Seems as though she undermines her whole point with the "Here’s what is true about the “open source is really well funded” myth" section.
The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about?
I think there is a really subtle line that she has missed by assuming all open source projects developers use are really important. There probably should be at least three categories: (1) really important projects (funded / managed), (2) projects that are not really that important (not funded / managed by community) and (3) those that are not important (not funded / not managed).
> The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about?
It's one that no one with substantial spare cash cares about.
Granted, it's broadly understood that people without money aren't actually people, but it's considered gauche to say so out loud.
Are you taking my argument and projecting it onto how people are valued within a society, and even onto how I value people?
That would stretch my argument to encapsulate a much broader topic than was intended. You would have to make a lot of assumptions both about me and my argument to do so.
The open source projects that people/businesses really care about are funded. Isn't a non-funded open source project just one an open source project that no one really cares about?
I think there is a really subtle line that she has missed by assuming all open source projects developers use are really important. There probably should be at least three categories: (1) really important projects (funded / managed), (2) projects that are not really that important (not funded / managed by community) and (3) those that are not important (not funded / not managed).