kriberg

We call those people PowerPoint architects. They haven't coded or built anything for so long, if ever, that they wouldn't even how to, by this point. The only tool they know is PowerPoint and their slides have more boxes with words than any big box store

It's a tiny market, but, I promise, it has growth potential.

Taz'dingo!

Qt didn't start out as GPL. It's even in the article.

That's just the Kai Hansen doing his thing. He's also been quite active as a producer.

I'll fetch the oars. These folks need a visit

Highly interesting read!

Have you considered adding a highscore board or something similar? Athletes can add a profile, then post an image proof that they've lifted certain stones. It won't be fool proof, but could further increase interest by adding a progress bar and/or achievements :)

Their advantage is that they have the largest desktop user base. Access to those users or being the de-facto default desktop base, can be turned into income.

They need to practice more. Ling-Ling is playing 40 hours a day.

We use azure ad for authn to our github organization. That also covers github pages generated from those repos.

I'm generalizing, but most Norwegians wouldn't find pagan or heathen derogatory.

During the 90s, it was embraced as a common denomer for the anti-religious movement.

More anectodal evidence: I've eaten pizza with him twice. Didn't notice anything.

No, this is conflation everybody is having. You are free to do with the received source as you like, maintaining your rights granted by the GPL.

But the GPL does not compel RedHat to keep you as a customer. There are two separate legal instruments, the license for the source and the terms for RHEL. RedHat are free to chose their customers. We can't force a company to take us on as a customer.

IBM can't "kill" Fedora. All the specs files, the assembly mechanisms for the distribution is available online. The community can (and has) forked fedora and keep it going under a new name, if they wanted to.

But this is all backwards.

> Why should IBM maintain rolling updates into Fedora

The better question is why is IBM maintaining rolling updates into Fedora? Because they have a business incentive to do so. As other comments have opined, they get free testing, free feedback of upcoming changes. The community gets a lot in return. RedHat funds so much open source/free(dom) software development it's ludicrous. There's reciprocity here. There's a lot of other distributions also benefiting from RedHat's work, like Debian (and vice versa).

It seems like the community here on HN has gone complete bonkers over this RedHat business decision. We've reached a next level of open source entitlement syndrome.

We are not entitled to use RHEL for free. We are not entitled to repackage RHEL and sell it for free either. We are only entitled to those part of the source code which is covered by copyleft licenses. Are we entitled to the SRPM for those programs? We don't know. The patches applied, sure. How about the spec files to assemble the RPMs? Who knows. But it seems like everybody are demanding that RedHat should keep doing this work and ensure that third parties can keep their business model of reselling said work.

This is probably not a popular opinion, but the community seem to have a deranged take on this situation.