> Yet it all came into existence from open source developers who were paid nothing. Then a bunch of commercial distributions appeared. That's why it's expensive. They're twisting the community for their own profits rather than for broad improvement of the system as a whole.

This is bizarrely counter-factual. There are community contributors but an awful lot of open source is contributed by people who are paid to work on it (which, to be clear, is awesome!), even in the case of Debian.

It’s also odd in the context of Qt which has been commercially supported since the beginning when Trolltech first released it in 1995. There’s always been the idea that if you want long-term support for old versions you should pay for it rather than expecting the open source community to spend time on old code.

> I don't want to influence things or be required to. I would prefer if people who had "influence" just weren't part of the community. They're exceptionally disruptive and often not focused on users but on their own stature.

You’re welcome to disrespect them but they have influence because they show up: in open source your voice carries weight in proportion to your contributions. It’s also inaccurate to say they’re not focused on users: you might not think you need a given feature but you’re not the only user out there. Alternatives are there but most people aren’t using them because they don’t feel the need to switch as strongly as you might.