategy because the biggest players in FOSS have a strong distrust of Microsoft.

Even further you have Microsoft's acquisition of GitHub, which is the largest git site in the world and houses some of the most important open-source projects. They're attempting to create dependency.

If you want to contribute to a free and open web build something that breaks standards.

Ehh, I think the vast majority of folks agree that open standards should be adhered to. We remember what happened in the 90's with the "wild west" approach to standardization and it wasn't pretty. The internet as a whole has functionally improved through standards like CSS, HTML/5, Javascript modernization, and the removal of closed standards like Adobe Flashplayer and Microsoft Frontpage.

While what you said there is technically correct, there's a line between "can" and "should" that needs to be acknowledged.

[–] smallpond 4 points (+5|-1)

Important stuff, and great to have an article to read instead of having to bother with the video.

[–] jobes 2 points (+2|-0)

I think he makes some good points, but the first point he tries making about Microsoft being on the advisory board is just silly. Is Microsoft extra evil because they are also a member of the Khronos Group who manages the OpenGL and Vulkan standards, while Microsoft has the closed source DirectX? Having tech companies be a part of tech discussions is not a bad thing, especially when say Microsoft has products that directly rely on the Open Source products and they are working on more products that are cross platform and run on Linux. A lot of people at large tech companies do contribute to Open Source either officially or on their own time, and most all big tech companies have official policies for obtaining legal approval to work on open source projects while employed there (at least the massive tech company I worked for did).

Now his second point, the toxic radical culture that has infected many many open source communities is a massive problem. I was very interested in contributing to some projects related to F-Droid and ActivityPub, but after watching the shrieking, screaming and crying after some people joined who they didn't like, I realized that these idiots would rather burn the software to the ground than have someone they dont like contribute to it.

[–] smallpond 0 points (+1|-1)

A truly fascinating detail of all this... is that many of the individuals and organizations who are preaching hate -- or seeking to cause division and harm -- work directly with the companies buying buying control of Open Source organizations.

In fact, if you draw a Venn Diagram with one circle representing "Seeking to harm others who they disagree with" and the other circle being "Companies buying influence of Open Source"... it's pretty much just a single circle (with, perhaps, a small divot at the top).

From the article. The two problems appear to be interrelated.

[–] KillBill 2 points (+2|-0)

Pretty much on the money here. Linus Torvald wouldn't except their backdoor back in the day, so they decided to backdoor him instead.

[–] E-werd [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Come back once you've listened to the 2nd half of the video, too. He's talked about it before, and I think I posted that video.

[–] KillBill 0 points (+0|-0)

It went in a direction I didn't think it would but I'm not really surprised either. Every corner I've seen Microsoft around they've been up to no good. Even in small game communities Like AoE and AoM they still practice their tried and true divide and conquer of communities. Once they've achieved that, they drop their HD/Definitive Edition support like a hot potato. Their current aim is to buy all the top all the players away from Voobly.com (and also Twitch their Mixer rival) so they can destroy them.

[–] yeti 0 points (+0|-0)

Dude is just too much the phony poser FM DJ wannabe. I listened to a few minutes, but I just had to shut that dork down.