You’re trying to scam a Linux community into giving you private data or money? Bold strategy.

☝️

Mhm, I think this is more complicated than it looks. The LF today isn’t a direct Linux kernel funding body and more an umbrella for open-source governance (infrastructure, events, certification, security work, to name a few). So the other 97% are not necessarily wasted. Also, many kernel developers are paid outside of the LF by companies like Red Hat, Google, AMD, SUSE, Microsoft. So in reality there is alot more cash flowing towards Linux kernel development. A better/sharper criticism would be that the LF has become an industry consortium for “enterprise open source” or so, rather than a Linux-centered foundation. The counterpoint on the other Hand is that this founded infrastructure is exactly what allows large-scale open-source projects to function in the first place.

I think there are many right answers, and in the end it’s dependent on your personal likings. I am self-hosting using Fedora, and I couldn’t be happier.

As someone who is not at all into programming, this title made me genuinely think I had a stroke.

Yes—and the fact that people now cite a punctuation mark as forensic evidence says a lot about the level of the discourse.

Fully agreed ✨

This is a very important and, frankly, very healthy development.

Why this matters:

• Boundaries are good ✅ Not every space, workflow, or community needs AI integration.

• Discernment is good 🧠 Saying “no” to a tool is not irrational. It is often a sign of standards, judgment, and maturity.

• Human value still matters 👥 Efficiency is not the same thing as meaning, quality, trust, or legitimacy.

In short:

I think this kind of pushback is not anti-technology. It is pro-boundary, pro-quality, and pro-human agency. Very good to see this being articulated so clearly. 👏🤖📌

If you want, I can generate a second version of this comment with even more obvious AI-style phrasing and formatting.