Comments by "" (@NoidoDev) on "The Lunduke Journal" channel.

  1. This is what the video should have been about. I guess, for starters, a lot would depend on Linus.
    28
  2. @santoshk1983  This is mostly wrong. It's once again based on the misleading claim that the Linux foundation would somehow own Linux. It's just a supportive organization.
    24
  3. The Linux Foundation does not need to be the place where everything is being organized. I'm pretty sure it could be more decentralized. The organization releasing the Kernel should be small.
    5
  4. @mattatwork2904  Yes. Though, the trademark for the name Linux seems to be owned by Linus.
    4
  5. Please don't make this into some clickbait. Explain it correctly at the beginning. That foundation supports the development of the Kernel. It does not control the Kernel. So, people working on it could just be supported by someone else. It's necessary to make that support for the developers more decentralized.
    4
  6. It's not in the US or owned by the US. The problem seems to be the most development is funded by the Linux Foundation, which is a American foundation and also funded by US has companies. The video doesn't make things very clear. The Linux Foundation is not the Linux Kernel.
    3
  7. Yes, there should be a foundation outside of the US. Maybe just pulling the code from different countries, checking it, and release their own (official) Kernel. Donations would need to be organized in political zones. Companies which would have to follow US law, could not donate to a foundation that pays for developers in certain countries or working with certain companies.
    3
  8. Imagine if the Kernel development would happen outside of the US, and American companies wouldn't be allowed to "work" with the responsible organizations, or pay them to do anything.
    3
  9. The foundation is not the same as "open source".
    2
  10. I assume, cooperation and coordination is not protected by free speech. Paying people to do something also not. Of course, there must be some limitations. Otherwise espionage and organized crime would also be protected.
    2
  11. ​ @GracefulEloquence It is. Obviously.
    1
  12. It would require some meta organization.
    1
  13. These claims might all be true, but banning all this developers isn't.
    1
  14. That's not what this is about
    1
  15. ​ @soppaism Source? No one said anything about using it.
    1
  16. I understand it's so, that the corporation between developers will need to be organized in a different way. Same for donations. The organization of the developers and maintenance has to move away from the US. Also, managing the code and releasing the Kernel needs to be separated as much as possible from donations. Also, someone else would need to pay for these Russian developers. I guess, they should set up a platform where people could donate Bitcoin.
    1
  17. Wrong.
    1
  18. I don't think the Kernel development has to stay under the Linux Foundations control. But you confused it with making another Distro. You would have to pay a lot of developers and probably build some infrastructure which they can use for development and communication around it. Linus alone got paid around 1 million USD per year in 2014. Hmm.
    1
  19. I'm pretty sure it's not about that. They always needed to take care about that anyways.
    1
  20. Thank you, very well done. Also, thanks for the security lesson, or reminder.
    1
  21. @joseoncrack LF pays many of the devs and infrastructure. You need to pay Linus and build the infrastructure for managing it. Then separating the US funded devs. They can still upload their contributions somewhere.
    1
  22. Sure Microsoft, sure. Go away now.
    1