Yup.

It's a tax loophole for the rich to use tbh.

If you have an old desktop to repurpose, jellyfin is best ran on one of those with an Intel a380 gpu as long as the motherboard supports resizable bar. Cpu-wise jellyfin doesn't really do anything intensive, and intel's gpus all come with the same 2x video pipelines so upgrading to a 770 wouldn't add any performance. If you're buying new, my recommendation would be to get one of those intel white label laptops xpg made for a while. They can be had around $300-500 and come with a intel arc gpu you can use for encoding, resizable bar, decent ram, and a decent cpu. Great little jellyfin boxes.

I see what you mean and understand you. It's very idealistic and I appreciate the thought of it, but it just won't apply to a modern world full of varied people in the way you wish. The reality of it is that most people simply are not interested in participating and it's not in the best interests of any project to expect to change that. Contributions from someone who shares no passion or interest will be less qualitative at best. That's not even to mention that you're likely missing the forest for the trees, as most open source software is built upon hundreds of other projects. You cannot reasonably expect participation on that scale. You can encourage, desire, or structure an income stream to support it; but you cannot expect it as it's just not rational.

Not sure what part of the open source community you've been diving into, but the expectation of contribution to the project is not realistic nor logical as there's not "always" something a person can contribute and you'd absolutely run afoul of "too many chefs in the kitchen" (even Wikipedia acknowledges this and has structured editing in a way to help alleviate the issues). Though open source for me, and a lot of others, has always embodied passion, a desire to aid the community, and a drive to prevent closed alternatives. None of that is based around "co-op" style expected contribution development. Hell, even Stallman famously addressed my "free as in beer" statement, saying that open source is more akin to "free as in speech" overall, but since this particular project is not monitizing and are GPL 2 licensed, they are absolutely free as in beer.

(https://www.wired.com/2006/09/free-as-in-beer/)

I understand this, but we need to be reasonable and avoid extremes. This software is extensively free (as in beer) and requires development support. As long as the prompt doesn't cross any lines into exploitive territory I think it's fine. It would be nice for them to have explored other fundraising avenues first though and have saved this as an exhaustive "final" option.

Don't worry. His entire set is the joke.

Cloudflare is amazing , until it's not. Chances are you'll fall within the 95% that have a great time, but if for some reason you draw the ire of sales, engineering, or a system bug you're gonna have a bad time.

Something something Hollywood accounting.

I think it's more about what the brain worms ate and what he's missing than what he's full of.

Is this the new embrace, extend, extinguish?

They love Linux*!

*the windows subsystem for Linux