Anyone who participates in any of this aggressive ID verification tech needs to be first up against the wall before the revolution comes, or there won't ever be one again.

In a dealership you can sit in the various models available and do test drives. Not sure how that'll be possible buying direct. Also what happens when its service time? Will the manufacturer come and pick it up from your home or will you have to take it to them whereever that maybe? Perhaps they'll be happy giving independents all the info they need to do servicing but I won't hold my breath.

What "age-appropriate" resources are we talking about that are supposedly needed? Porn? That is avaliable in large quantities catering to every sexual orientation and fetish. Something to reassure young people of non-traditional sexual orientations that what they're feeling is not unusual? That is needed, but that it looks to me that now this has been achieved, and then some. You do not want others to push young people to be something they're not, but that goes both ways. Children should be left to figure out who they are by themselves, when they're ready. With the totally rampant virtue-seeking on the internet what I'm seeing is people trying to push their agendas on children ('children' being the key word here) too young to understand social dynamics at play here. And of course there's the straightforward grooming.

That sounds like a pretty powerful argument against such resources. Many kids will not "have enough sense not to do anything stupid". It's naive to think that "age appropriate" resources will make anything different - see for example the reported number of paedophiles using Roadblox. Any 'community' will always end up full of adults pursuing their own goals, of various degrees of unsavouriness and criminality. Who will end up enforcing that age appropriateness? Businesses that run such resources that directly financially benefit from as many people using them as possible, whatever their intentions?

As far as I'm concerned, adults' role in children's sexual development is to stay the fuck out and let them figure it out on their own (answering questions when they're asked). Once young people have done that (again, when they're ready to do so) the role of adults becomes not to stigmatize their choices. That is all that is needed.

The poster below me also makes an excellent point. The whole LGBTQWhateverElse++ mixes up simple homosexuality, various fetishes and straight up mental illness. Those are not the same things and should not be treated as such.

Open Source has changed radically.

Consider how IBM / Red Hat are actively overriding the licenses of the software they distribute.

Consider how coding LLMs copy without attribution open source snippets found by their company spiders. Are there license terms? Yes. Are they being ignored on an industrial scale? Yes.

Consider how Google locks up Android code by making closed source play services effectively essential. This is straight out of the Microsoft playbook when they made IE deliberately essential to control the web.

Consider how web sites use modified open source tooling without sharing their added code back.

We live in a different world. And yes, it's infringement, not stealing like I said. But licensed code is not given away like you say, it's licensed for particular uses with limitations. So we're even.

The last time I bought a used car we found out the entire rear crossmember was rotted out to the point that it looked like lace with the rust holes. Fortunately we were able to find another crossmember used and it was a bolt on part but never again. I could have taken it to a mechanic to get checked out I guess but that's a huge hassle. It had just passed a structural safety a year ago too.

Not all, maybe only 2/3rds. But does that surprise you? Would you invest $1 in a chance to make $10? What would you ask about the investment? What about $1000 for a chance to make $10000? You'd probably want a bit more assurance that you will at least get your $1000 back. How much risk will you take on if we change that number to $100million? I'm guessing you will not part with that money without a "proven track record".

"He wasn't a product guy, and you need a product not just raw tech to sell. Selling stuff being somewhat important for a company."

Check out Clive Sinclair - he was an engineer and did pretty damn well selling his computers in the UK. Maybe Woz couldn't have done that, but it doesn't mean Jobs was the one required to help him, any competenant marketing type could have done the same. Vew few people could have designed the hardware and software that Woz did at the time.

Comparing this to tipping is the wrong approach because tipping is fucking stupid. The problem with your analogy is that the executive are going to a for-profit business that isn't paying its employees properly. That's not the same as using open source software.

Better analogy: It's Monday. You went into the office. Sharleen brought in some cake. Did you tip her for the work she did voluntarily? Why not you monster!

Nothing has been co-opted. Open source hasn't changed, and corporations building their world on open source largely are actively following licenses. The way they were envisaged.

Now speaking of co-opting, what part of Open Source (old ways or current ways) give you any right to gatekeep what happens with the code you publish? If you give something away it literally can't be stolen (leaving aside your conflation of copyright infringement and stealing, shame on you, your UID is low enough that you will have been part of this discussion for 25 years already so you should know better).

What we are talking about literally goes against some of those freedoms. Specifically Freedom 2 and Freedom 3. You can't be free to distribute if a monetary contribution is used for gatekeeping.

Of course they did. Wouldn't you, if you could? Say you could get a guaranteed cut from every gallon of gasoline sold in a particular state by lobbying politicians that every single gas station in the state has to belong to your organization, and they you can set a per gallon "membership fee" for any gas station to belong.

If you're looking for a new racket currently in process of getting enshrined into laws, 3d printing validation laws are being pushed in a few states already, where in order to sell a 3d printer, that printer must send all designs to some company to verify if it is dangerous to society or not. Now imaging the money you could make if it was your company that every single printer in the world would have to get approval from before printing any design. A freakin' gold mine!

Stallman literally developed a license that promoted the allowed use of something making cost primarily optional. Stallman never had issues with charging, but he very much rallied against that charge gatekeeping.

TFS postulates a version of gatekeeping because the voluntary contributions are apparently not sufficient.

LOL. It's great watching conspiracy theorists bitch about systemd, ignoring the many small attempts to replace the init system with something functional and ignoring why it is that distributions adopted a system that is far easier to use.

I'm not sure how you think charging for access would have stopped the likes of Canonical developing Upstart, or Gentoo developing OpenRC, or the development of launchd, or s6, or the many other alternatives.

I'm sorry someone moved your cheese, but that's the beauty of open source. You can do your own thing: https://www.linuxfromscratch.o... Now go get started and do a bit less bitching about someone else's product you are using (I'll bet without you giving any contribution yourself).

No argument there, but then again I've always considered Elon Must a 21st century car salesman. So he doesn't call his showrooms and service centers dealers, so what?

You can't think of one? Really? It's early and my coffee hasn't kicked in but let me rattle off the most blatantly obvious:
Availability - More software than every before.
Developer support - More tools, utilities than ever before.
End user impact - Virtually every single person in the world who is using tech has some built on open source.
Audience - Open source is no longer limited to power users.
End use products - There are more devices than ever before available which run open source software, not just built on but also things like computers shipping with Linux.
Corporate adoption - There's more open source running corporations, and by extension more paid for contribution to open source than ever before.

OSS literally has never been stronger.