Re:Facebook Sponsors Let's Encrypt
by myth_buster on Thursday December 03, 2015 @01:20PM
(#10671454)
If the comment is in relation to the criticism to Mark's donations, I think this is a non sequitur... I believe people understand that in large orgs there are factions that operate with different motives. Also this is a good cause so perhaps it helps their image too. So people won't be too critical of it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
I often wonder whether the relationships between brand-less factions in (and across) organizations has more of an impact than the official PR-heavy moves made under the institutional brand.
Take, for example, the changes that have happened at Microsoft since Ballmer's departure. I have a hard time imagining the branching GitHub's Atom to make an open source "light IDE", deprecating IE, and Google's using TypeScript for Angular2 happening while Ballmer's faction was in power. Microsoft has the same name, but it's acting like a very different beast.
I'm not sure how one could observe these factions cut across institutions, but I'd be interested if anyone has any suggested readings.
Re:Facebook Sponsors Let's Encrypt
by myth_buster on Thursday December 03, 2015 @02:11PM
(#10671803)
organizations has more of an impact than the official PR-heavy moves
made under the institutional brand
If you're referring to VS Code, it doesn't use Atom at all.
Oh, interesting. Not sure where I heard that... thank you for the correction!
No, I think it's related to Facebook being a PRISM company and having a deplorable privacy policy, and generally giving no shits about privacy or security. Also, Mark's internet.org wasn't going to support HTTPS.
Apparently this is a donation that has happened unlike Mark's donations. (sorry if I state the obvious but hopefully he doesn't divorce before those donations happen (knock on wood))