I sometimes wonder (with a deep, cold shudder) if someone somewhere could take this poster at face value. Someone so far removed from my own edifice of knowledge, experience and opinions, that this can be read as anything other than ironic satire.
For example, some home-schooled children in Idaho or Arkansas, by parents made crazy by limbaugh and murdoch, then breitbart and infowars.
The kind of people so clueless that they could bite off the hand that feeds them, voting republican while crying out "keep your dirty government hands off my Medicare", thinking that Medicare is a private enterprise... thingy... that's like... their birthright... and it's made by... angels, reading The Holy Bible or something... and that's... a sustainable business model for all involved?
Calling open source communism aside, capitalism and those who benefit the most from it probably absolutely HATE the largest open source projects because the more people use those, the less likely they are to use their telemetry based spy/bloatware.
Imagine trying to make a paid video/audio file player in today's day and age and going up against the titan that is VLC. Or an audio editor/playback program in similar fashion to Audacity. Two of the biggest open source programs that I imagine just about anyone who has used a computer has probably heard of and/or used at some point.
I'd argue that Audacity (audio recording/editing/processing suite) is a little different niche than Reaper (full-fledged DAW). If your use case is "I'm doing a podcast and I need to do an audio recording from multiple mics and mix them down", Audacity is good enough that there's no point in paying extra for a DAW. If you're a musician and you need to mess nondestructively with recordings and MIDI and filters, then you know you need to go bigger.
That is a very interesting question. Are you asking because I used the 「 ... 」brackets?
When I've posted on Lemmy before, the pointy brackets < ... > sometimes don't show, nor will anything in between them, so I chose a different set not knowing what they are.
Yeah, now, and only because they lost and gave up. Some of us don't forgive past misdeeds so easily.
Besides, even to this day, most (if not all) of their "support" for open source is about getting it to play more nicely with Windows or trying to prevent people who insist on using open source from jumping ship to Linux, not supporting it for its own sake.
I'll believe Microsoft actually supports open source when they start porting things like Office or Flight Simulator to Linux, not before.
Yeah but I think that this highlights something quite well: Open Source is inherently corporate. It was created as a branch from the free/libre software movement, to extract it's open development model and make it corporate-friendly
"Open Source is just a corporate development model"
