EARLIER TODAY we published copies of some fresher Linux Foundation IRS filings. We promised we'd revisit the matter some time later because there's plenty to be said and it's better off split into pertinent issues/aspects. There's no lack of things to be criticised, including their use of Windows.

"First of all, our estimate that the Linux Foundation would be boasting a revenue of $100,000,000 was correct."Rest assured, we're trying to be objective, not biased, as well as factual to the finest of details. We take many hours to prepare posts and carefully check each claim.

First of all, our estimate that the Linux Foundation would be boasting a revenue of $100,000,000 was correct. We spoke about it in early 2019, based on the pace of revenue growth and other factors (open source intelligence and extrapolation). Well, the real figure, based on the recently-disclosed papers (signed last winter by Lisbeth McNabb), was just 3 million dollars shy of our estimate (that's a 3% error margin).

There's nothing inherently wrong with money, but when that money comes from Microsoft, Facebook and other such fundamentally malicious companies you're basically giving away the Linux brand (and message) to companies which are ardent opponents of actual users (sometimes also developers) of GNU/Linux. So revenue alone must not be the goal. The spouse of Jim Zemlin brags in her LinkedIn (Microsoft) profile about growing revenue, as if that alone is virtuous. There are many ways to make money, but not all are ethical (Mark Zuckerberg did not enter the '$100 billion club' by making the world a better place and the Linux Foundation entered the '$100 million club' by opening up to companies which oppose and fight against openness).

"There's nothing inherently wrong with money, but when that money comes from Microsoft, Facebook and other such fundamentally malicious companies you're basically giving away the Linux brand (and message) to companies which are ardent opponents of actual users (sometimes also developers) of GNU/Linux."Sure, we know what types we're dealing with here. And sure, people who accomplish nothing in life -- except amassing money -- would indulge and judge themselves as well as others by criteria like "what car do you drive?" and "where do you live?" (all about symbols of wealth, which they conflate with cleverness and/or patriotism). Mr. Zermlin could buy himself a nice new Lamborghini each year; he could make a collection of a dozen by now. But that's not what "Linux" is about... and he might never 'get' it because he was never a user of GNU/Linux and he cannot really code. "My grandfather was one of the founders of Cray Research," (lots of nuclear simulations) he told Swapnil Bhartiya 3 years ago, noting that he never really pursued coding. "Just simple things like Basic," he noted, alluding to his time as a kid.

Anyway, here's the part we find akin to if not a lot worse than US politics. The leadership is almost literally up for sale. That helps explain why so many Microsofters an ex-Microsofters now dominate the Foundation:



What do readers think? If Linux management is really so undemocratic (money buys power), who are they to impose on members speech rules? Is speech a commodity? Is the Foundation an instrument of corporate occupation? Who in the Board made the decision to outsource almost everything to Microsoft (GitHub)? Think about it... ⬆