ONE taboo subject in the GNU/Linux community was brought up last night in IRC. People get insulted or fearful (depending on their role) if someone points out the value of communities to the company with trademarks and control over these communities. If an unpaid volunteer perceives peers as people more worthy and better rewarded, there is backlash (see what selective monetary invectives did to Debian about 4 years ago). There are certain things that just cannot be said and certain illusions that are necessary for the status quo.
"It's not that the claim is untrue, it's just not a convent one to grasp."But let's face it and be true to ourselves. Companies like Novell, Red Hat and even tiny Canonical have obligations to themselves and often to shareholders. The development communities are convenient to them because they reduce the cost of doing business (key products which are carriers to the rest of the portfolio), where the toll is the time and effort of people. As long as a company maintains full control of a community and has a clear priority when it comes to strategic direction (e.g. through paid community members) it remains an integral part of this community and also its proprietor. To merely say this is not heresy; it's common sense. Perhaps it's just the way one says which really counts at the end.
To be critical of the above is not the same as highlighting it and to self-censor based on what is 'safe' to argue is to no longer care about what's true.
Speaking of which, "NOVELL" news is very scarce now because the company no longer exists as an independent entity, a lot of the staff was laid off, and managers mostly moved on and joined other companies. With the exception of few people like one who still organises Weekly News, we hardly see OpenSUSE activities from unpaid members. Communities collapse when the volunteers base gets to grips with the reality of exploitative companies like Novell. ⬆