Never Criticize The Linux Foundation Expenses
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2024
- I feel like my stance on the Linux Foundation has been pretty consistent, thinking that it would be nice if they cared at least a little bit about the Linux desktop and I'm going to stand by that point
==========Support The Channel==========
► Patreon: brodierobertson.xyz/patreon
► Paypal: brodierobertson.xyz/paypal
► Liberapay: brodierobertson.xyz/liberapay
► Amazon USA: brodierobertson.xyz/amazonusa
==========Resources==========
Linux Foundation Report 2023: www.linuxfoundation.org/resou...
RENE Rebe Stream: • DISTORTED Linux kernel...
Twitter Thread: x.com/sysrich/status/17888337...
=========Video Platforms==========
🎥 Odysee: brodierobertson.xyz/odysee
🎥 Podcast: techovertea.xyz/youtube
🎮 Gaming: brodierobertson.xyz/gaming
==========Social Media==========
🎤 Discord: brodierobertson.xyz/discord
🐦 Twitter: brodierobertson.xyz/twitter
🌐 Mastodon: brodierobertson.xyz/mastodon
🖥️ GitHub: brodierobertson.xyz/github
==========Credits==========
🎨 Channel Art:
Profile Picture:
/ supercozman_draws
🎵 Ending music
Track: Debris & Jonth - Game Time [NCS Release]
Music provided by NoCopyrightSounds.
Watch: • Debris & Jonth - Game ...
Free Download / Stream: ncs.io/GameTime
#Linux #OpenSource #FOSS
DISCLOSURE: Wherever possible I use referral links, which means if you click one of the links in this video or description and make a purchase I may receive a small commission or other compensation. - Věda a technologie
Linux Foundation does the wildest side quests and never the main story.
Imagine they start funding military projects 💀
@@aqua-bery That's what I was thinking, what stops Northrop Grumman from donating a few million for consultation on proprietary embedded linux.
big tech are major sponsors, of course it's gonna be like that
With the current linux foundation, yeah I'm not surprised if they sponsored militaries
The thing is companies can do tax write-offs based on charitable contributions to a non-profit, rather than hire employees to do the same thing. If the Linux Foundation had some backbone, they'd at least demand a certain pooling to non-corporate needs, rather than essentially being a loophole contractor for the corporate world. But that won't happen because the entire organisation has been infiltrated by big wigs from the same companies. Linux grew through innovation, not to serve the needs of Silicon Valley while leaving the rest of the user base to beg for spare change.
Those companies are interested in Linux as a server OS, not as a desktop OS. That's probably why they don't contribute to KDE, xdg, etc.
Linux foundation mainly sponsors projects that are connected to linux foundation(if not even part of), yes most of them are server projects but thats mainly becuase well thats where vast majority is
thank you Valve, meanwhile.
Aye, but thats what the data does say too, like 98% of the servers are Linux, and like 2% of the desktops are Linux. And just selling one mega server makes more profits than a 100 desktop computers.
not just servers but embedded too
@@excidium_ true i kinda always forget about that aspect, my bias towards servers i guess
The fact that certain people seethe when you criticize how this or that foundation spends their money means you should definitely do it more often.
Might be also a hint at the fact that they might not even want to spend it for what they're spending it, but are forced to because otherwise those sponsors would just pull their support.
The Linux Foundation is just a thing for big tech companies to spend money on collective development. Honestly, I would never expect that to change, but I would like it if they renamed the foundation to something else.
I mean it’s all still stuff that runs on Linux, just on the server. “Linux ecosystem” absolutely includes all of it. Thing is that nobody with any money to be made really cares that much about the desktop side of things, just server stuff.
@@EraYaN it doesnt make sense just because it runs on Linux that they can claim such a loaded name like Linux Foundation that has such a strong implication of what its purpose is. Would that work in literally any other scenario? Is there a Tire Foundation that represents auto manufacturers because most tires go on cars, but has almost nothing to do with development around tires? People would probably be alot less salty if it was named anything else.
@@themadmallard They can "claim" the name Linux because Linus Torvalds owns the trademark on Linux and he can use for it whatever he wants.
@@geep361 sure, not in dispute. but you ever seen Chappelle stand up comedy? It's wearing the uniform... So it's kinda misleading in others eyes and acting like it isn't or telling people it's not their problem doesn't persuade.
"Lunduke shaped footsteps" tells you all you need to know about this guy. He's operating in bad faith. Lord knows what his motivations are, but your stance threatens them, and his first reaction was to try to drag the discussion into culture war mud and associate you with his opposition there. What a tool.
Isn't the issue here that the "Linux foundation" isn't about Linux anymore?
They have evolved in something where their name no longer represents what they are about.
It should be split up into "Many software things foundation" and "Linux foundation".
agree
well it is linux all projects they fun are part of linux foundation and basically one big thing is these programs run on linux, yes most of them are server software like valkey or openTofu(god thats awful name) and not dekstop
they should split into corefoundation and librefoundation
It's like when MTV used to be about music videos, and then all the music disappeared. To MTV's credit, they removed 'music' from their trademark. Linux foundation should do the same and become the L Foundation.
Yes and no. Linux is still a core of what they do, but that's specifically the linux kernel. We may think of things like KDE, Gnome, libinput etc. as also "Linux" but in the strictest sense they are not. Still I agree that it might be more appropriate for the foundation to have another name perhaps. Even something as simple and basic as 'the Open Source Foundation' or something.
Given their funding on 243 million dollars as of 2022, if 1% of that was put to desktop linux that would be 2.4 million dollars, thats mental to me.
Given the fact that pretty much EVERY SERVER ON THE INTERNET runs linux its even more mental, but the other way around.
Brodie foundation when?
This seems to be indicative of the conflict between corporate interests and community interests.
Don't underestimate the value of "dogfooding", aka a company using their own product. If the Linux foundation used Desktop Linux as their main OS, they would certainly aim to make the Desktop Linux experience as good as possible.
Dogfooding is not even an option at that stage. If Microsoft can do it, then people working on alternative OS can do it as well.
The Linux Foundation is about big business. Look at the Board of Directors, all big computer tech companies, MS being one of them. Most people are alright with that, but it bothers me to be honest.
Don't ever look at the Linux kernel contributor ranking sorted by employer
@@excidium_ I never thought to do that, but I just did, yow! I see what you mean. Gives me a lot to think about.
me when i realize that danger
danger everywhere
That's literally all organizations that deal with multivendors. Freedesktop has the same structure, which is actually a good thing so that not one company forces issues into others.
Any big project is full of corporate funding and corporate developers, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's only a problem when you have a governance structure that allows them to take control of a project
I love how he made a vague threat that you'd be cancelled like Lunduke.
Lol lunduke cancelled himself when he rage quit on youtube. Man, I totally forgot about that guy....
He still uploads @@red_ben3487
I learned about and only ever hear about that Lunduke guy from people bitching about him. If they want to deplatform him so hard they should just shut up about it
Good thing Twitter ain't a real place.
@excidium_ that's stupid, because Lunduke actually still has a lot of reach, he kicks of so many stupid drama storiws, like the recent GNOME foundation funding story and so much more.
100% agreed. Their name is misleading and I find that distasteful
Seeing the list of sponsors already says everything you need to know, those sponsors are interested in technology they can leverage in the cloud, Linux desktop is irrelevant for big corp.
If those Corporations could kill off the Desktop, they would in a heart beat.
This should really be part of a broader conversation about the corrupt and dysfunctional "Foundation" system in general. They basically just act for corporate interests/their funders rather than advancing the cause of FOSS
yes, this. mega-orgs are mega-corps in disguise
The Linux Foundation is a 501(6)c organisation, its entire legal purpose is to further the agenda of its members. It's NOT a 501(3)c, which are mandated to contribute to the public good.
It's never a good sign when people get defensive over fairly mild criticisms and take them personally. "You're not part of the club so you don't get to criticize" is a really bad attitude a lot of people seem to adapt when they're too emotionally invested in an organization or project.
Richard is not just a maintainer of openSUSE Aeon. He was chairman of openSUSE in SUSE. For me, the whole situation is more related to not liking a certain person when your opinion is 'dangerously' close to this person opinion. That's it. Linux Foundation won't change it's ways, knee-jerk response to specific views about LF from various people also won't change.
The fact that he tries dismissing as "going lunduke" says everything. They've missed the point, and need to be held accountable.
I prefer to donate to the maintainers of my distro of choice. They need it, and I know it'll go directly toward supporting something I actually use and care about.
The Linux Foundation is an industry group - it hasn't been about the Linux kernel, let alone the greater Linux ecosystem, for a very long while. As an industry group it is a mechanism to spend the shared resources of its sponsors on things the sponsors agree on - such as the "cloud native foundation", and a bunch of other stuff that is more or less tangentially related to Linux or server computing.
I think a lot of it is about the linux ecosystem, just not the linux desktop ecosystem. For the companies funding it, improving the linux desktop won't get them more money. Actually for most of them it would do the opposite, so I wouldn't expect anything to change with the linux foundation.
I'm fine with it existing in its current state but yeah it's not The Linux Foundation anymore
@@BrodieRobertson It's realistically a form of false advertising, they're not about Linux and shouldn't be claiming to be, and if they weren't, might lose funding that is actually intended for improving Linux.
The biggest issue is money is evolved (or devolved) from a tool to buy goods and services to a controling tool. And we as innocent public (anybody who doesn't own a large corporation) MUST fight against it. I don't know how to do it but we MUST fight against money's controlling capabilities.
The goods and services is as much of a cover as "national security"
or "protecting kids" is for intrusive laws. Call it cynical, but it's still true
You should become an anarchist. Its based.
Nothing's changed about money. It has always been that. Talking about centrally managed currencies that is.
Human nature is intellectual in base and dysfunctional as a whole. That's why there is always some kind of misery going on in the life of people at any time in some way.
That the Linux Foundation doesn't provide material support to the desktop is not surprising. That they fail to provide meaningful support to the "xkcd 2347" projects like xz utils on which digital infrastructure critical to the businesses of the major funders depend is insane.
seems like a pretty simple fix to me, we just need to band together and form the linux desktop foundation
Exactly my man, and all users would have to donate no less than $10 per year. All Board members would be volunteers, meetings would be livestreamed to all users. This way everyone could add their 2 cents worth.
time to start the Linux Desk
top Foundation.
Time for Free Desktop Foundation? And I mean one actually affiliated with freedesktop org. Rather than bitching and moaning at the LF which at the core is about the kernel and the kernel only but to get funding for that they also help coordinate other projects in the interest of the patron members. How about throwing money at Free Desktop? I imagine Valve might become one of the first corpo donors too...
And get it sponsored by huge corporations that want their money going to anything but.
Two projects they support, off the top of my mind, is the Yocto project (for embedded Linux) and Zephyr RTOS (microcontroller RTOS). Both really good projects and well worth supporting.
Absolutely, I think they're doing a great with what they do fund for the most part
Your argument with the Twitter guy was kind of pointless, but I really like that you brought up how the Linux Foundation is the *worst* vehicle for supporting Linux desktop work. Based on 5 minutes of reading online, individual supporters used to be able to vote for a seat or two on the board, but that right was removed in 2016. It seems wise for any individual contributor that gives money to the LF with the goal of supporting Linux development to stop giving that money immediately and to find another mechanism for support as Brodie mentioned.
Somehow, quite a few big budget open source project foundations are operating in somewhat strange or sketchy ways (for example FSF, Mozilla foundation). I guess the big donors just control what the money gets used for, but it's still problematic when the project they say they support is not even the main priority anymore.
But it is the main focus, spending more money on the kernel is just not going to make it better. The problem has always been finding suitable talent, not cash.
And besides the desktop environment is just not part of the thing they support, or well not as much as the server side of Linux which is much much larger and more popular. Having that ecosystem well working server side tools is one of the main reason the kernel is so popular in the space, so it’s also crucial to keep it supported.
Wherever there is huge money involved, there is huge corruption. So I believe much more in crowdfunding for individual developers or small teams.
@@EraYaN the money is not going to talent wanting to improve the project, the is always an ulterior motive. that is the issue.
@@ChrisWijtmans but it is? Like they pay Linus and a bunch of the others, quite a bit of talent honestly… Like can you name any example of in your eyes a talentless member of the employed kernel team? At least from my point of view they all seem to be doing a pretty good job.
@@EraYaN I was talking more about open source projects in general. Linux is kind of an outlier.
Linux foundation is about the users of linux... the users are corporations. people messing around with KDE are not even a fraction of a percent of the actual userbase, which is server operators and embedded devices
The name is what keeps them afloat. He really summarized it for you "the one who who pays orders the music". Interestingly it's much more efficient to cut out the middle man on which your money would go to the 90% of other expenses and directly go to the developers.
They are actually quite successful in their mission? They don’t need to be “kept afloat”? Where are you even getting that? The foundation is actually one of the more well run ones financially. (God knows some others could learn from them)
@@EraYaN The "Linux" part of their name is what keeps them afloat. Companies can dump money into this foundation and say, here we go, we paid our dues, and most people don't go deep just to realise how this money is spent.
@@user-dc9zo7ek5j if you think those companies just throw millions into a pit and don’t look at how it’s spent I have some surprisingly good news for you! Companies actually do care where their money goes! And it all Linux based software that the members care at least somewhat about. The governance structure it fairly transparent.
@@user-dc9zo7ek5j They should, if only just to see how much worse many ecosystems would be without the vendor-neutral FOSS alternatives that the LF sponsors
@@user-dc9zo7ek5j it was doing just fine when it was still called Open Source Development Labs and Free Standards Group, before they merged into the Linux Foundation. The corporations giving it money are what keeps its afloat, many of those same corporations were members of the OSDL and FSG. No one giving the Linux Foundation money is confused about what they're funding.
linux foundation could screw off with the AI crap though. in fact every company should screw off of that...
lmao imagine being this dumb. o wait your a weeb. nvm carry on
AI is not going away, if the Linux Foundation and Red Hat ignore it that's just handing it to Microsoft and OpenAI by default.
why not just go back to the mortar and pestle? i've always wanted to drive a horse drawn buggy. *yee hawws in luddite caveman speak*
the only people against ai are people who dont understand how math works. you sound like people who hated the internet lmao.
its because microsoft is probably one of the biggest members and funding all that crap with their massive AI servers.
I find it extremely dangerous when someone says "You cannot criticize an entity because you're not a paying member", not only is it a logical fallacy because LF is a public interest foundation (if not, then take away their tax-exempt status) and as such the public should have freedom of speech to criticize on how they spend their money. Not to mention entities like this need healthy debate or they end up like the GNOME foundation spending money on things that make no real difference.
Also I think Richard here forgets one thing; everyone who lives in EU is a funding member of the Linux Foundation because the European Commission has been providing them funds in the past (and still does), so I guess those of us living in EU can after all have a say in how they spend their money.
The Linux Foundation is not and never has been a public interest group. It is a trade organisation. It has no "tax exempt status" to take away.
@@geep361 It says they are a non-profit tax exempt on their own page. 'For years the Linux Foundation, a 501(c)(6) non-profit, has provided a neutral home and unmatched support for cutting-edge projects '
The issue is that the Linux Foundation, calls itself "The Linux Foundation". Which is incredibly misleading. Sure big tech can invest all their money into one fund, but if the focus isn't Linux, them don't name it as such.
if ibm,oracle ,microsoft, google, and blablabla,blebleble,bliblibli,blobloblo,blublublu
A: already have contact with eachother trought a mutual channel
B: already have shared goals
C: Already are alocating the funds
dont make their own random bullshit foundation isntead of turning "the linux foundation" into the random bullshit foundation to investigate blockchain and ML ?
It's simply that it's all those other things that guarantee the linux foundation that they continue to get funding also for their core interest which is the linux kernel. You know the only thing actually named linux. Frankly as awkward as I too find it the foundation is technically correctly named.
@@Megalomaniakaal well its a stupid system if i can just donate enough money to turn the feed hungry childrens in africa foundation into studies to create genetically modified flying pigs foundation just because i sign a fat check to it, and if you disagree that makin flying pigs dosent help the cause you have to outbid me or shut up
I live on and inside the linux kernel changelogs now and man theres so many different people pullin to that git its mind boggling, my mind is boggled
I will point out that Microsoft is a platinum member, and the other major infrastructure/datacenter corporations claiming membership focus on Linux for server use. There's no motivation among them to develop the Linux desktop because it either doesn't affect any of them, or (in the case of MS) it outright hurts them.
10:28 I already do! I support KDE!
May as well burn your money, the heat you would get is better value. Imagine funding KDE development. Jesus Christ
@@TrolleyTrampInc What? You think funding GNOME is any better!?
@@cameronbosch1213 Yes. 100%. Much better desktop that actually works and isn't cobbled together with sticky tape like the ugly outdated bloatware that is KDE. I daily drive Hyprland, But I'm also not so deluded to be your average band wagon melt. Gnome is the default for most distros for a reason. KDE is horrible, it's a joke how bad it is.
@@TrolleyTrampIncKDE is sticky tape because of GNOME
@@Jakef100f ermm would love this explained because that is some really really flawed logic.
I think the fact that the Linux Foundation is where all those projects get funded through is because it's a very uncompetitive playing field, so to say.
The companies involved all want their money spent on these projects, because they represent a type of commons that they can pull from instead of reinventing the wheel or creating secluded technological spaces. However, we have seen that with smaller, more purpose-built orgs like OpenAI, it is more feasible for a single company to gain outsized influence, which the other participants aren't big fans of. But the Linux Foundation is too big and too important for this to realistically happen: No company wants to rock the boat when it comes to the Linux Foundation, because they depend so heavily on the Linux Kernel. Even those companies that technically have own OSs (like Google with Fuchsia or Microsoft with Windows) can't go without Linux, and so messing with its development is a kind of mutually assured destruction scenario.
Therefore, putting these projects under the Linux Foundation puts them under one of the most neutral (at least in terms of market competition) organizations in the space, which is an assurance for the companies that none of the other participants can pull the rug out from under them
Brodie, I agree with everything you said in this video.
My suggestion is for you to start a foundation that selects projects that the funds will be allocated to. Maybe call it "Open Fund."
Also, allow donors to select how they would like to allocate their funds and if they would like this to be a reoccurring payment with the ability for them to change their allocation for future payments.
This would significantly reduce the friction of typing in a credit card number for every project that needs funds.
Unfortunately, one cannot just open a PayPal account, collect donations there and call it a day... opening and running a non-profit would require tons of accounting and reporting to authorities, which is I don't think Brodie would be willing to do.
Running a fund is a full time job by itself even then you would need to demonstrate that you are a trust worthy holder of that money
@@BrodieRobertson You have a reputation in the Linux community which is why I proposed the idea to you. There are plenty of people that would trust you with the money. It just comes down to if you're willing to do it.
The Linux foundation serves corparations, and they only care about the things that make them money.
If you want to change that, you need larger things to chang, but a good start is getting governments to contribute to open source, especially the Linux desktop.
Question, do any of the projects lacks funding? Gnome has its own structure, so does kde. Freedesktop which handles all mesa, XDG, xorg, wayland, etc. (the basic desktop) is being funded by the X organization. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc. have their own structure. Where would the Linux Foundation go if they want to spend money on the Linux desktop?
These projects don't have 0 funding that's true, but they're also running fairly tight budgets or at least should be with how much they bring in
@@BrodieRobertson I don't see a wining move with that. Lets say for the sake of argument that the LF supports xfce, because it's doing a round of funding. People would complain that why not KDE or Gnome, despite the later two having enough funding. That's probably part of why they fund internal projects (I skimmed through the documents, didn't see any non-LF project being funded).
@@Braiam you'll never please everyone, people get angry at the sovereign tech fund for how they distribute money
More than desktop is the need for equitable killer apps. As good or better than MS Excel, Word, Adobe, Ableton etc. It is the weaklink holding Linux back. Let's get our heads together and crush this and let the revolution actually be allowed to happen
Problem with this is any killer app would also be available on Windows or Mac.
@@MechanicaMenace You don't get it. They already are. The ABSENCE of them on Linux is the last EXCUSE keeping the first trickle of the Exodus from beginning.
@@freecivweb4160 you don't get it. There are already plenty of killer apps on Linux. But you can get them on Windows and sometimes Mac so it doesn't matter. There are bugger loads of programs you can *only* get on Windows. There are plenty of apps missing on Mac, probably more than are missing on Linux, but it has apps you can't get anywhere else. When it comes to app availability it's not not having the apps you can get elsewhere that holds things back, Macs popularity proves that. It's not having apps you can only use there and nowhere else.
Even from the perspective of doing what their members need of the platinum members alone Red Hat, Intel and Huawei would benefit because they maintain distros.
Even Microsoft benefits through WSL and Google through ChromeOS. Of the Silver and gold companies there are some TV or car companies that utilize some of the Linux desktop stack such as Wayland or KDE.
Many of the sponsors of the LF have desktop environments of their own they're pushing (Microsoft, Google, etc.) and wouldn't want to improve the desktop with their funding to create a potential competitor. As for the rest of the corporate sponsors, they're mostly interested in linux server capability, so also not interested in supporting the desktop.
To be fair, if the linux kernel is keeping up with current hardware (it is), then everything is fine. Putting way more resources into the linux kernel would not really advance linux market share.
The desktop is not the kernel.
The kernel isn't the only thing that needs resources.
Right but he's not saying he wants the kernel to get more funding. He specifically called for the small, largely unknown projects to get better funding.
In fact, he also specifically said he wants the LF to move more money to support the Linux desktop, *not* the kernel.
They won't support project X or Y but they'll gladly build their own product around project X and Y
@@NightKev yes but do you think that all other projects dont need money they are just mainly server projects running on linux WHY becuase thats where userbase is and desktop projects arent really part of linux foundation
Lets start a new Foundation. The Linux Desktop Foundation .. everyone that uses the desktops has to donate no less that $10 per year. Unpaid volunteers on the Board only.
It sounds more like the Linux Foundation needs a rename, tbh.
I dont think they ever will actively fund Linux desktops. Why? Because they have all those big sponsors, including Microsoft. Any Linux Desktop could be regarded as a direct competitor to Windows, thus spending Microsofts Money to fund a competitor of their product is unpopular. And if Microsoft jumps ship and does their own thing... FAANG might follow.
If only the big spender control where the money are spent , then it really is a big problem that Google and Microsoft are part of LInux Foundation. They run their own GUI platform with their closed source systems in ChromeOS/Windows/Android and are directly competitors. And totally agree that LF should be very much involved in desktop linux.
It is possible to give purpose bound money to a foundation so it may be possible that the linux foundation may not even have the option to put money towards the linux desktop.
I think the Linux Foundation is a reflection of how Linux is most used in the world. Today it’s servers, AI, blockchain tech, and other cloud oriented projects.
To me, LF not supporting desktop Linux is a similar chicken-and-egg situation to companies like Adobe not making Linux builds of their software: desktop Linux is simply a very obscure platform, but it would be less obscure if companies like Adobe supported it, but companies like Adobe would support it if it were less obscure, and the cycle continues.
I honestly would not be surprised if the majority of Linux Foundation members, or even just kernel developers, did not use desktop Linux. Which sucks, but that’s a reflection of the world at large, and I can understand why LF members focus on what Linux based OSs do best or are most popular for.
Valve is the only financially significant entity off the top of my head that's actually interested in Linux desktop. Can't play CS2 on a tty.
@@yigitorhan7654Yes, and really the Linux desktop needs entities like Valve that are willing to take risks if it means a better future for both itself and the world around it. I’m sure we could see a domino effect if more companies see Valve’s success and follow in their footsteps, but it’ll take a lot of luck.
I don't have a problem with him saying no in the slightest so much as the way he essentially jumped down your throat about it. He could have been like
_"Sorry but we have other priorities and people we answer to which simply don't agree with this take and would prefer we allocate the money here. Seeing as they have much more measurable financial stakes and we need to cater to those to continue our operation as a business so that linux can get 2% of funding instead of 0%, that gives them a bigger say, our hands are tied. If that ever changes, don't worry, you'll know. Out of kindness to you however I'd say don't hold your breath."_
bam, boom, done, completely fair, minimally controversial way to respond, and nobody reasonable would have faulted him for it.
But instead he goes straight to "Lunduke much? how disappointing" for maximum possible guilt tripping and hate mobbing, directly comparing you to a known controversial figure just for asking a question in good faith. Like _damn dude,_ chill. Maybe take a break from twitter, holy shit man. Completely disproportionate and unhinged response.
It's basically corporate money "cleaning". The large donators get to influence the direction of tech via tax free, charitable donations.
You seem to be confused. Contributions to 501(c)(6) are not donations, they're membership dues. Corporations only pay taxes on profits, so they don't pay tax on the membership dues for the same reason they don't pay tax on any other business expense. They could also just spend that money on directly lobbying politicians and write that off as a business expense. What you're claiming they're doing doesn't make any sense.
Unpopular opinion, but let's face it. Linux desktop is irrelevant. Linux is all about servers. Even Linus himself said the Linux kernel is optimized for servers. Not desktop. We, the Linux desktop users are fringe. We matter as much as people using Solaris on desktop back in the day. Maybe even less as they bought hardware from sun. Nobody cares about desktop, not even Microsoft. It's just us. And we don't generate money. The sooner we accept this reality, the sooner we can change our own destiny by taking control over it.
Perhaps, then, it is time to fork Linux, so as to separate 'Community Linux' from 'Corporate Linux'.
Yes, Community might well develop more slowly but perhaps this would be acceptable and desirable. It is certainly the case that corporate interests are gradually diverging from community interests. I do note that they are of course far, far from fully diverged so far. So far.
@@someusername1 but does it really diverge though for Linux itself? Like are there real problems in the kernel that would warrant a fork?
@@EraYaN As Brodie identified, this situation is about more than the kernel. It is about the ecosystem as a whole and the social and financial aspects of development.
@@someusername1 The desktop is but a tiny tiny part of the full ecosystem. And besides forking even that little would be just plain wishful thinking and honestly wasteful. The ecosystem as a whole is fairly well supported as it pertains to projects within the Linux Foundation, and some of those projects or sub foundations cover enormous sets of users, especially when compared to the all the desktop stuff combined.
Irrelevant? No. It's just that the desktop is not a priority for corporate investors who are looking at servers, and Microsoft doesn't even want it to exist.
I mean, I agree that it's not unreasonable for financially contributing members to set the priorities. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that those priorities do not benefit linux as much directly as alternatives would. There's nothing distasteful at all about this and Richard is missing the forrest for the trees.
Thank you for properly communicating not to contact the relevant persons :)
In before he is vilified for making a "dogwhistle" call to harassment!
I wish we could have a foundation that in its core statutes separates the IP holding and legal defense, the funding members, and the rest of the activity, such that the funding is governed by the statutes, not by business interests of the funding members, and the statutes cannot easily be changed by the members.
I totally agree with where you ended up - I wouldn't consider supporting the linux foundation directly knowing how diluted the money is on its way to actualy Linux development. The conversation where "you aren't supposed to have an opinion if you aren't contributing financially" completely ignores that point that you're making.
Probably doesn't help that the Linux Foundation might just have so much income that they'd have to do some sort of budgetary expansion beyond the scope of Linux itself, lest they risk losing their official status as a non-profit org.
Like, I'm no business expert, but looking at that expenditures piechart Brodie shared, $269 million is definitely not scoff-worthy, whether we're talking American, Canadian, or god forbid Australian. (No offense, Brodie...) 😅 I don't have a problem with what or how the Foundation spends all that money -- my problem is that... well, no duh the Foundation is putting money into things like machine learning, da blockchain, etc., because depending on how ethical the Foundation's higher members are, it's not like they can just pocket all that cash. I agree they shouldn't be spending money on that, but at the same time, they gotta do something with that money regardless or they'll be risking the org's legal status.
I guess what I'm trying to say is 1) screw capitalism, and 2) more people with bottomless checkbooks and a capacity for charity should probably be donating to far more FOSS-centric non-profits than just the Linux Foundation.
first time i heard about this foundation was because they got involved with the servo browser engine
honestly my only problem with The Linux Foundation is their name, because i honestly love almost everything they are supporting, just some days ago i was digging into that and there are pretty cool and great projects
however i dont find it a big deal, but i get why someone would
Man, your outro is really cool
I never knew any of this. I just assumed that The Linux foundation funded Linux projects, the kernel and other Linux development. After listening to this I am in agreeance with you. Just thinking of things that could find the help and funding useful and I'm sure there is many that need it more. But I thought of accessibility on Linux as one project. Among the countless others that could be said that need it. Thanks for the education.
Well I agree with you that if they could spend another 2% on the linux desktop it would be amazing. But we as users should also do a bit more to support the developers as well.
On which project exactly? On Gnome? On KDE? Cairo? Wayland?
@@Braiam Well as a user we could start by supporting the projects we use.
@@Fenrasulfr We are discussing here the Linux Foundation, not your or mine investments.
If your question was about what the linux foundation could spend those 2% on, than I would say smaller projects that are the building blocks of the modern limux desktop. Didn't video talk about lib input for example.
Even the Rust Foundation does a better job.
Let this think in for a moment.
Well you clearly have no idea how both of those are ran, the Linux foundation is one of the more well run foundations in the space actually. Both financially and governance wise they have a pretty stable system going. Rust foundation was still figuring out what governance meant…
@@EraYaN You completely missed the point. Its not about how well a Foundation is doing financial wise.
@@thingsiplay Hence the bit about governance, which is sort of the main task of a foundation after following its mission statement.
@@EraYaN The parent comment was talking about how even the Rust Foundation, despite all its issues, still spends more of its mostly corporate money on stuff that the Rust community actually likes compared to the Linux Foundation.
It is ironic that they would all benefit indirectly by doing what you’re suggesting and theoretically that’s what a foundation should do for it’s members rather than just serve the short-term self interests of the members that don’t have a broader community benefit… it seems like it could be subdivided into something like Linux Core foundation and a Linux Application foundation such that there can be more focused strategies for both now that it has grown so broad.
Things like this is why I'm always sceptical when companies like M$ or Google "sponsor" something.
Because it seems inevitable that they will use that sponsoring, or rather the hint of withdrawing it, to excert "course corrections" in /their/ interest, not in the interest of what they're "supporting"...
Let's be real being a member of the "Linux Foundation" is a matter of advertisement and soft control for those platinum members. To them, "linux" is that thing that lives in AWS and GCP for running web microservices.
7:39 forget pro gamer moves, now THAT's what we call a pro corporate boot licker move
I feel like its the other way arround. You can decide to become a member of o foundation if you agree with their spending not you have to spend how xour members like it
it wasn't just the expense reports. There were many Linux Foundation reps that have and still present at conferences using only Mac's. Totally a bad look.
Yes! I agree with you 100%!
More support for stuff that matters!
why is linux foundation funding them beucase they are part of linux foundation and becasue it runs on linux (kinda sorta)
The better question is why lf_desktop died in ~2009, right? 😅
Let's just make "The Actual Linux Foundation" or "The Linux Desktop Foundation" or something
Yeah, it would certainly be great if the Linux Foundation could just be for Linux and leave the rest of their current business to more specialized organizations. I guess, for many members it's a matter of simplicity. They are already members of the Linux Foundation so when they want things like ML, blockchains etc developed further this foundation may as well cover it too. Which is sad because the existing ecosystem really needs more love, attention and support
they have what are essentially whole bunch of foundations under linux foundation that do these things and they are very specialized for example CNCF cloud native computing foundation is a fundation that is part of linux foundation that is all about server stuff like kubernetes contianers and similar all of it primarily running on linux any many others like OpenSSF and so on.
something like CNCF dwarfs kernel development because CNCF projects are in part a reason linux kernel development is even worth it cause desktop aint it
But they give the existing ecosystem lots of love though, just not your favorite niche little bit called the desktop. All the other projects are all Linux native server side project that they support, which are all larger and often more popular than any desktop thing can dream of being on Linux. Remember all of the CNCF also falls under this, so all of Kubernetes, CoreDNS, etcd and so much more are all way more popular in numbers of instances than most DEs. Hence the larger support.
@@EraYaN lets be real there is probably more etcd or coredns (kubernetes probably not but not by much i would imagine) instances then all DEs put together
@@bigpod tons and tons of kubelets though ;). But yes essentially the desktop just doesn’t have the numbers. If they pulled Windows numbers the distribution of funds would look different.
@@EraYaN if you counted kubelets yea, i maintain more kubelets and coreDNS instances(dont ask why so many) for personal stuff then linux desktop installs
Why is this 15min?
why do you need that much money for kernel development =/ seems like a reasonable ammount to spend on maintaining something that is already in a good state
The question isn't about financial or even time allocation it's about profitability. What makes Linux profitable isn't even its core feature set it's the integrability.
Companies, teams, and even non-for-profits all have an inbuilt profit seeking motive. That's naturally going to drive a company like the Linux Foundation naturally towards the things that make them money like its integrability.
If people want Linux to ever be anything other than an embedded OS we really need to start pushing Linux as a person first platform second OS but I think that ship has sailed at least for the current moment.
Does FDO not have a foundation? Not that I agree with all the systemd stuff that gets pushed through corporate Linux...
The underlying real issue is a doozie: outside of a few privately held companies, academic and military institutions, all of FOSS is essentially a parasite on the big-tech meta-organism.
Consider how long projects like OpenOffice or wine+ROS have toiled in relative obscurity without (ime) ever achieving value-proposition parity with MS equivalents of 25 years ago. You start to appreciate just how much vision and labor power MS was able to marshal back then (obviously not anymore; MS has clearly decided to let these productivity verticals bit-rot).
Point is, it takes a bunch of money to do some stuff. There's only so much thankless drudgery someone is going to want to take on as a volunteer. When crowd sourcing doesn't work, what can we do, but sell out? Apparently, not much.
I am not sure if i understand the other side of the argument to be honest ..maybe if i read his tweets in full i'd see it a slightly different way but ... I just happen to agree with you Brodie ... that is not to say any of these things they ARE funding are "bad" just because they are funding them but the "Linux Foundation" in my mind should do what you said .. .fund different desktops and say different libraries that in some cases "hold Linux together" .. the one like (pre issues) xz just like you said ... one dev .. .over worked ... burning out ... show them some love and funding for what they do, MAKING LINUX BETTER
Maybe a company such as Valve should set up the "Linux Desktop Foundation" as a place to coordinate funding and development effort.
If I actually had any money to use in this way, I would steer it to improving Wayland, including the pace of Wayland progress.
Actually, I would like that money to go the FSF or OSI so they can fund those projects in the free software/open source direction. We need them.
And I agree that LF needs to spend some money on the Linux Desktop.
Thank you for rising this subject !!!
Also i think we as a community should be supporting independent developments . For example as i started using DWM , donated 10 euros to them. Believe small donations to independent developers should become in our culture.
From my perspective Linux foundation is going against the basic FOSS values.
Cheers
This is why I donate directly to Arch Linux and the MATE DE team. Those are the two pieces od software I use the most. And MATE really needs some cash.
Why not Xfce? I can't think of anything MATE can do that Xfce can't...
@@cameronbosch1213 I just prefer MATE. I like it's defaults better, and I know it's program suite. I also like how small it's pool of defaults is. I'll give you guys props on Thunar though. It is just better than Caja at any given point in time. I know that MATE uses Thunar as a yardstick for Caja's development.
Brodie - you spend a lot of time ranting about what LF spends their money on. But almost no time at all on where their money comes from. Are you aware that almost all of the revenue LF take in is not going to LF at all, but rather is donated to one of their "directed funds" associated with a specific project? The largest volume of money comes in to LF Networking, LF Edge, CNCF, etc., and is directed to support those projects. You suggest they they are not really the "Linux" foundation anymore - but you don't seem to regognize that "Linux" is much more than just the Kernel and the desktop. Yes, some of the LFs directed fund projects do wander off into lala land, but the biggest and most active of them ARE what makes Linux the engine that it is.
I am more convinced of my belief that small or underfunded open source projects that are critical to cyber security or even national security in general (given how many open source projects are used in essential inftastructure) should be publicly funded by governments through some independent grants body preferably as a joint multi-national effort, given how much bs governments spend on citing national security interests, this might be one of the better things they could do. I like to view those open source projects as common infrastructure like roads, canals, electricity poles etc which everyone wants to use but few people would actually bother regularly maintaining out of the goodness of their own hearts, passion or a sense of duty and the like, until something goes catastrophically wrong. You certainly can't trust commericial interests to maintain them beyond whatever is visible to them and they think is necessary for their profit motive.
While everyone has a right to criticize how the Linux Foundation spends its money, in the end it’s the opinion of the donors that matters.
It's short-sighted from the LF and its members. Because supporting desktop linux has been the catalyst for a plethora of Linux ecosystem improvements, including on the server side where most of these members are invested.
Desktop improvements help Google engineers who use "Gubuntu" (or whatever they call it). Improved gaming/open source drivers will help with machine learning, neural networks, and other GPU-accelerated functions. What about packaging systems? Because both server and desktop could have a real "one size fits all" solution by now if we threw money at Flatpack!
Server improvements also help the desktop, sure, but Linux feels very money-launder-y when it shovels money into dozens of other "foundations" who develop competing technologies that largely sit on the periphery of their respective markets. What's the point of investing into ML and LLMs when Google, Meta, and Microsoft already have market-leading LLMs and thus have no benefit in Linux Foundation's "open" alternatives? Who benefits from these side quests from the LF that sit in limbo whilst taking a lion's share of the funding?
Are you gonna cover the news that MS-DOS & WINAMP will be made "open source" ?
MS DOS source code was released for educational and digital legacy purposes. And Winamp's source code is available only for developers who want to work on it but there's no actual open source licencing put on it yet from my knowledge. Worth to say that Winamp source code was leaked a few years ago, which is in my opinion the reason for it getting source available.
@@user-xv8xh2ib6p yeaaaaah, that'ssss whyyy I put it in quotes
The MS DOS one I did a video on, WinAMP will be soon
I don't even consider the Linux Foundation when talking about Linux Desktop, because for what I am involved into, that is Linux Desktop, they barely act directly on it. So their existence is a nothingburger for me, and this is not downplaying the important work they do, it's just that what they work on is nothing that I have interest.
I do think a lot of the "side projects" of the linux foundation are reasonable for them to support, even if it's technically outside of their scope... but seeing criticial infrastructure of Linux based operating systems being systematically underfunded while they couldn't give a shit about it is quite disappointing
Don't forget that they rescued the Servo project!
It is sad that if I want to donate to support Linux where it is needed, I should not choose Linux Foundation but rather go buy something on Steam as I feel Valve did more for the part of Linux I care about than LF.
Good Video, you are right
I like the way the Linux Foundation operates. Although it probably shouldn't call itself the Linux Foundation, the role it fulfills as a joint venture run by the majority of the market focusing on establishing a solid, open foundation for all of their projects is a useful one.
Honestly they probably get the big funding they get BECAUSE the serve those companies. Don't know why that guy felt the need to come at you for having an opinion. He could have just shared his opinion without the extra crap. Classic internet I guess. But I think the most meaningful/actionable thing to come out of your opinon, the tldr, is: If you want to support linux don't waste your money on the linux foundation. Pick a project to fund instead.
I think it's worth proposing that they change their name based on the fact that it may be misleading to some regular folk who would consider donating.
I agree.
Maybe we need another foundation or funding group with open board that decides on where money goes to.
Call it the "Linux User-Space/Consumer Foundation" with a focus on getting Linux more usable for ppl who otherwise buy Windows or macOS computers.
All people want is to do what they were doing in Windows but on Linux. And yes that means DE environments that feels almost identical as Windows. As a software engineer, this is also all I want as well. I simply prefer the Windows like layout. KDE6 is pretty good now but we do need things more stable for our Moms to use. Particularly the package managers. They just never seem to do basic things right and are flat out broken half the time which is not usable for Mom like users.
This really shouldn't be that hard to setup. Someone just needs to setup a funds delegation system that does payouts based on % incoming. Maybe Patrion supports delegation?
Windows and macOS are spyware. Supporting System76 is good but we also need more than this. Its only a first step that should have happened a decade ago tbh.