We make democratic participation possible when we look for technical emancipation, giving all people the possibility to secure their data and have their beloved files likewise where they want them, most near local. When we only use buzzwords like "open-source" or "open-minded" we conclude only in competition. But competition is NOT the way to go, co-working and participation is forward. And inclusion of more and more questionable interfaces from more than only questionable parties is also NOT the way to go. Is Rust really a way forward? Social-speaking, not technical only. If we only look on technical aspects, we will loose and miss the generic point of free, libre culture: Change the code, learn from it, share the modifications as wanted and use it for whatever purpose.

But we also need to question: Is it really fine to conclude also the aspect of "you can make money with free, libre software"? We can look already where this has brought us to. We are loosing and have already lost on a wide field. Many projects are no longer going with free, libre culture as Hyperbola had to put also some on hold out of various reasons. The way forward is participation from my point of view, not only inclusion of wide more packages. And if we can collect even older packages and projects, we are winning more. But with Linux this is not really longer winning anything as to ask in the ending now: How long until Rust for example is mandatory for building? Ask yourself.

On the one hand the community is criticizing in long texts why Google, Meta (Facebook), Microsoft, Apple, Amazon and many more have too much power and hold on too much projects. On the other hand projects and others let go of this criticism and take over or even integrate questionable, even clear non-free dependencies. So again: Ask yourself, is that a way forward? Yes, zstd, protobuf and many more, but where are the forks? Where is the community taking over and take part, take action of the problems by working outside the common paradigm, creating a new one? I cannot see much on a wide field. And that's the issue, not that Hyperbola is removing packages and reduce dependency-trees. That's only a symptom of the current course taken. We cannot take "toxic presents", even if they are licensed permissive and somewhat free. Somebody asked about the patents? Someone asked further what would happen if for example free, libre games going attractive enough? What would happen? Do you really think the industry and economy states than again "We love open-source!"? Come on, that's a buzzword and illusion. Implementing "DirectX" into mesa for what purpose exactly? Yes, for having better Vulkan-support when running graphical intense programs (games) throughout Wine. No, not even native porting, just that: Wine. So where is the engagement? Exactly, nothing and to await from companies doing that is the wrong way forward. The economy is doing exactly nothing for free, libre soft- / hardware. Zero outcome, only using buzzwords because people work for them without getting anything back - okay, besides some rights. But is the toolset in the hand of the community? Well, again: Ask yourself.

Is it helpful to "trust" companies and corporations? Well, the generic opinion seem more oriented on principles of utilitarianism: If something is for the "greater good", then it is commonly to be accepted. But there is a point missing as freedom to decide individual and freedom to decide in a group should go together. Making such a "compromise" can end also very fast and harsh.

That is exactly what happens: Trusting individuals or some smaller groups is different to trust in "companies" and "corporations". That's not a comparable eye level for any kind of compromise to flatten the decision making. Even when a project from "companies" and "corporations" is licensed free and permissive with a fork being possible: There are patents, there are copyright-holders for different parts of the software-project. Changing the license is therefore complicated. Nevertheless the community of free, libre software is just thinking too pragmatic on the one hand and too single-sided on the other hand: Stating that "someone is doing a fork", is the pragmatic approach. Where is the fork of the Linux-kernel getting GNU/Linux-libre the real and definite touch? Where is the fork for systemd, reducing its complexity and making different components again available without it? Where is the alternative fork for dbus? Where is the implementation for all of this? Exactly: Not existing, just words for an illusion.

And than it comes to the point that people look for every single line of JavaScript stating to be non-free. Yes, non-free JavaScript is not good and absolutely not helpful. How about even NO JavaScript on the other side? Reducing its amount towards even zero will leave many websites completely dysfunctional. Nevertheless people accept JavaScript even as part to be executed on servers, stating it is "free licensed". Come on, really? Security-issues at hands for NodeJS and others around. Interesting that this is from many accepted while other side they immediately go for criticism when non-free JavaScript is in sight. Why not criticizing the whole sphere and systematics? Any problem with that to leave that out and find back to the roots?

Also mentioning that more and more projects include non-free services direct in the sources. Latest examples? supertux and inkscape, but that's okay? Same for circumvention of "YouTube" with yt-dlp. Not watching then on "YouTube" but with some trick around. Sorry, but this logic has an error.

The point made: Let's get back to the real grounds and mark what is important. And that is not only some selected themes but the severe damage free, libre culture has taken over the last years. And to be clear: There is no room for companies and corporations within free, libre software. We need to be honest with ourselves: It is just nice marketing when stated to "love open-source", not even talking about the vague and really wrong term "open-source" used. Even when companies like Purism and / or Framework state they want to "invest in free, libre software" they only do this for their own advantage as same like when other companies state to "protect the environment". No they all don't, they just make marketing with an image. They are not anymore trustworthy than any other smaller project. Also to underline: Those projects are even promising  and giving room for everyone to attend and enhance while companies and corporations only take the work done without anything else. So what's left? We need to stop telling illusions.

For Hyperbola free, libre software means to be community-organized, long-term stable oriented and most minimalistic, lightweight. Not to decline possible porting, but for this we need also more engagement and not only demands and illusions.

Because linux userspace is divided, for example (systemd vs not systemd)
A lot of linux users are toxic.

Let's stay positive, and connect with others. Hate and division is not the way to go . Let's find and make alternatives . Let's ditch linux kernel, because it's a poison to human brains .