Seems like a odd choice
No AWS or Azure?
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
0 points (50.0% liked)
Linux
6912 readers
19 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system
Also check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This support is provided at no cost, reflecting Akamai's commitment to giving back to the open-source community.
Sounds like it wasn't a choice so much as one of the biggest CDNs in the world giving a free hand out to a project it relies on itself.
Anyways a lot of companies use Akamai, I don't think its odd.
I'm once again asking for FOSS website to not use AI slop.
Next up: AI generated distro
Tux has paint on his face and extra arms!
Paint. Yes. That's what I saw. Paint.
Provide them the art for free, on-demand, and they might stop doing it.
I wonder how they managed until a fucking year ago.
Slop isn't free. Not only does it look bad and drive away visitors, they almost certainly used an AI trained on unlicensed (i.e. stolen) artwork. There is no free lunch here.
(i.e. stolen)
It's pirated, not stolen.
I know it's a popular meme to say, "if buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing", but that is brainrot. It's not even consistent with fair labor practices. It would be like a company saying "if your work doesn't produce value for me, then the time and effort you put in should not be compensated". That's not the deal.
Artists should be paid, and pirating art is stealing. It's just that, in the name of equity and the love of art, they might be OK with it if someone who can't afford it doesn't pay. But speaking on behalf of every artist ever: when a corporation who absolutely can afford it doesn't pay, it's stealing, and the artists want their damn compensation.
Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.
I agree with you that it's not theft. Theft legally well defined and distinct from copyright infringement. I'm saying copyright infringement is stealing. You are taking from an artist their living. It's honestly baffling to me that one could mental gymnastics themselves into believing otherwise.
Introducing using the projects logos. It's more informative and clearer. I take me 5 sec to make an edit with krita and I'm not even good at it.
There is also a metric shit-ton of free assets available from Wikimedia and others sources.
does the art (be it ai or made by human) adds to the content or is it superfluous? If true, then why even bother with ai slop as a cover image?
It’s mainly for Open Graph (the thumbnail you see when you share the website on social media), and it’s good for SEO or engagement in general.
There are plenty of already existing images for this they could reuse. For example:
a banner for the website as a whole is the obvious choice imo
I saw one on another article here that was just a stock image of some penguins, I rather liked that.
The art of clipart composition seems to be a lost art :(
You've set up a bit of a word-trap because that 'true' can cover for either of your cases. I can't know what you mean.
If it adds nothing, why does it matter? If it adds something, why do you care?
What are you actually upset about?
I am upset that ai imagery was used. That it was used for something utterly pointless like a cover image makes this even more egregious.
It also just flies in the face of open-source, to use what was likely a closed-source image genAI to produce the image.