> 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 again. Unless there is agreement between the financial donor and the recipient that the donation will be reciprocated with demonstrably more fitting outputs for the donor, do not expect to see any positive correlation between levels of funding and product stability.

Apache already has the model for log4j... and I'm not being facetious here, but for the sake of clarity only they call it 'governance' which is a comprehensive regime of massive corporate sponsorship, and volunteer 'PMCs' who are drawn from elite engineering backgrounds and participate mainly for social status, not money.

This is because people like myself, and people that like 'The Apache Way' see individual philanthropy and good science as a very complex relationship... and people like me would say... 'bad relationship'. Good science tends to be funded socially... through government organizations and civic institutions, Apache Foundation is one such institution. They accept private donations but it just goes into general funds AFAIK, most of the work done there is sponsored by Big Tech. We can argue that, if you want?

So, underfunding of log4j was not the issue at all. Apache projects I believe are generally well resourced and well managed. No?

> ...the reason we have these hot takes coming out corporate mouths is because they recognize that bugs do impact stability and they're interested in trying to make that into someone else's problem.

So, no... the reason is because corporate mouths are connected to corporate hands, and they have been dishing out money to Apache from the beginning. They believe they are owed something... and to some extent they are. You don't sh*t on your donors. That's the rule in the third sector.

This is why the log4j team are being held accountable. They trade off Apache reputation and the foundation they work for takes the money off many big corporate sponsors.

When you see the history of these issues it all makes sense and although your sentiment might appeal to lots of people, that is all it is... just like 'we shouldn't feck with cats'. That is the sort of argument you are involving yourself with. Sure, in an ideal world no one would feck with cats, but my argument is... when you see someone fecking with a cat, you don't just let them do it, sure, lock them up and rehabilitate them or get them to do some community service or whatever but mainly you want to be thinking about making sure that cats aren't so vulnerable... so you do stuff like make sure breeders are registered, make sure owners look after them properly and don't let their cats stray and so on.

You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the what The Open Source community actually is... it's about big corporates. All the millions of individuals, small and medium sized developers and end users are basically bystanders.

It might be worth coming back once you've got a clearer picture of the landscape. It's not what you think it is. It's not a pastoral idyll of happy, flourishing code crofters, it's a highly industrialized and monstrous tyranny dominated by surveillance capital...

When you see that, tell me if you still care if some prestigious Apache PMC engineer who chooses to work on something for free is really surprised when additional demands or complaints come in to the Brand he is trading off.

That's the deal here.

The systemic level is elite engineers on good salaries and high social standing working on high profile projects on the understanding that their reputation rides on being professional.

For them, it is not about overthrowing Capitalism or reworking our entire economic system, quite the reverse. Open Source for these people is about working to extend that system around the world. I'm using linux now and am under no illusion that almost all of it has been commodified... made alien to the people that worked on it... in the exact same way proprietary software is... the kernel included.

Open Source is capitalist, not Anarchist. I hope that much has been made obvious.

You misstate my position, I said big tech only cares about stability as far as it impacts on profits. Very often it will seek to make a product less stable in order to make money. Dishonesty is not a bug, it's a feature of all corporates.

Open Source is one big corporate hussle. Maybe you will want to look into that a bit more before you assume that Open Source is anything else? Thanks.