I felt strong aversion and irritation throughout, thinking they were unnecessarily making enemies.

They certainly have an extreme view and goal. And are personally invested to the point of seeing fellow collaborators on FOSS as enemies(?) now.

Putting up barriers through segmentation and alternative tech creates silos. To reach new people I don’t think we can get around meeting users where they are and what they are familiar with.

Bring value through FOSS, and hint and nudge them. If you meet them where they are and bring them to your software it’s already one more than none. You don’t need to get them to make a huge leap into a whole ecosystem of alternative software at once.

Their categorical dismissal of other’s opinions or priorities certainly felt irritating to me. Maybe they care more about FOSS license than UX or features, but why is that the only correct view in their eyes? Blind users may not even be able to use FOSS alternatives when they lack accessibility features or quality.

Even as a contributor to a project I don’t want to use a supportive side platform only for that when it’s annoying or cumbersome. I very well may just skip it, or leave as a contributor.

I would have been interested in the premise; why they think advocating and exclusively FOSS is the only correct view and thing to do. The lack of a strong basis also made all that followed more irritating.

Yes, I do. What info are you looking for? You didn’t even say.

I know the Mumble and SoftEther VPN projects use them for hosting their website/project hosting.

Microsoft maintains a modern fork of Mono runtime in the dotnet/runtime repo and has been progressively moving workloads to that fork. That work is now complete, and we recommend that active Mono users and maintainers of Mono-based app frameworks migrate to .NET which includes work from this fork.

What’s left for the mono project then? What’s Wine’s interest in it?

The reasons for this shift in budget away from funding Free Software and the NGI initiative seems to be an allocation of more funds for AI, leaving internet infrastructure by the wayside. Meanwhile, the EC has thus far declined to comment to share its official reasoning for striking this funding from its budget.

Investing into AI seems/feels more speculative and inefficient. I think you can get a lot more value by investing the same into actual, practical projects. Training AI, and training it well, is very expensive. And the gains or results are not necessarily even predictable, let alone certainly useful or used.

Notepad++, local files

The original text had ‘he’ where ‘it’ was correct. Which supports part of your premise.

They also merged a change request that changed those instances alongside ‘they’ instances. I don’t know if the original author and denier was involved, but it’s certainly important context missing from OP blog post.

the whole point behind it was them making an assumption about something

What makes you think the change suggesters assumed ill intent?

The submitted PRs seem to reason improvement, not accuse the original author. I see them suggesting a change, neutrally. With (minimal) objective reasoning.

/edit: I see the later ones did. But the first one didn’t. And the second one arguably didn’t.

If your content doesn’t fit on the platforms limit, why not post on a platform intended for or accepting such content?

This form is quite irritating to read.