localhost1729

6 ms·

1.
by localhost1729 5y ago
> Donating to someone's Patreon does NOT improve the stability of a product >> Saying this more forcibly doesn't make it true. Sorry, my intention was to emphasize some basic economic logic, not enforce it. Let me try aga
2.
by localhost1729 5y ago
> it's in the shareholder interest to figure out how to support the work so their stuff doesn't break. 100% incorrect. The motivation is to make as much money as possible which could mean anything... mothballing an investment,
3.
by localhost1729 5y ago
Not really. Payments made to maintainers of business-critical upstreams are only sanctioned at board level if the failure to pay could result in identifiable additional risk to the business. As a general rule, this plays out as a kind of hi
4.
by localhost1729 5y ago
You don't seem to understand the dialectical shape of this argument. You would have to try to understand better how two things that seem opposite could both be true. For example, Microsoft could pay Red Hat for whatever they like, but
5.
by localhost1729 5y ago
The law that mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues is the requirement for CEO's to demonstrate good judgment in managing the company
6.
by localhost1729 5y ago
That analogy is a false one. Duck hunting is a self-selecting, non-mandated recreational activity for privileged people, not an activity that forms a critical role in a global pro-business economy. The correct analogy is: If the law mandate