I too briefly got excited when reading the headline. That would've really made my day. So many people could work full-time on the Linux kernel.

Making sure one of the most used parts of software in the world gets proper funding for additional security audits, better performance optimization for more platforms, leveling the playing field for small hardware vendors who can't afford their own Kernel Developers, allowing for more disruptive technology on top of the Linux kernel?

Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already.

I mean sure, the ROI investing into the Linux Kernel is 0. But so much money is flowing into AI Moonshots currently that look like their value will be 0 that one gets disheartened quickly when important infrastructure for everyone is needing cash badly, but there is no businessmodel...

> Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already.

An AI moonshot if it works would change everything. It would change way more than the Linux kernel ever even dreamed of doing.

Going by that logic all money should be poured into Moonshots. Every available Ship should have sailed to find India. Every Researcher should be researching immortality...

Ambition isn't the only thing that counts. As much as I'd love to seeing a full cent of every taxdollar going into NASA, handing over the whole dollar would make very people feel very miserable very fast.

I hope this makes the resentment towards the ratio of money flowing into AI Moonshots compared to a little more down to earth things that are needed right now a little more understandable.

This is my exact argument for why "free market" doesn't always work. Sometimes you need to subsidize an unprofitable venture to truly move forward. Then innovation and profit models come after the initial hurdle is over. Most investors don't want to subsidize for long-term profit though.

Blaming "free market" for Linux kernel underfunding is very twisted logic.

I would argue that any GPL-ed software is a hallmark of communism as it is public property and noone is allowed to make any money on it (at least not directly). Therefore, the strongest motivation for hard work (profit) is absent.

Communism, as commonly defined, is a system of government. If there was any government compulsion for Linux to exist, or even if there was government-funded work in making Linux better than commercial alternatives, you'd have an argument. But this is a product that people use in the presence of excellent commercial alternatives.

Also, it's totally untrue that it's public property (it's private property, just a lot of people's and companies' private property), and that you're not allowed to make money on it "directly". You can make as much money as the market is willing to pay you. If you are selling things that are already publicly available without any added value, that's probably $0, but that's not the result of any permission not being given to you, that's the result of you failing at business. If bottled municipal water is a thriving industry, there's no reason that providing GPL'd Linux patches in a useful form can't be a thriving industry (and in fact it is).