The commit list will give you a fuller picture.
https://codeberg.org/Kbin/kbin-core/commits/branch/develop
With the caveat that things don’t make it to kbin.social or any other instances the moment the commit happens, but only whenever the server gets updated (no idea how to check that).
Of the remaining ones I’d say Fedora is probably the safest bet. Not as cutting edge as the other two, but well engineered and stable.
Rolling releases like Tumbleweed and Endeavour can be more interesting and partifularly good for gaming because they always have the newest stuff and patches and performance improvements. Which can also bite you a bit in the back though if you have an Nvidia graphics card. Nvidia doesn’t play too well with open source and they don’t put a lot of effort into it, so the newest versions of their drivers occasionally break or do stupid stuff. Which isn’t a big deal if you have a system that can rollback (tumbleweed can, dunno about endeavour) but might be a bit annoying sometimes
Those all sound like good distributions to me. Although I would probably scratch NixOS off that list if you don’t want to start out with something complex. It is an extremely unique distro which does things very differently than most distros. Which isn’t a bad thing, but unless that’s specifically what you’re looking for, I’d probably choose something more traditional as first distro.
The point is the efficiency of the money spent on them for the open source ecosystem
Hence my question about SUSE and Canonical. I have exactly zero context for being able to determine that these expenses are excessive. They very well might, but “this number is bigger than the other one” without any industry context whatsoever just doesn’t strike me as a meaningful argument.
That being said, if one’s primary goal is to support open source development, the best way to spend one’s money is obviously to donate to software projects directly. If one needs server support AND wants to spend money in a way that does most for development, the question still stands whether any direct competitors do any better.
Edit: seems like the post from Celestial kinda settles the matter anyways
https://kbin.social/m/linux/t/107420/Reminder-that-RedHat-makes-A-LOT-of-money-already-The#entry-comment-432567
Well these contributions are now behind a paywall. The salary of the sales people devs are now safe.
They factually are not. Any fixes to RHEL go also go to CentOS Stream. and their contributions to the Kernel, GNOME, etc are freely available to anyone as well.
Also, I’m not really sure what I’m supposed to take away from the whole 66/33 thing. Are SUSE or Canonical handling it notably differently? If they’ve concluded spending lots on PR will get them lots of costumers, making a shitton of money with 1/3 going to devs still might lead to more contributions than making a little ton of money with most going to devs.
RedHat is probably the biggest Linux contributor across the whole ecosystem (for the kernel alone, only companies like Intel, Google or Huawei are sometimes bigger) and the average Linux Desktop user/hobbyist isn’t even their target demographic, so what money to possibly not throw at them are you even talking about? Are you currently paying money for a RedHat subscription?
Also spending money on marketing/ads isn’t the same as selling ads.
I’d still rather see RedHat as one of the biggest kernel/linux contributors make that extra money than fucking Oracle, Amazon etc.
Also:
They sell ads first, IT second.
They sell ads? Source?
Due to my lack of strict knowledge, I take it that there is a difference of opinion on whether RedHat violates the GPL in this case
I don’t think there is a difference of opinion? RedHat only offering source code to paying customers (and devs) is completely legal and in line with the GPL license. But maybe there’s something more to it that I missed.
Hobestly, I can respect that. They seem to be fairly open about the motivations of that decision and who it’s targeted it without devolving into vague fluffy corporate speech too much. You can sense the author was a bit pissed by the reactions.
And I do agree that many of the reactions to the news seemed overblown and I think the actions make sense from their point of view without being super shady, even if it still has some negative repercussions for the open source world as well.
There are some minor things. Accessing communities on your own is probably more efficient in terms of server load. A community from your instance can never get cut off from you due to defederation.
But those are honestly just very minor things.
Even most of the Linux apps use Shazam or similar for the backend. Most everything you will find in that area has some proprietary components and I can imagine that being hard to avoid for something that has to interface with licensed content (the music)
This might also be a good place to congregate
No, the API isn’t ready yet. But that isn’t stopping some people
https://tech.lgbt/@hariette/110545151572492176
Not really. The real life thing is carefully guided process with serious obligations in which the professionally trained and educated judge is still the main arbiter. The jury is segmented to a very specific part of the process with a clear protocol for a reason.
What you’re asking for is giving every Xth rando a police badge because law enforcement is understaffed.
I think it might be worth exploring making them more bean-shaped as opposed to the more ball-shaped appearance they have now.
Merge in what way? In terms of user interaction, they already are merged. Lemmy users can comment and make threads in kbin communities and vice versa.
And in terms of underlying codebase, there isn’t anything to merge. Lemmy and kbin are written in two very different programming languages. Trying to unify them would mean huge amounts of effort for no tangible gain.
Now, you see, this is the part that I as an uninvolved observer who’s just now catching up on the happenings do not get. Promises that were never fullfilled?
How long has or hasn’t this actually been an issue? Because from what I can see looking at the codeberg commits, it seems like development stalled for how long, like a month or so?
I totally get not wanting to be left hanging and having some answers and pathway for how contributions can happen. But as you also agree on, I also get real life being more important and getting in the way sometimes. And in that sense, being out of it for a month or so does not exactly seem like an earth-shattering amount, even if it’s annoying when it happens to be the project lead and not much can happen.
I just can’t help but feel like all of this has been pretty impatient and premature, which also makes it hard for me to really understand the point of the fork, even if I can relate to the basic rationale behind it. But then again, I have no knowledge of the direct going ons and communications between the contributors and the events that led to this. So there might be a lot I’m just not getting.