sure but most frequent/core contributors for Linux (kernel) and most big Distros are payed by some company with commercial interest which mostly doesn't involve spending time on maintaining any of this old architectures
sure some are also payed by a foundation. Which is also payed by companies but with a degree of decoupling of influence.
and some pay them self, e.g. fully voluntary work, but most dev can't afford to do so on a long term, high time commitment manner. So a lot of major changes and contributions end up coming from people directly or indirectly "payed" by some company.
and that's pretty common across most "older, larger, sustainable and still developed OSS"
I think that's unkind absent any proof otherwise which you haven't posted.
In reality a lot of the heavily used parts of Linux (and open source generally) are going to have some commercial involvement or are we suggesting that no one should be paid by any of the companies backing Linux who use Linux because to me that sounds worse.
Whether you like it or not, Linux/Open Source hasn't been entirely the preserve of unpaid people doing it for fun for a long time.
The whole thread started someone making the wrong point that:
>They are of no commercial interest to Ubuntu.
Which is plainly false.
Julian can believe whatever he wants, in fact the more naively idealistic he is the better for Canonical.
The fact of the matter is that corporate Linux's benefits from impossible to run setups. That's the whole business model. The more convoluted the setup is the more money they make. Rust fits into this business model perfectly.
You'd think people would have learned this after the Nth rug pull from supposed champions of free software like RedHat.
My whole point, which you've missed, is that the _interest_ is what we should be looking at. I don't care if he says he does or doesn't act on it. He has the interest.
