You seem to be implying that it is bad because it is marketing, and marketing is bad. But not all forms of marketing are bad. This is a classic association fallacy[1]. In this case, Deno can both improve perception of their brand and reclaim "JavaScript" -- it's a win-win.
It is literally association fallacy. And it is bad because it doesn't lead to a good discussion. Instead of actually talking about whether Deno is doing a good thing, the only way I can respond to "Nah, all forms of marketing are bad." is by saying "no they aren't", which won't change either of our minds and isn't a particularly interesting discussion.
You seem to be saying that Deno reclaiming JavaScript is a bad thing? Why?
>Letting people know you have a product is marketing
Google Summer of Code is bad. I don't want a trillion dollar monopoly influencing FOSS.
Sponsoring the Linux Foundation can be bad, depending on who does it. Individual people with their donations?
Releasing libraries as Open Source is not bad. But if you release them as a corporate behemoth, who employs the people who work of them, and have them assign copyright claims for their contribitions to your corporate entity, it is worse than a community drive FOSS project.
Google SoC gives legitimacy to working of OSS to equal terms of having a paid internship. Many of the projects probably don't even meet your description of FOSS.
The Linux foundation would not exist if only individuals donated to it.
Most OSS suffers from a lack of maintainers with time as they rarely are paid and can't make a living from working on it. Company backed OSS doesn't suffer from this. Most popular "community" projects are held together by an assortment of company backed developers.
FOSS barely existed in 2005 compared to what it is today. Communities rarely stay the same as they grow larger, but that doesn't mean they are worse. Change is inevitable.
>FOSS barely existed in 2005 compared to what it is today.
On the contrary: it barely exists today.
FOSS in (roughly speaking) 2005 and before was about a larger vision and a community. Not about mere access to code with specific licenses, or how many trillion dollar companies are depending on it.
>Communities rarely stay the same as they grow larger, but that doesn't mean they are worse. .
I'm not speaking about how communities in change in abstract (in which case doesn't mean necessarily for the worse). I'm speaking about what specific FOSS communities have had happened to them, and which I, and others, do find worse.
I think you misread the comment you're replying to as "I think their chances are good", rather than "I think it speaks well of their character". The latter was how I read it, and I believe the intended meaning.
