Slashdot Mirror
Questioning the Linux Foundation's Credentials
nadamsieee writes "Neil McAllister has posted a provocative article titled Questioning the Linux Foundation's credentials. He questions the motivations behind the newly formed organization. Quoting: 'But wouldn't it make more sense to call the merged organization the Open Source and Standards Lab, or the Free Software and Standards Group? Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?' McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all[,] it's an industry trade organization.'"
Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?
Because if they called it the BSD Foundation, all you'd ever hear is about how it's dying.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
It's natural for the union between them to be called "the linux something".
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Sure its an industry trade organization. What's wrong with that? After all, we also have the BSA, the RIAA, and a plethora of standards bodies and "think tanks", "focus groups", ad nauseum and et cetera.
So, what's the issue?
C|N>K
Hello America!
That's the British English spelling used by most (if not, all) countries in the British Commonwealth - in this case, the article is from New Zealand so spelling is correct.
We generally use -ise instead of -ize.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
Replacing the letter 's' with 'z' is a North American corruption.
No, they got this one right. "Organisation" is a British corruption which never caught on in America -- you'll also find the correct spelling ("organization") used in Oxford and other fora which use Oxford spelling (e.g., Nature, WHO, UNESCO, ISO, ITU).
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Since when did Linux equal Philanthropic? Linus did it for fun and is still having fun. As long as they play by the license, trade organizations are natural part of business.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Wow. You're the first person to reply to my sig without being a complete ass. A vast majority respond with, well, very harsh words, to say the least. Thanks. Anyway, I mostly agree with you, intolerant religion has been used to justify a lot of nasty things, but (my beliefs, here) fundamentalist Christianity should be tolerant and respectful of others and their beliefs, for example, when referring to Islam, using the term The Prohpet Mohammad, not something disrespectful, like 'that jerk with the turban.' As for seeking truth, yes, I do, though what I have found may be different than yours, it is the conclusion that I have reached. Example, the overly hot topic of evolution: I do not believe macro-evolution, that is to say, that species developed from a single cell, I find it too complex to have been left to random chance, but I'd have to be an idiot not to acknowledge micro-evolution, like traits being passes down from parent to offspring for the benefit of the offspring. Anyone with a culture of bacteria can see that happen. I also reach that conclusion when looking at fundamental physics. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a real and a self titled fundamentalist, just look at Jack 'I'm better than you' Thompson, defiantly the latter of the two. Please understand the genuine article is different from those who need an excuse to justify hatred. The reason I have that sig is because, on /., there's a lot of animosity directed toward my beliefs (it's uninformed bashing is trendy here), but I don't think that many realize that all religions and atheists have done bad things (in this case the eugenics movement) and that that should not reflect upon individual members. Anyway, it's amazing how big of a stir it can cause, expecially among 'free thinking' Slashdotters. Anyway, explanation in a nutshell.
Don't worry. We have dispatched 2 Jedi Knights to negotiate.
The problem with your signature isn't that you decry fundamentalism wrong. The problem with your signature is that you rather unfairly associate Atheism with the actions of one very maladjusted individual -- oh to hell with it, we'll just speak his name: You equate Atheism with Hitler. That's the problem with your signature. Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics. Hitler didn't target the religious, instead, he, being a deeply maladjusted individual (to put it lightly) targeted several groups that he felt were not fit enough for a 'clean' or 'pure' Germany. Please, just change that part of your signature. Don't equate Atheism with Hitler. Fundamentalism, or more correctly, the idea that people who disagree with your fundamental beliefs should not deserve to live, is wrong. But eugenics has nothing to do with it. Thank you.
When the European Commission want to consult the industry about something, they usually try to find a diverse cross sample. So they'll talk to BSA, some union, some Linux representative, etc. One possible choice for the "Linux representative" would be FSFE. FSFE would say "software patents are incompatible with the goals of the community we support". Another choice for the "Linux representative" now will be Linux Foundation (which is IBM and friends by a new name), and they'll say "software patents are grand, there are a few glitches that let unenforceable patents through, but we'll harness the community to fix these problems for us and everything will be fine". So the European Commission will publish a dreadful recommendation and will say "we even consulted the Linux free software crowd".
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Corruption is an overly harsh term, it's a development, technically. In most English speaking countries the letters Z/S and their sounds /s/ and /z/ are now pretty much interchangable (ie they are Allophones), so using z vs s really doesn't matter, except to remove what some people thought of as a 'useless' letter.
There are a few other British spelling developments, like "dreamt" instead of "dreamed" (this possibly even just a different direction with another interchangable sound), and a few American spelling simplifications, like "color" vs "colour".
As a linguistics student, I know that the spelling makes absolutely no difference, since it's all completely wrong for modern pronunciation anyway (English spelling has "fosilised"), but as a Briton I seeing "color" or "realize" just makes me shudder. It's scary.
Joseph Farthing
http://josephfarthing.com
...the Awesome Foundation. Much better PR. "Do you want to use proprietary software or awesome software?"
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)