It doesn't necessarily mean that. It could also be that they attempt to block the rise of new platforms, and by doing so limiting the amount of platforms that they have to compromise.
I think technically what they sell is services related to RHEL and not it itself (correct me if I'm wrong).
To me at least, a big problem with it is the hypocrisy. RHEL started itself by repackaging another piece of software. Why is it not OK for others to do the same to them? Especially when the gpl license allows that, and requires them to allow that!
The Linux license allows anyone to distribute it for profit (under certain conditions). If I wanted to sell CDs with the Linux kernel I could. Wouldn't be a good business, but I could.
Their user base is both the problem and the value they provide. The problem can be mitigated if they don't join as just one massive instance. They need to be federated within themselves as well.
Would've never expected this read to be so interesting.
Where's the docstring?
Wdym? Are devs not functional?
Twitter's rate limit changes have led to the death of third-party apps like Apollo
Apollo?
Twitter implemented a rate limit to manage their infrastructure migration to Raspberry Pi
Raspberry pi?
Elon Musk is supposedly fighting against the CIA and NSA, who are using Twitter for censorship
Wha...?
Regarding section 1, won't you still get the conflicts when pushing to remote (or pulling from it)?
That's not being pretentious, that's being blunt. I personally as a dev, appreciate that.
If you think the code can be improved you should say that, and exactly why that's the case. When you're mistaken you should be able to take the criticism.
Your mission as a dev is to write the ideal code, and being overly polite can stand in the way of that.
Point it out explicitly in your resume. Don't expect them to figure out your github activity on their own.
It's definitely better to have open source experience than no experience.