I'm more worried about the direction of Android than Chrome. Smartphones and smartphone apps are becoming increasingly critical to people's lives and the Android ecosystem becoming increasingly reliant on proprietary Google components is very worrying, given that Android the closest thing to a FOSS platform in the horrid smartphone platform duopoly.
@@aryansingh7209, does Shizuku not bypass that? I remember you can set Google Play as installation source on any "sideloaded" app. I haven't tried it yet because none of the apps I use have implemented the Play Integrity API just yet, but I think it might be able to bypass the restriction. But I agree - the future looks bleak for Android unless something is done about it.
If only the Linux Foundation took over Chromium entirely. This would have been the optimal outcome. As this is not the case, at least some support for Mozilla Firefox would have been nice, so that they are no longer dependent on the Google money. We need Firefox as an alternative.
So, I'm a former Linux Foundation employee. I was there when the organization first started, having come over from the FSG (the LF was the result of merging the FSG with the OSDL). I was there for the first few years of the organization. This move doesn't remotely surprise me. Early LF had an internal power struggle with the two different management teams from the two different orgs that they merged from. JimZ's group won out. His group effectively turned the LF into an industry lobbying group into open source projects. Big companies would see LF as a way to get pet projects into Open Source projects without having to do the traditional due diligence of having their tech vetted. It was slimy and icky and the big reason I'm no longer there. Sure, you have your Linus's who are insulated from this sliminess, but if you're not as big of a deal as someone like him, you were pretty much expected to prioritize code from companies over code from individuals. My point is this move really doesn't surprise me. The LF is more than willing to provide cover for companies like Google to act like they have divested Chromium to fend off antitrust lawsuits, while really just letting Google continue to control it entirely.
As a young lad studying computing for years with the hope of getting a job in the field at some point, and someone with strong values on trying to keep things accountable, it hurts my heart to see the LF stoop this low. It completely betrays what it's supposed to stand for. It's not free any more - not libre, and certainly not free financially for your code to matter.
@@WishMakers to be clear, they've been like this since their start. I was there when they became the LF, and that's how it operated then. It's just now there's at least one very high profile public example of this instead of a lot of behind the scenes finagling to get bad code into open source projects on mailing lists.
Will they release some of the limitations of manifest v3? To me, that's a pretty good indicator of whether or not Google is really giving up their control over the project, or if it's merely a smokescreen to try to ward off regulators.
google wouldnt do it unless it was useful. divesting for chromium might help them in litigation, which is nice, but more so than that? they can make more of their code proprietary down the road and leave competition in the dust. imagine the board room meeting "so we're paying developers to make software anyone can use? that ridiculous! we need to be the ones in control of our own technology, so we can soar ahead of the competition!"
Chromium already lacks some features that would make it a drop in replacement for most chrome users. Mainly anything that touches google's services is broken in chromium.
@@hanro50 totally true! Just not what I was intending to communicate. What I was getting at is all of the web standards that google ends up having a major, or often the only... hand in creating. manifest V3 here, is a red herring in the landscape. consumers are getting more attuned to googles poor practices, sure. but that one exception kindof proves the point. google has been at the forefront of dark patterns on the web for a couple decades. The average consumer not having access to their integrations is childsplay when compared to the entire internet needing to "work the way google says it must." Thats already happening and this will strengthen that, by removing open source eyes on the future of the google led web.
Google isn't in the browser business, they're in the advertising business. They don't want to zoom ahead in the browser business, they want everyone to have free and easy access to their ads.
im more interested if google still have controll like the manifest v3 forcing other browser to implement or thus the linux foundation will remove that feature making chrome more open , worst case google just pay LF money to piggy bank its name open source etc etc but still do what it wants with chromemium update to manifest v4 etc etc
It's all to look good to a judge for mercy sake. The whole Alphabet company needs the Ma Bell treatment if they don't they will become just like Microsoft when they failed to get said treatment. However unlike Microsoft the reach Alphabet has is far more damming than Microsoft so they will have more control over people & most countries even.
I suspect The Linux Foundation is trying to look receptive and helpful for if Google wants to actually divest any ownership to them during the lawsuit. But yeah, this certainly looks like they're being taken advantage of and they shouldn't have accepted that name.
More and more I find that my casus belli is not so much free software or open source software, or even nonproprietary software, but NONCOMMERCIAL software. Yes, that is the hill I wish to die on.
@@gljames24 I'm not impressed by the projects popping up that are basically "same as X but Rust" it's cool for the people learning Rust but i don't take them seriously as projects, projects need a vision beyond simply rewriting what exists but in another language
@@liquidsnake6879 As I understand, Ladybird is not written in Rust. It's in C, because that's what the developer is most comfortable with. This is a project that's being completely written with new code from the ground up.
@@gravelrhoads Nono, my second comment was regarding Servo which james brought up, it's nice but it's the same except it's Rust and those kinds of projects can be cool but i don't take them as seriously, often feels like it's just people trying to learn Rust and having little hobby projects as learning aids It's great for the devs, i'm very happy for them and happy to support them, but for me when looking at standalone projects i wanna back financially and stuff i'd rather back the one that prioritizes the core idea or functionality over the language it's written in I don't know if Ladybird is C, i remember it being written in some esoteric language lol i think it was one of the Apple languages, i'll look it up and edit this later. EDIT: It's Swift
@@liquidsnake6879 My mistake. Also, my mistake about the language. It was originally written in C++, but now that Swift version 6 is out, they are migrating to Swift.
Whatever happens they really shouldn't ditch the integration and account management, but further develop an API and framework for local accounts, remote accounts to your own server (FTP, HTTP, etc), or remote accounts on a platform. So you could manage your own servers as well as have Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and whatever other platform would want to integrate into the browser (or perhaps more aptly, the online environment).
I used to use Chrome for Netflix, Prime, etc. because I didn't wanna enable DRM in my Firefox. But then I realized it doesn't matter, I'd really rather just use Firefox for everything....
@@ChloeCake I've noticed that big pic sucks on X and is way better on Wayland. The last time I used steam on windows 6 yrs at least it was slow after as well
Unfortunately, when making cross-platform apps, it's a NIGHTMARE to do it natively, because nothing you do carries over to the different os versions. Like it or not, electron and stuff like it is essential to make cross-platform apps efficiently.
The Linux Foundation is a collaboration of many big tech corpos, sure they want to keep the status quo but come on! Do it outside the Linux umbrella. Make it a independent support group and call it Stockholm affected users supporting monopoly group or something.
@@mgord9518 I find the opposite. Chrome is a dog. It's a memory hog. It's got an awful layout and arrangement of settings. Firefox extensions kick arse too over Chrome.
@@mgord9518 Slower? Have you tried using it lately? I tried using chromium based browser and they are about the same speed, if it is slower difference is in single digit % as I can't really notice it. Uses more memory? Dig a bit deeper into it. For example Floorp(Firefox based browser) with 9 tabs open uses about 1100MB, Brave(Chromium based) with same tabs open is using about 1000MB. Compatibility problems? I only ever had any problems on Google sites, for example RUclips loading slower because they put something in the code to make it load slower on firefox (this has been proven by the way).
Very nice video but I have a question ... is that Soundtrack From UT2004 I hear in the background? ... namely this one: ruclips.net/video/sm8iFFF5ogk/видео.htmlsi=n4qsUpeHyopyPnad -> Level8 from Starsky Partridge
@@gardiner_bryant yey, glad I was right :D ... I am currently playing through the game's "Story" mode so when I heard the track in the background I was like "hmmm I think I know that one" and YES thanks to this I had to play the video twice cause I was more vibing rather than paying attention :D
All of the companies involved in this have the capacity to do the right thing, but have repeatedly proven that they will at every opportunity do the wrong thing. I don't expect this will really make a big difference in Google's control of Chromium, or how they use it / it is used. But I hope I'm wrong.
naw.... The reason the name leaves a bad taste is that it's marketing lingo. The whole point is to create the appearance that Google is divesting from Chromium while not actually divesting from chromium. I mean seriously, they're keeping the entirety of the old team but then splitting the team between new and old? How does that make any management sense? It's all optics. Which is a shame.
I need to look into the history of the US government breaking companies apart. I know the stories, but I don't really know how they did it, or how it can help or hurt consumers. But I could clearly see how important Chrome is to Google when they keep talking about adblock and threatening to make it harder to implement. That I believe that isn't something a browser should care about.
I wouldn't be surprised if Edge and other chrome browsers simply had to put "powered by chrome" in the title bar as the way to appease the US government with how stupid they are.
The short answer is no. It is all trying to make them look like they are playing nice. Look further and you realize that Google maintains full control.
Correction: Chromium has BSD license, which, like MIT, isn't FOSS. It's only OSS. For it to be free, in my understanding, it has to be some sort of copyleft like GPL.
Free as in freedom. Both the BSD and MIT give that with thier “permission is herby granted to anyone obtaining a copy of the software to use the software in any means […]” (paraphrased) line.
@xpusotomos I think in order for a license to be "free" it has to be "freedom respecting" which, I believe, necessitates some kind of copyleft clause. The MIT does *not* have such a clause. Therefore, to me, it doesn't qualify as "free."
Google divesting from Chrome isn't just devastating for Google. It would be devastating for the Internet as a whole. Everyone might be "Oh woe is me, Google is so terrible, they are ruining the interent!", but Google is responsible for most of the tech that makes the Internet tick. They drove standards so they could make better Web Apps. Oh, and let's not forget, Mozilla is about to get so much worse when the vast majority of its funding is gone. So if anything, the whole browser market is gonna get worse. Mozilla will have to make drastic cuts, which means less updates for Firefox. At least Chromium has many people depending on it that can step up to fill some of the gap left by Google. Sure development will probably slow, quite a bit, but at least it will still exist, which isn't something any of us can say about Mozilla if Google is forced to stop paying them.
While it would definitely completely halt the progress for a long while, it could allow other organisations to step up and try to catch on with the developments of modern web. Maybe some company will see the potential and actually invest in creating their own browser to rival what we have today, and it doesn't necessarily have to be Mozilla
@@scarecat The Ladybird browser is a thing. Definitely dependent on commercial sponsorship, but so far all their sponsors are much smaller than the "big tech" tier of corporations. What would really allow other organizations to step up would be a simplification of the Web Standards. Complexity of standards equals high entry cost equals oligopoly or monopoly. I think the best thing going might be Gemini, a massively simplified version of the Web Standards, and there are plenty of Gemini browsers that have been implemented noncommercially. Only downside, the community of Gemini users probably isn't large enough to form a critical mass.
I loved Chromium, since it ran cleaner than Firefox, but I won't use a browser that can't run uBlock Origin. The web is unusable without that extension. If Chromium will once again work with uBlock Origin--without a looming end-date--I'll gladly return to it.
I would say that it would cost nothing to make the video available also on PeerTube, unless we're talking the possibility of lost monetization opportunities, but I guess there's the rub. Open source developers gotta get paid, content creators gotta get paid, etc. The necessity of livelihood is the root of all evil. Fitting, since according to Christianity, the necessity of livelihood is our punishment for original sin.
*Affiliate links*
Services I Recommend:
❯ Proton Drive: go.getproton.me/aff_c?offer_id=43&aff_id=10074
❯ Proton Pass: go.getproton.me/aff_c?offer_id=38&aff_id=10074
❯ Proton VPN: go.getproton.me/aff_c?offer_id=26&aff_id=10074
❯ Proton Mail: go.getproton.me/aff_c?offer_id=7&aff_id=10074
Best Steam Deck Accessories:
❯ SanDisk 1 TB card: amzn.to/3z8mMfH
❯ Steam Deck Dock: amzn.to/3PDjgkt
❯ Steam Deck accessories: amzn.to/4c2XKkM
❯ DualSense: amzn.to/3WR1u1R
❯ Gulikit KK3 Max controller amzn.to/4dqRaoC
❯ DualSense Edge: amzn.to/4cuzIyd
❯ 8Bitdo Pro 2: amzn.to/46R7hcz
❯ Amazon Suggested Products: amzn.to/4fAha2h
BRO ARE YOU REALLY USING UNREAL TOURNAMENT 2004 music ??? haha i can recognize it from all these years!!!
This is a bait-and-switch attempt by Google to avoid Chrome having to be spun off. Quite transparently so.
Good the judge in the anti trust case is a siniale old imbasole.
Personally I don't care to see the safety and security of the Internet at large torn apart by a single hatefilled old man with a axe to grind
Yup
Hey at least they are transparent about one thing.
💯
I'm more worried about the direction of Android than Chrome.
Smartphones and smartphone apps are becoming increasingly critical to people's lives and the Android ecosystem becoming increasingly reliant on proprietary Google components is very worrying, given that Android the closest thing to a FOSS platform in the horrid smartphone platform duopoly.
When the Pixel phone is the only phone that can be degoogled, I smell two rats, a software rat and a hardware rat.
I had Postmarket OS running on an old phone at some point. It's a cool tinkering project but it is honestly impossible to daily drive.
Google play integrity makes it impossible to side load if the developers don't want to. We're evolving backwards and no one can stop this.
@@n8chz, it's not just Pixel; LineageOS and crDroid support many more devices. You're probably talking about GrapheneOS.
@@aryansingh7209, does Shizuku not bypass that? I remember you can set Google Play as installation source on any "sideloaded" app. I haven't tried it yet because none of the apps I use have implemented the Play Integrity API just yet, but I think it might be able to bypass the restriction.
But I agree - the future looks bleak for Android unless something is done about it.
If only the Linux Foundation took over Chromium entirely. This would have been the optimal outcome. As this is not the case, at least some support for Mozilla Firefox would have been nice, so that they are no longer dependent on the Google money. We need Firefox as an alternative.
I bet if Google is forced to sell Chrome this would happen.
What are you even talking lol Linux foundation itself is big tech board.
So, I'm a former Linux Foundation employee. I was there when the organization first started, having come over from the FSG (the LF was the result of merging the FSG with the OSDL). I was there for the first few years of the organization. This move doesn't remotely surprise me.
Early LF had an internal power struggle with the two different management teams from the two different orgs that they merged from. JimZ's group won out. His group effectively turned the LF into an industry lobbying group into open source projects. Big companies would see LF as a way to get pet projects into Open Source projects without having to do the traditional due diligence of having their tech vetted. It was slimy and icky and the big reason I'm no longer there. Sure, you have your Linus's who are insulated from this sliminess, but if you're not as big of a deal as someone like him, you were pretty much expected to prioritize code from companies over code from individuals.
My point is this move really doesn't surprise me. The LF is more than willing to provide cover for companies like Google to act like they have divested Chromium to fend off antitrust lawsuits, while really just letting Google continue to control it entirely.
Yup, you can't divest what you don't own, but in reality, you continue to control it.
As a young lad studying computing for years with the hope of getting a job in the field at some point, and someone with strong values on trying to keep things accountable, it hurts my heart to see the LF stoop this low. It completely betrays what it's supposed to stand for. It's not free any more - not libre, and certainly not free financially for your code to matter.
@@WishMakers to be clear, they've been like this since their start. I was there when they became the LF, and that's how it operated then.
It's just now there's at least one very high profile public example of this instead of a lot of behind the scenes finagling to get bad code into open source projects on mailing lists.
@@WishMakersLinux wouldn't be worth a damn without the corporations contributing.
@@MrGamelover23 While the corporations do contribute it would be good if they don't have Linux with teh short hairs
Will they release some of the limitations of manifest v3? To me, that's a pretty good indicator of whether or not Google is really giving up their control over the project, or if it's merely a smokescreen to try to ward off regulators.
Same, yes
Suspicions of Google are almost never misplaced
HOLD 'X' TO DOUBT
google wouldnt do it unless it was useful. divesting for chromium might help them in litigation, which is nice, but more so than that? they can make more of their code proprietary down the road and leave competition in the dust. imagine the board room meeting "so we're paying developers to make software anyone can use? that ridiculous! we need to be the ones in control of our own technology, so we can soar ahead of the competition!"
Chromium already lacks some features that would make it a drop in replacement for most chrome users. Mainly anything that touches google's services is broken in chromium.
@@hanro50 totally true! Just not what I was intending to communicate. What I was getting at is all of the web standards that google ends up having a major, or often the only... hand in creating. manifest V3 here, is a red herring in the landscape. consumers are getting more attuned to googles poor practices, sure. but that one exception kindof proves the point. google has been at the forefront of dark patterns on the web for a couple decades. The average consumer not having access to their integrations is childsplay when compared to the entire internet needing to "work the way google says it must." Thats already happening and this will strengthen that, by removing open source eyes on the future of the google led web.
Google isn't in the browser business, they're in the advertising business. They don't want to zoom ahead in the browser business, they want everyone to have free and easy access to their ads.
@@xpusostomos absolutely the case. And a “better” browser is absolutely a means to that end. As back handed as the tactic may be.
im more interested if google still have controll like the manifest v3 forcing other browser to implement or thus the linux foundation will remove that feature making chrome more open , worst case google just pay LF money to piggy bank its name open source etc etc but still do what it wants with chromemium update to manifest v4 etc etc
Trusting Google is akin to putting a fresh piece of meat in front of a starving lion expecting it not to eat it.
Curious choice to use Linux Foundation, they are generally more GPL/copyleft where as apache is more MIT/BSD
It's all to look good to a judge for mercy sake. The whole Alphabet company needs the Ma Bell treatment if they don't they will become just like Microsoft when they failed to get said treatment. However unlike Microsoft the reach Alphabet has is far more damming than Microsoft so they will have more control over people & most countries even.
I suspect The Linux Foundation is trying to look receptive and helpful for if Google wants to actually divest any ownership to them during the lawsuit. But yeah, this certainly looks like they're being taken advantage of and they shouldn't have accepted that name.
You hit the nail on the head. The fact that "browsers" is in the name showcases that it is just an empty gesture.
*Free & Opensource = Free employers for big tech corporations*
More and more I find that my casus belli is not so much free software or open source software, or even nonproprietary software, but NONCOMMERCIAL software. Yes, that is the hill I wish to die on.
I feel like any anti-trust lawsuits towards Google may disappear very soon, Lina you will be missed
So it will become "another" Firefox since it has the same goals now ?
Nah i'm not buying it, Ladybird or nothing
Would prefer Servo
@@gljames24 I'm not impressed by the projects popping up that are basically "same as X but Rust" it's cool for the people learning Rust but i don't take them seriously as projects, projects need a vision beyond simply rewriting what exists but in another language
@@liquidsnake6879 As I understand, Ladybird is not written in Rust. It's in C, because that's what the developer is most comfortable with. This is a project that's being completely written with new code from the ground up.
@@gravelrhoads Nono, my second comment was regarding Servo which james brought up, it's nice but it's the same except it's Rust and those kinds of projects can be cool but i don't take them as seriously, often feels like it's just people trying to learn Rust and having little hobby projects as learning aids
It's great for the devs, i'm very happy for them and happy to support them, but for me when looking at standalone projects i wanna back financially and stuff i'd rather back the one that prioritizes the core idea or functionality over the language it's written in
I don't know if Ladybird is C, i remember it being written in some esoteric language lol i think it was one of the Apple languages, i'll look it up and edit this later.
EDIT: It's Swift
@@liquidsnake6879 My mistake. Also, my mistake about the language. It was originally written in C++, but now that Swift version 6 is out, they are migrating to Swift.
Whatever happens they really shouldn't ditch the integration and account management, but further develop an API and framework for local accounts, remote accounts to your own server (FTP, HTTP, etc), or remote accounts on a platform. So you could manage your own servers as well as have Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, and whatever other platform would want to integrate into the browser (or perhaps more aptly, the online environment).
Reject everything, return to NetScape
I like that idea. I want to go back to the early 2000's UI aesthetic as well.
No
I used to use Chrome for Netflix, Prime, etc. because I didn't wanna enable DRM in my Firefox. But then I realized it doesn't matter, I'd really rather just use Firefox for everything....
How do you divest an asset that has no revenue? There is no buyer for such an "asset".
The control it provides is it’s own asset. That’s why Google spends so much money developing it despite no direct profit.
The Linux Foundation again focusing their energy/resources to anywhere except Linux.
I only hope for Proton to make a Firefox fork
Hey Gardiner, I was wondering which contact do I use to reach you about business questions?
There's a link on my profile. I don't check it with a ton of regularity because it's full of spam. But I'll take a look
@@gardiner_bryant thank you for your response and I have emailed you.
Oh so *that's* why Big Picture and Steam in general are so slow, they're Chromium in disguise!
@@ChloeCake I've noticed that big pic sucks on X and is way better on Wayland. The last time I used steam on windows 6 yrs at least it was slow after as well
Unfortunately, Wayland is laggy on my hardware for reasons I don't yet comprehend
Unfortunately, when making cross-platform apps, it's a NIGHTMARE to do it natively, because nothing you do carries over to the different os versions. Like it or not, electron and stuff like it is essential to make cross-platform apps efficiently.
@@MrGamelover23 Wrong. There's QT, GTK, etc that behave nicely in cross-platform projects. And those are not the only options. The also run better.
The Linux Foundation is a collaboration of many big tech corpos, sure they want to keep the status quo but come on! Do it outside the Linux umbrella. Make it a independent support group and call it Stockholm affected users supporting monopoly group or something.
Firefox is such a better browser though for users.
How? It's much slower, uses more memory and has less compatibility
@@mgord9518 I find the opposite. Chrome is a dog. It's a memory hog. It's got an awful layout and arrangement of settings. Firefox extensions kick arse too over Chrome.
@@mgord9518 It's not much slower, but chromium is more comfortable to me, so Ill stick with it
@@mgord9518 Slower? Have you tried using it lately? I tried using chromium based browser and they are about the same speed, if it is slower difference is in single digit % as I can't really notice it.
Uses more memory? Dig a bit deeper into it. For example Floorp(Firefox based browser) with 9 tabs open uses about 1100MB, Brave(Chromium based) with same tabs open is using about 1000MB.
Compatibility problems? I only ever had any problems on Google sites, for example RUclips loading slower because they put something in the code to make it load slower on firefox (this has been proven by the way).
Very nice video but I have a question ... is that Soundtrack From UT2004 I hear in the background? ... namely this one: ruclips.net/video/sm8iFFF5ogk/видео.htmlsi=n4qsUpeHyopyPnad -> Level8 from Starsky Partridge
It's from UT04, yes. I know it as the "Tokara Forest" music... which was my favorite atmosphere in the game and the best music.
@@gardiner_bryant yey, glad I was right :D ... I am currently playing through the game's "Story" mode so when I heard the track in the background I was like "hmmm I think I know that one" and YES thanks to this I had to play the video twice cause I was more vibing rather than paying attention :D
I doubt Google would do anything more than a gesture unless they're forced to
Very nice, concise video. Well done.
All of the companies involved in this have the capacity to do the right thing, but have repeatedly proven that they will at every opportunity do the wrong thing. I don't expect this will really make a big difference in Google's control of Chromium, or how they use it / it is used. But I hope I'm wrong.
naw.... The reason the name leaves a bad taste is that it's marketing lingo. The whole point is to create the appearance that Google is divesting from Chromium while not actually divesting from chromium. I mean seriously, they're keeping the entirety of the old team but then splitting the team between new and old? How does that make any management sense? It's all optics. Which is a shame.
I need to look into the history of the US government breaking companies apart. I know the stories, but I don't really know how they did it, or how it can help or hurt consumers. But I could clearly see how important Chrome is to Google when they keep talking about adblock and threatening to make it harder to implement. That I believe that isn't something a browser should care about.
For a second I thought this video was about splitting chrome and not using chromium anymore LOL
No FOSS dev work on it cus it's owned by Google.
I wouldn't be surprised if Edge and other chrome browsers simply had to put "powered by chrome" in the title bar as the way to appease the US government with how stupid they are.
You haven't witnessed stupid government. None of us have. But it's coming.
Linux foundation soon: Raising money to fund... Chrome. Oh yeah baby it's FOSS!!!!!!!! We winning an shiet!!!!!!!!!
Tried to watch this on PeerTube first but it just sat there buffering 😥
The SCB missed the opportunity to call themselves: Chronic Chromium Customers.
The problem is that Chaos Computer Club is already a thing and it would get very confusing with two CCC abbreviations.
So jpegXL coming soon or not?
Safari is not chrome but it is related to it. They both derive from KDE's khtml
Many generations ago, yes. AFAIK, they're not sharing much code anymore... if any at all.
Linux foundation is always been sus, I remember they were being exposed of using mac os instead of linux during a presentation.
For profit corporations do not do anything without profit motive.
I thought Firefox already use chromium.
Just like Gardiner says like that smash button
"Like that smash button" 😂
The short answer is no. It is all trying to make them look like they are playing nice. Look further and you realize that Google maintains full control.
Correction: Chromium has BSD license, which, like MIT, isn't FOSS. It's only OSS. For it to be free, in my understanding, it has to be some sort of copyleft like GPL.
Nonsense, BSD is fully free.
Free as in freedom. Both the BSD and MIT give that with thier “permission is herby granted to anyone obtaining a copy of the software to use the software in any means […]” (paraphrased) line.
@xpusotomos I think in order for a license to be "free" it has to be "freedom respecting" which, I believe, necessitates some kind of copyleft clause. The MIT does *not* have such a clause. Therefore, to me, it doesn't qualify as "free."
@gardiner_bryant Licenses don’t need to have copyleft to be free. Check the Free Software Foundation’s definition of free software.
The Linux Faudation is wasting time and money.
new logo looks super weird
What do you mean?
The Game of Chromes. Beware.
Google divesting from Chrome isn't just devastating for Google. It would be devastating for the Internet as a whole. Everyone might be "Oh woe is me, Google is so terrible, they are ruining the interent!", but Google is responsible for most of the tech that makes the Internet tick. They drove standards so they could make better Web Apps. Oh, and let's not forget, Mozilla is about to get so much worse when the vast majority of its funding is gone. So if anything, the whole browser market is gonna get worse. Mozilla will have to make drastic cuts, which means less updates for Firefox. At least Chromium has many people depending on it that can step up to fill some of the gap left by Google. Sure development will probably slow, quite a bit, but at least it will still exist, which isn't something any of us can say about Mozilla if Google is forced to stop paying them.
While it would definitely completely halt the progress for a long while, it could allow other organisations to step up and try to catch on with the developments of modern web. Maybe some company will see the potential and actually invest in creating their own browser to rival what we have today, and it doesn't necessarily have to be Mozilla
internet*
You say "better Web apps" like it's a good thing smh. But honestly, who is forcing Google's hand in anything?
And how did we get here? By allowing Google to have so much power in the first place.
@@scarecat The Ladybird browser is a thing. Definitely dependent on commercial sponsorship, but so far all their sponsors are much smaller than the "big tech" tier of corporations.
What would really allow other organizations to step up would be a simplification of the Web Standards. Complexity of standards equals high entry cost equals oligopoly or monopoly.
I think the best thing going might be Gemini, a massively simplified version of the Web Standards, and there are plenty of Gemini browsers that have been implemented noncommercially. Only downside, the community of Gemini users probably isn't large enough to form a critical mass.
👍
I don't like it, I was really angry when I found out.
Gross indeed
I loved Chromium, since it ran cleaner than Firefox, but I won't use a browser that can't run uBlock Origin. The web is unusable without that extension. If Chromium will once again work with uBlock Origin--without a looming end-date--I'll gladly return to it.
Brave was supposedly going to maintain manifest v2 support. Don't know if that's still the case.
@@DeviRuto It does, as well as the Firefox family of browsers.
Funny how you don’t trust google but you use their services every you have a RUclips thats google my dude
@@Luke211992 🤯
I would say that it would cost nothing to make the video available also on PeerTube, unless we're talking the possibility of lost monetization opportunities, but I guess there's the rub. Open source developers gotta get paid, content creators gotta get paid, etc. The necessity of livelihood is the root of all evil. Fitting, since according to Christianity, the necessity of livelihood is our punishment for original sin.
I like your new logo. Less Ubuntu and more cool and stylish.
Thank you very much! I like it a lot, too