How to destroy FOSS from within - Part 4

This is the fourth installment of the article.
In case you missed it, these are part one and part two and part three.

I originally planned to finish this series of articles at the end of last year, so we start 2018 with a more uplifting note - but didn't have enough time so there we are. Anyway, we already start 2018 with the biggest security compromise ever (that CPU-level memory protection can be broken even without any kernel bugs, that kernel memory of any OS in the last 20 years can be read by userspace programs) - one more bad news cannot make it worse.

And now, for the conclusion.




By now you should already see how easy it is to destroy FOSS if you have money to burn.

From Part 2, we've got conclusion that "a larger project has more chance of being co-opted by someone who can throw money to get people to contribute". This is the way to co-opt the project from the bottom-up - by paying people to actively contribute and slowly redirect the project to the direction of the sponsor.

From Part 3, we've got the conclusion that "direction of the project is set by the committers, who are often selected either at the behest of the sponsor, or by the virtue of being active contributors". This is the way to co-opt the project from top-down - you plant people who will slowly rise to the rank of the committers. Or you can just become a "premium contributor" by donating money and stuff and instantly get the right to appoint a committer; and when you have them in charge, simply reject contributions that are not part of your plan. Or, if you don't care about being subtle, simply "buy off" the current committers (= employ them).

In both cases, people can revolt by forking, if they don't have the numbers, the fork will be futile because:
a) it will be short-lived
b) it will be stagnant
and in either case, people will continue to use the original project.

It's probably not the scenario you'd like to hear, but that's how things unfold in reality.




In case you think that this is all bollocks, just look around you.

Look around the most important and influential projects.

Look at their most active contributors.

Ask yourself, why are they contributing, who employs them.

Then look at the direction these people have taken. Look very very closely.

Already, a certain influential SCM system used to manage a certain popular OS, is now more comfortable to run on a foreign OS than the OS that it was originally developed (and is used to manage).

Ask yourself how can this be. "Oh, it's because we have millions of downloads of for that foreign OS, so that foreign OS is now considered as a top-tier platform and we have to support that platform" (to the extent that we treat the original OS platform as 2nd tier and avoid using native features which cannot be used on that foreign OS, because, well, millions of downloads). Guess what? The person who says that, works for the company that makes that foreign OS. And not only that, he's got the influence, because, well, there are a lot of "contributors" coming from where he works.

What's next? bash cannot use "fork()" because a foreign OS does not support fork()?

Who pays for people who works on systemd? Who pays for people to work on GNOME? Who pays for people to work on KDE? Who pays for people who works on Debian? Who are the members of Linux Foundation? You think these people work out of the kindness of their heart for the betterment of humanity? Some of them certainly do. Some, however, work for the betterment of themselves - FOSS be damned.


Posted on 5 Jan 2018, 12:44 - Categories: Linux General
Edit - Delete


No comments posted yet.

Add Comment

Title
Author
 
Content
Show Smilies
Security Code 0906376
Mascot of Fatdog64
Password (to protect your identity)