Over 97% of the 'Linux' Foundation's Budget Goes Not to Linux

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Executive Compensation and Nonprofit Status

  • Several commenters find executive salaries “shocking” or at least notable; others argue they are “below market” for Silicon Valley–adjacent roles.
  • Tax filings linked in the thread show high compensation for some executive directors while many board directors get $0, attributed to full‑time vs. board‑only roles.
  • Some argue that, percentage-wise, exec comp is lower than other large tech nonprofits.
  • A major recurrent point: the Linux Foundation (LF) is a 501(c)(6) trade association, not a 501(c)(3) charity, so its purpose is serving corporate members rather than the general public or individual donors.
  • Several comments say individuals “aren’t supposed to” or don’t need to donate; LF is mostly funded by corporate dues, conferences, and project fees.

Budget Allocation and the “97% Not Linux” Claim

  • Multiple people point out the headline number is about the Linux kernel specifically, not “Linux as a whole.”
  • Around $8M (2–3%) is reported as going to the kernel, compared to much larger amounts for “project support,” events, conferences, and corporate operations.
  • Some view the relatively small kernel line as a red flag; others note that most kernel funding comes via companies employing kernel developers directly.
  • Critiques include: corporate operations being roughly 2x kernel spending, and zero spending in “grants/benefits to members” lines for a non‑charitable org.

LF’s Role in the Broader Open Source Ecosystem

  • Many comments stress that LF now hosts and supports a huge portfolio of non‑kernel projects (Node/OpenJS, PyTorch, Kubernetes, ONNX, KiCad, containerd, gRPC, etc.).
  • Support includes governance, infra, events, and handling sponsorship money, which smaller projects use to avoid their own financial/admin overhead.
  • Some praise LF as “transformative” and a kind of central steward or “BlackRock” of open‑source infrastructure.
  • Others see parts of this ecosystem (e.g., CNCF) as power grabs, culturally politicized, or self‑serving, though often not primarily about cash extraction.

Blockchain, Priorities, and Perception

  • The ~4% budget share on “blockchain” draws particular criticism; some see it as emblematic of misaligned priorities.
  • There is debate over whether LF’s focus skews too much toward corporate/server‑side projects vs. desktop Linux or “the average user.”
  • A few commenters label LF “grift,” “cancer,” or “criminal”; others argue the financials are not the core issue compared to governance and mission clarity.

Broader Wealth and Incentive Debate (Tangent)

  • The thread briefly diverges into arguments about executive pay, wealth caps, intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation, and inequality.
  • Opinions range from supporting strict income caps to defending very high incomes and warning about moving the “unacceptable wealth” bar downward.