Who contributes most to open source?

[DAMIEN1307]

According to this article, its NOT M$...lol...DAMIEN

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/wh ... prise-you/

[gm10]

According to this article, its NOT M$

Oh really? According to the article:

Microsoft is the world's top corporate contributor to open source

He then makes up an additional ranking based on percentage of the company's employee's contributing, which is about as dumb as it gets. Apples and oranges has nothing on that guy.

But even with that he is not concluding what you are.

[DAMIEN1307]

i made no conclusions, the reason why i posted the article...it shows that you can make any stats say anything you want them to say simply by moving the "goal posts" a little...lol...notice i made no "conclusions"...just my usual "lol"...im amused at how the "goal posts" were moved...he never truly commits himself, he just implies is all...does it qualify as fake news or just creative reporting?...DAMIEN

PS...when my mum was still alive, she was a CPA...i had 2 small framed signs made for her office...one said "creative accounting taught here" and the other said "figures dont lie but liars figure"...she thought they were funny and hung them right up as a joke of course...some columnists should have similar signs in their offices...lol...but they would certainly be no joke..."many a truth is said in jest"...DAMIEN

[gm10]

i made no conclusions, the reason why i posted the article...it shows that you can make any stats say anything you want them to say simply by moving the "goal posts" a little...lol...notice i made no "conclusions"...just my usual "lol"...im amused at how the "goal posts" were moved...he never truly commits himself, he just implies is all...does it qualify as fake news or just creative reporting?...DAMIEN

Apologies, I had misunderstood the gist of your post. Turns out I fully agree with you.

It's not fake news since his facts are correct and his process is transparent. It's just a nonsensical statistic so I'd file it under bad reporting.

[Portreve]

I read the article you linked to, Damien, and the reason I hadn't posted a response until now was I really didn't see what you were trying to get at. I agree; the article is essentially pointless. It doesn't even have the utility value of saying how the data is little more than a passive propaganda piece for Microsoft.

If one knew no better, one would infer that Microsoft's role in free software has been significant when in fact they have always been a competitor to it. Moreover, rms's GNU project was largely the result of a reaction to companies such as Microsoft. This is little more than a modern-day attempt at embrace-and-extend on their part.

I have very little use for much of what passes for journalism today.

[ud6]

... I have very little use for much of what passes for journalism today.

+1
I try to avoid the news and Facebook because it's mostly voluntary brain washing. Because the internet news is consumed for free, the money comes from those promoting the stories. I doubt of anyone expected that 1984 would be realised by voluntary action on the part of the public. Thus, the article in question: work out what you want people to think, then find the data to support that.