THE Linux Foundation is killing the Linux brand. It's misusing it or "lending" it to things that have nothing to do with Linux. Similarly, as an associate of ours put it this morning, Forbes has, as recently as yesterday, resorted to "brand dilution, "open-source" vs "open source", OSI is too quiet..."
"The Linux Foundation is killing the Linux brand. It's misusing it or "lending" it to things that have nothing to do with Linux."Notice they're not even speaking about code! This is pure openwashing.
Yesterday we wrote about how Zemlin's PAC had been selling (or licensing) the "Linux" brand to dying/unpopular projects ("The Corporate Linux Foundation [LF as Agent of Microsoft and Other Serial GPL Violators]") while outsourcing almost everything to Microsoft. Thomas B. Rücker wrote in response that "LF is an industry association and pay-for-play is their raison-d'etre. At some point it was supposedly 'just' about paying Linus, but those days are *long* gone. A lot of the projects that get labeled "LF project", there's a vendor paying for this fronting. They've been doing this for years. I've seen this first hand and was privy to meetings."
Someone has just pointed out this article to us. It's about "LF Edge" and it says: "Two open-source foundations - IOTA Foundation working in the sphere of blockchain and the open-source Linux Foundation have come together for Edge computing, specifically the LF Edge."
"What other 'snake oil' is the Linux Foundation willing to be associated with?"What does that have to do with Linux? The Corporate Linux Foundation doubles down on marketing as a business model, misusing the "Linux" brand for quick profit (never mind the dilution of the brand). A few hours ago this site published news entitled "IOTA {MIOTA} Foundation teams up with Linux; may facilitate mainstream interest" (got that? It's about brand recognition, right?)
Nonsensical sites such as these aren't even about Linux. To quote the summary: "IOTA is ranked at #16 above Dash but underneath Huobi Token in the market. The price declined at a rate of 11.73% in the course…"
"As for the site known as Linux.com? Forget about it. It's 'sold'..."What other 'snake oil' is the Linux Foundation willing to be associated with?
As we noted over the weekend, corporations are taking over both "Open Source" and "Linux" (their identity); Microsoft now pays people to relay the lie that Microsoft is authority or commands its competition. As for the site known as Linux.com? Forget about it. It's 'sold'... its soul is sold because all editors and writers got fired back in April; all that's left is a Microsoft-friendly stenographer.
"And now we have a so-called 'Linux' Foundation which does more or less the same (you must create an account with Microsoft to participate in "LF" projects) while its news site, Linux.com, promotes .NET."Welcome to Linux.com? No. Should we call it Linux.NET? Seems reasonable in light of this latest story from Swapnil ("AWS Joins the .NET Foundation"). Whose agenda is being served here? What does that even have to do with Linux?
Need we mention again how the 'Linux' Foundation outsources pretty much everything to Microsoft? The code is hosted by a proprietary software platform called GitHub and check out what Pete Zaitcev (Linux developer) published only hours ago:
A job at LinkedIn [owned by Microsoft] in my area includes the following instruction statement:
Don't apply if you can't really write code and don't have a github profile. This is a job for an expert level coder.I remember the simpler times when LWN authors fretted about the SourceForge monopoly capturing all FLOSS projects.
P.S. For the record, I do have a profile at Github. It is required in order to contribute to RDO, because it is the only way to login in their Gerrit and submit patches for review. Ironically, Fedora offers a single sign-on with FAS and RDO is a Red Hat sponsored project, but nope — it's easier to force contributors into Github.