Yes, I think so. But I’m always open to constructive feedback: What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
Yes, of course, Linux has developers from all sorts of countries. But then, so do Windows and macOS.
However, as I wrote below:
I think that the first part of my comment was the more relevant part.
the us gov’t forced the linux kernel group to kick out its russian contributors that us gov’t considered problematic and it will happen again as more people try to contribute to linux and the us gov’t approve of them either.
You skipped my question. Let me repeat it: What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
You know the argument is facetious when Microsoft Corporation is being compared to Linux Foundation.
The whole raison d’etre of one is precisely that it can not be owned and control whereas other is trying since its inception to capture value. The organization of both being in the same country its actually irrelevant.
Edit: don’t want to invest too much time on this kind of discussion but, and I don’t think Linux == Torvalds anymore, his Wikipedia page does state that he has dual citizenship, in 2010 said “I have way too much personal pride to want to be associated with any of them [U.S. political party], quite frankly.” then in 2024 “I’m Finnish. Did you think I’d be supporting Russian aggression?” so I’m not exactly convinced he feels like a US patriot, whatever that might mean.
Microsoft is subject to US authority because they’re a US-based business. Meaning the gov can fine them or take away their business license or demand access to information they have stored, or any number of other things that Linux is simply not subject to, because they’re not a business and don’t store any user data at all.
Yes, I think so. But I’m always open to constructive feedback: What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
Yes, of course, Linux has developers from all sorts of countries. But then, so do Windows and macOS.
However, as I wrote below:
Microsoft and Apple are subject to US authority. Linux is not.
the us gov’t forced the linux kernel group to kick out its russian contributors that us gov’t considered problematic and it will happen again as more people try to contribute to linux and the us gov’t approve of them either.
How exactly are the US-based stewards of Linux development not subject to US authority?
How are they?
You skipped my question. Let me repeat it: What kind of product do you think an operating system kernel is, whose development is driven by a US citizen (Linus Torvalds) under the patronage of a US foundation (Linux Foundation) and with significant involvement of several US companies (Red Hat, Microsoft, NSA) and is usually delivered with a whole host of software from US organisations (foremost: GNU), if not a US product?
You skipped my question: How exactly are the US-based stewards of Linux development subject to US authority?
Microsoft is subject to US authority, because they’re legally US-based. So are Linus Torvalds and the kernel foundation.
You know the argument is facetious when Microsoft Corporation is being compared to Linux Foundation.
The whole raison d’etre of one is precisely that it can not be owned and control whereas other is trying since its inception to capture value. The organization of both being in the same country its actually irrelevant.
Edit: don’t want to invest too much time on this kind of discussion but, and I don’t think Linux == Torvalds anymore, his Wikipedia page does state that he has dual citizenship, in 2010 said “I have way too much personal pride to want to be associated with any of them [U.S. political party], quite frankly.” then in 2024 “I’m Finnish. Did you think I’d be supporting Russian aggression?” so I’m not exactly convinced he feels like a US patriot, whatever that might mean.
Microsoft is subject to US authority because they’re a US-based business. Meaning the gov can fine them or take away their business license or demand access to information they have stored, or any number of other things that Linux is simply not subject to, because they’re not a business and don’t store any user data at all.
What makes you think that US-based entities like the Linux Foundation cannot be fined by the government?