Questioning the Linux Foundation's Credentials

nadamsieee writes "Neil McAllister has posted a provocative article titled Questioning the Linux Foundation's credentials. He questions the motivations behind the newly formed organization. Quoting: 'But wouldn't it make more sense to call the merged organization the Open Source and Standards Lab, or the Free Software and Standards Group? Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?' McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all[,] it's an industry trade organization.'"

Re:well technically....

[Anonymous Coward]

That charges half a million dollars to become a platinum member?

strictly non-profit of course.

Re: .sig

[ChromeAeonium]

Wow. You're the first person to reply to my sig without being a complete ass. A vast majority respond with, well, very harsh words, to say the least. Thanks. Anyway, I mostly agree with you, intolerant religion has been used to justify a lot of nasty things, but (my beliefs, here) fundamentalist Christianity should be tolerant and respectful of others and their beliefs, for example, when referring to Islam, using the term The Prohpet Mohammad, not something disrespectful, like 'that jerk with the turban.' As for seeking truth, yes, I do, though what I have found may be different than yours, it is the conclusion that I have reached. Example, the overly hot topic of evolution: I do not believe macro-evolution, that is to say, that species developed from a single cell, I find it too complex to have been left to random chance, but I'd have to be an idiot not to acknowledge micro-evolution, like traits being passes down from parent to offspring for the benefit of the offspring. Anyone with a culture of bacteria can see that happen. I also reach that conclusion when looking at fundamental physics. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a real and a self titled fundamentalist, just look at Jack 'I'm better than you' Thompson, defiantly the latter of the two. Please understand the genuine article is different from those who need an excuse to justify hatred. The reason I have that sig is because, on /., there's a lot of animosity directed toward my beliefs (it's uninformed bashing is trendy here), but I don't think that many realize that all religions and atheists have done bad things (in this case the eugenics movement) and that that should not reflect upon individual members. Anyway, it's amazing how big of a stir it can cause, expecially among 'free thinking' Slashdotters. Anyway, explanation in a nutshell.

Re:Phht

[TheRealJFM]

Corruption is an overly harsh term, it's a development, technically. In most English speaking countries the letters Z/S and their sounds /s/ and /z/ are now pretty much interchangable (ie they are Allophones [wikipedia.org]), so using z vs s really doesn't matter, except to remove what some people thought of as a 'useless' letter.

There are a few other British spelling developments, like "dreamt" instead of "dreamed" (this possibly even just a different direction with another interchangable sound), and a few American spelling simplifications, like "color" vs "colour".

As a linguistics student, I know that the spelling makes absolutely no difference, since it's all completely wrong for modern pronunciation anyway (English spelling has "fosilised"), but as a Briton I seeing "color" or "realize" just makes me shudder. It's scary.