Industry standard is about 10 BPS for affinity programs and a bounty for acquiring customers for the bank. No rewards program might make this one higher, maybe 70-110 but none more.
A better plan if you wanted to support Linux would be 2% cashback card that you donate all rewards to Linux.
A an even better plant would be for the issuer to give 2% to the Linux Foundation (or any other non-profit of choice or even a mix), without making the merchant pay for it. The issuers are awash in money.
Depending on your payroll provider, you may be able to automate this. (Gusto used to make this easy, though they recently changed it so that each charity has to be signed up with their backend provider. Not sure about other payroll platforms.)
I like Tux and am glad its on the credit card; he's the Linux mascot and it wouldn't be the same without him.
Also, that blog post is full of needless profanity and hate. If you wanted to present some kind of reasoned argument against tux being on the card, that was not it.
Linux isn't even close to "ruined". It's extremely useful and in widespread, nearly ubiquitous use for a variety of uses.
It's not a "failure" that GNU/Linux isn't widely used on the desktop. As a fan of UNIX operating systems and open-source software, I don't even really care -- and in fact think Windows is naturally superior for that use case. Microsoft has a structural advantage that enables them to be better at putting out a desktop OS than the open-source community.
Why do so many people think the mark of GNU/Linux's success is whether it's used as a desktop OS by non-technical consumers? Best tool for the job, and all that.
Edit: Just saw that this was written by Jon Hendren (aka @fart on twitter), who can best be described as a comedian. So, this article is probably just trolling anyway.
If I cared about what people who spend too much time on message boards thought, I'd never get anything done. Too much credence is to the comment section.
Why would they donate money for corporate sponsorship ranks if they're already donating so much code? Honest question. I thought they were the second largest contributor to the kernel code base after Intel.
I'm moving all my banking away from Wells Fargo because of their involvement with the north dakota access pipeline, and this will be a great replacement for my CC!
Would be nice if we could find out what percentage of the total Linux Foundations donations, payments from member companies and members actually go to the people making useful contributions to Linux developers and related technologies/tool developers, as opposed to "management retreats".
I love Linux as much as the next sysadmin, but given how central it is to the bottom lines of so many corporations, there's no way I'm going to donate to it as an individual. Let the companies that profit from it fund it.
If he can donate to this, he can donate to everything. The "if can, should" principle would have him exhausted of money on much more worthwhile charities long before he'd get round to linux.
What he's saying is that linux is part of a sustainable economic system from which companies profile, so that (now) it does not require individual charitable contributions.
38 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 78.9 ms ] threadWould be nice if they actually mentioned what that percentage is exactly.
A better plan if you wanted to support Linux would be 2% cashback card that you donate all rewards to Linux.
Source: https://www.owasp.org/images/0/08/CardPartner_Kit.pdf
I'm curious what kind of return the linux foundation can get from this, out in the world.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profil...
https://piss.io/how-tux-the-penguin-ruined-it-for-linux-8b22...
Also, that blog post is full of needless profanity and hate. If you wanted to present some kind of reasoned argument against tux being on the card, that was not it.
It's not a "failure" that GNU/Linux isn't widely used on the desktop. As a fan of UNIX operating systems and open-source software, I don't even really care -- and in fact think Windows is naturally superior for that use case. Microsoft has a structural advantage that enables them to be better at putting out a desktop OS than the open-source community.
Why do so many people think the mark of GNU/Linux's success is whether it's used as a desktop OS by non-technical consumers? Best tool for the job, and all that.
Edit: Just saw that this was written by Jon Hendren (aka @fart on twitter), who can best be described as a comedian. So, this article is probably just trolling anyway.
It might be less than what you could earn/donate elsewhere, but it gives them an additional source of recurring revenue that they can plan against.
Red Hat spends plenty of money on political clout, just not this specific clout
The more people (and companies) donate the better we're all off IMO.
What he's saying is that linux is part of a sustainable economic system from which companies profile, so that (now) it does not require individual charitable contributions.
If he "wants to" + "can", then he should.
The argument was against "I can but why should I if companies will", which I think misses the point of contribution. The more the better.