Not quite half right
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Dec 18, 2012 2:20 PM EDT |
First, there is excellent video-creation and editing software for Linux. Major Hollywood studios use it. It's not FOSS but it certainly exists. Second, of course the Linux Foundation is about "corporates". It's funding comes from various corporations who profit from Linux or at least see future profits in further Linux adoption. Third, it's all about Linux adoption by the public but not necessarily about FOSS. Remember, even the Linux kernel has binary blobs that are closed. All in all this article is about one thing: Sam Varghese doesn't like the Linux Foundation or what they stand for. Awww.... my heart bleeds. Does he make some very good points about deserving projects, i.e.: Cyanogen Mod? Yes. Is the article a big rant and a series of random pot shots at the Linux Foundation? Yeah, you betcha. |
| tuxchick Dec 18, 2012 6:29 PM EDT |
I think he makes a good point. If they're going to promote Linux, they need to showcase it. Otherwise they look like marketing hacks, and not genuine Linux people. |
| tracyanne Dec 18, 2012 6:36 PM EDT |
Perhaps the Linuxfoundation needs to be taken to task over their abysimal support of desktop LINUX actually I'll amend that their abysimal Support for Consumer Linux on the desktlop |
| jdixon Dec 18, 2012 7:36 PM EDT |
> Is the article a big rant and a series of random pot shots at the Linux Foundation? Yeah, you betcha. Well, it's not like there's not a lot to rant about. Their name is the Linux Foundation, not the Corporate Linux Foundation, after all. |
| caitlyn Dec 20, 2012 2:39 PM EDT |
Who are the members of the Linux Foundation? Looks like a list of big corporations to me. To expect an organization to do something other than represent its membership isn't exactly reasonable, is it? Also, without those evil corporates and capitalists who either hire FOSS developers or support the Linux Foundation most FOSS developers would be out of a job. I'd rather not bite the hand that feeds me. |
| jdixon Dec 20, 2012 11:41 PM EDT |
> To expect an organization to do something other than represent its membership isn't exactly reasonable, is it? I don't expect anything of the Linux Foundation. But maybe they should consider modifying their name slightly to reduce the possibility of confusion. The Linux Server Business Foundation seems appropriate. |
| Fettoosh Dec 21, 2012 11:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:The Linux Server Business Foundation seems appropriate. Like I said before, when Linux desktop starts bringing in revenue to its OEMs members, I am sure they will start supporting it. The Linux Business Foundation would be very indicative and appropriate name. |
| helios Dec 21, 2012 11:46 AM EDT |
Zemlin stood eye to eye with me in 2009 and stated clearly that the Linux Desktop was not a priority with TLF. It pi##ed me off at first but the longer I thought about it the more it made sense to me. I didn't say I liked it, I simply came to the understanding that it was about the money, not about the code or the philosophy. I think the sooner people realize this, the less time they spend angry or frustrated and move along. TLF has its own agenda and roadmap. Desktop Linux isn't on either. |
| jdixon Dec 22, 2012 8:26 PM EDT |
> Like I said before, when Linux desktop starts bringing in revenue to its OEMs members, And as I noted, desktop Linux makes lots of money for OEM's. It's called Android, and the Foundation doesn't support it either. |
| Fettoosh Dec 23, 2012 11:30 AM EDT |
Quoting:And as I noted, desktop Linux makes lots of money for OEM's. It's called Android, and the Foundation doesn't support it either. @jd, I think you are missing my point. PCs are general purpose computers that need a general purpose OS. Android is for cell phones that are special unique devices and each manufacturer has to tailor make an Android OS for them. There is no need for anyone else to support Android on one type device other than the manufacturer of the device itself. |
| jdixon Dec 24, 2012 8:39 AM EDT |
> There is no need for anyone else to support Android on one type device other than the manufacturer of the device itself. Google doesn't seem to think so. And android tablets are not necessarily cell phones. |
| Fettoosh Dec 24, 2012 1:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:And android tablets are not necessarily cell phones. True they aren't, but they are unique devices for special function (data consumption) and with software like GoogleTalk/Skype/Ekiga/netTalk/Viber, there isn't any valid reason why they can't be tablet phones (TP). :-) I wonder who is going to be the first to announce offering such device/service, Google/Apple/MS? |
| jdixon Dec 24, 2012 2:45 PM EDT |
> ...but they are unique devices for special function (data consumption)... We'll just have to disagree about that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!