https://mastodon.social/@juliank

>Senior Engineer at Canonical.

And if you liked that refrain, here's another one.

You should not only avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety.

In reality a lot of the heavily used parts of Linux (and open source generally) are going to have some commercial involvement or are we suggesting that no one should be paid by any of the companies backing Linux who use Linux because to me that sounds worse.

Whether you like it or not, Linux/Open Source hasn't been entirely the preserve of unpaid people doing it for fun for a long time.

I don't understand how people keep giving the benefit of the doubt to corporations.

They aren't people. They feel no guilt and have no shame.

>They are of no commercial interest to Ubuntu.

Which is plainly false.

Julian can believe whatever he wants, in fact the more naively idealistic he is the better for Canonical.

The fact of the matter is that corporate Linux's benefits from impossible to run setups. That's the whole business model. The more convoluted the setup is the more money they make. Rust fits into this business model perfectly.

You'd think people would have learned this after the Nth rug pull from supposed champions of free software like RedHat.

It's not even as if Canonical has a particularly bad reputation for that kind of thing.

You should not only avoid appearance of impropriety, but also impropriety.

> Assume good faith.

I'm sure OP believes what they say. Otherwise they wouldn't be paid to say it.

sure some are also payed by a foundation. Which is also payed by companies but with a degree of decoupling of influence.

and some pay them self, e.g. fully voluntary work, but most dev can't afford to do so on a long term, high time commitment manner. So a lot of major changes and contributions end up coming from people directly or indirectly "payed" by some company.

and that's pretty common across most "older, larger, sustainable and still developed OSS"