His arguments are all garbage. Easily the lamest article I've read on HN. For instance, he claims: > “Linux Kernel Support” is the lowest priority for The Linu

His arguments are all garbage. Easily the lamest article I've read on HN. For instance, he claims: > “Linux Kernel Support” is the lowest priority for The Linux Foundation. First, this implies that dollars spent equals priority. A lower priority project may need more dollars. The test of priority is which things take priority when dollar needs can't be met. It also assumes large donors have no say at all where there donations go and a million other things. Second, it ignores the fact that when someone says "Linux" they don't automatically mean only the kernel. It's true that some and perhaps most do and it is maybe even the correct view, but that's demonstrably not the view of the Linux Foundation. Even if it were, there's lots of argument to be made for supporting people who may support or work on the kernel now or in the future. Third, even though he admits he doesn't know how the financials break down, he somehow knows every project receives more than direct Linux kernel support. That's the best interpretation of his claim. The worst is that he's disingenuously lumping all projects together. Fourth, he ignores the fact that some of these supported Projects themselves support the Linux kernel.