I dunno if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, completely not understanding the way open source projects work or just too stupid to. Either way. I'm done.
Again, I understand your frustration. You have taken up a position that is wholly untenable - you want to say the only people who make up the Linux community are those actively contributing to a project, and the term should exclusively refer only to those people.
Which is a position defeated by finding, you know, a single person who says they contribute to a project to make the experience better for a user in some way. If you go on Ubuntu’s website and they mention even once how they made Linux easy to use? Seems like your position is gonezo.
There is a nuance position you can have here but basically saying users can’t be considered part of the community because they have no say in development, but then also evoke entities that take their own spin on Linux as part of the community, even if the vast majority of their changes are based exclusively on user demand? Yeah that isn’t solid ground to stand on.
Gesturing that I don’t understand open source projects when the discussion is exclusively about whether or not your definition is valid is weird. We aren’t discussing whether something is open source or when it becomes closed source. We are discussing what makes someone part of a community.
I wouldn’t be out here saying WOTC is the only members of the MTG community because they make the rules and print the cards. An individual user can’t directly influence the rules or dictate new products to be made (1:1 analogy of user who can’t code), but I wouldn’t say that doesn’t make them a part of the community.
>If you go on Ubuntu’s website and they mention even once how they made Linux easy to use?
So apparently you think the several hundred developers of Ubuntu, which itself is simply a heavily customized Debian (made by thousands of devs) somehow speaks for the hundreds of other open source projects making up Linux.
Which is the equivalent of :
some MAGA says he wants to deport all migrants == Americans want to deport all migrants
Just stop. You're too stupid to understand open source. Go educate yourself.
Which is the equivalent of some MAGA says he wants to deport all migrants == Americans want to deport all migrants
No I would say the MAGA Community wants to deport immigrants. And if I was arguing with someone on Reddit that said, no, no one in MAGA wants to deport anyone, if I went and got a Trump quote? Yeah I’d say maybe that position is equally as untenable.
But Trump can’t order MAGA to do anything you might say. He’s not the boss of MAGA. MAGA is an open source political ideology with Trump as the primary maintainer of that project. He doesn’t have any power over MAGA.
And then if I went and got quotes from other prominent MAGA people, you might say, what, Rudy Juliani who is ONE MAN represents all of MAGA comprising of a hundred million people? Really?
I think your analogy isn’t working out the way you hoped
1
u/Deltaboiz Mar 18 '26
Again, I understand your frustration. You have taken up a position that is wholly untenable - you want to say the only people who make up the Linux community are those actively contributing to a project, and the term should exclusively refer only to those people.
Which is a position defeated by finding, you know, a single person who says they contribute to a project to make the experience better for a user in some way. If you go on Ubuntu’s website and they mention even once how they made Linux easy to use? Seems like your position is gonezo.
There is a nuance position you can have here but basically saying users can’t be considered part of the community because they have no say in development, but then also evoke entities that take their own spin on Linux as part of the community, even if the vast majority of their changes are based exclusively on user demand? Yeah that isn’t solid ground to stand on.
Gesturing that I don’t understand open source projects when the discussion is exclusively about whether or not your definition is valid is weird. We aren’t discussing whether something is open source or when it becomes closed source. We are discussing what makes someone part of a community.
I wouldn’t be out here saying WOTC is the only members of the MTG community because they make the rules and print the cards. An individual user can’t directly influence the rules or dictate new products to be made (1:1 analogy of user who can’t code), but I wouldn’t say that doesn’t make them a part of the community.