10

10 comments

[–] 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.