You've linked to an article that is very clearly written in bad faith because it dislikes decisions being taken by the Linux organisation, not because they are actually dumb enough to think that a 3.4% line item for "linux kernel development" means that's all they spend on linux. Urgh.

I’m not sure what that tells you in the best case though.. They could surely break out a line for Kernel, but then does the investment in Automotive Grade Linux count? Or Civil Infrastructure Project? Or whatever that new OpenSSF project is? If they spend $10M on hosting OSSNA, should that count? Does money spent supporting K8s somehow detract from the kernel work?

It’s just such a weird flawed premise of a measure I can’t imagine how it’d be useful in determining anything about their motivations.

Could you recommend another article with a better breakdown of Linux spending by LF? It's not exactly a popular or risk-free topic for tech journalists, since many tech companies sponsor LF projects.

You can just look up the Linux Foundation's tax statements, they're publicly available.

Bryan Lunduke's recent writings are a bad source, they consist almost entirely of reactionary trolling. No idea why he gets any readership.

Linux Foundation's 2018 Form 990 (latest available): https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/460503801_201812_990O...

Accessible via: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/detailsPage?ein=460503801&name=...

You can find other non-profits here: https://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/allSearch

What is reactionary trolling, why is it bad, and why are his articles an example of it?

It's the same kind of unsourced low-information content focused on personal grievances that you would find in an angry twitter or 4chan comment. It's just intellectually lazy and bad writing, this person is smart enough not to do it but does it anyway. If you need me to explain why this is undesirable, then we probably don't have much else to talk about.

> unsourced low-information content

Pot, meet kettle.

> From the lawyers I've spoken to about this, Linus's view on the GPL and the chosen enforcement strategy has long been known to be nonsense.

Unsourced. Low information content. You're throwing a whole lot of vague shade around in this thread. overboard2 asked you for an example, that was an opportunity to get specific, but your response is to make vague comparisons to 4chan?

>Pot, meet kettle.

No, this is incredibly wrong. The source here is me. You can choose to not believe me, but it's a source. I'm sorry but I just don't illegally carry a tape recorder into every meeting I go to just to prove something to a person on the internet. If you want me to elaborate then just ask a specific question, please stop with these "gotcha" tactics because they don't do anything. If you were referring to this person's writings, the article that was already posted is a source.

Even if you consider all the information in the linked article, the 3.4% is misleading. There's no indication that 100% of the linux-related work the Linux Foundation does falls into the 'linux kernel support' bucket.

More to the point, the foundation's web site doesn't say that its mission relates to Linux. It talks about software communities, open source etc.

It would be helpful for LF to provide a summary of Linux-related spending that is distinct from kernel development. Obviously not an easy line to draw, but better that LF draws the line than external observers.

They also run training courses and certificates through that that horrific EdX website… blecch