anyzen
Of course they do. They sell users' privacy for advertising dollars.
I am not defending DDG here, as they are clearly in the wrong - but let's not pretend that their error is even close to what Google does.
Well - unless there is a targeted attack _against you_. In this case the attacker will search for known vulnerabilities in Omega and maybe even try to come up with some new ones. Having source helps the attackers here, but then again, it has helped researchers fix the vulnerabilities too. So it's a mixed blessing.
Not that I sympathise with Google here, they can afford to give something back to FOSS (not just when it advances their agenda).
I have used rst intensively on a project. A few years later, I would be hard pressed to write anything in ti and would need to start with a Quick Start tutorial. With all its faults, Markdown is simple enough that it can be (and is) used anywhere, so there is no danger of me forgetting its syntax (even if it wasn't much simpler to star with).
So personally I would prefer md over rst anytime.
Also, interesting that even with such "short" licences there are trivial mistakes in it (section 2.2 is missing, though it is referenced from 3.4 and 3.6 - I wonder what it was...)
[0] http://www.brendangregg.com/flamegraphs.html
------
To the MIT community,
I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.
Richard Stallman
------
Is this somehow connected to his role as FSF president?
(edit: formatting)
CSP headers are a very useful tool and I encourage everyone to use them. They are a PITA to set up though. Fortunately at least Firefox clearly communicates in console log when a CSP rule is hit, and how to relax it (if it was by mistake).
Note that CSP can be set as META tags too. There's a gotcha though: if they are set in both places (HTTP headers and HTML META tags), an intersection of the rules is used.
> I couldn't believe it was that easy
You're kiding, right? :)
Yes, it looks like this is one of the few ways one can make the appeals work. Awful solution though.
That said, git porcelain is simply awful. It is inconsistent and full of dangers - there is no way I would dare try new commands without reading up on them, because the names are often misleading. Sometimes I really wish GitHub / GitLab used Mercurial as their foundation. I think the world of programming would be much easier....
They do? Maybe. But they are walking a thin line between their short term (make it complex so we can, you know, sell support) and long term (make it simple enough that people don't jump ship) commercial interests. This is the reason I call it "unnecessarily" complex - it is in the interest of companies who sell support services that the product is not as easy to use as it could be.
Do we really need this? I think not, and I actually prefer what Redis Labs, MariaDB and others have been doing with the licenses for their modules. Sure, Business Source license and similar are not open-source (as in "freedom to take the product you have built and sell services on top of it, driving you out of similar business as collateral damage"), but at least they provide developers with the incentive to produce easy to use software, and not just because they feel like it, but because they can actually earn their living from it.
There might be some exceptions that "make it work", but this is in spite of just selling services on top of their product, not because of it. The cards are stacked against them - it is much easier (and profitable) to take other persons' product and build on it that it is to build your own.
In my experience, selling support is an acceptable answer only in the eyes of would-be competitors. Otherwise it is just plain wrong. </rant>
Note that RedHat, often quoted as success story, is really a services company that just happens to write an occasional piece of software, and support them when their customers need it.
Is it? This means that incentives would be wrong, because then developers would be incentivized to produce difficult to use (but useful!) software - with various poorly documented features, multiple ways to solve the same problems, poor and inconsistent UX... Oh wait... </s>
I am sorry Redis labs got the heat for their license change and I really hope some solution crops up. I appreciate opensource, but I am getting tired of poorly implemented systems, just because there is no incentive to do it differently.
I think the solution lies in "free-to-use (but not free-to-sell), source available" licenses. I haven't seen one that would convince me yet, but I am certain that with big-tech companies behaving like they do, more and more developers will think twice before giving away their work for free just so others can make billions off it (and take away income from the very companies providing bread and butter to FOSS developers - coughAWScough).
How about comparing the logged-in data with logged-out / private tab data? Did they find these two sets related? If not, G could be just implementing some sort of A/B testing on grand scale (learning from clicks and making search algorithm better).
EDIT: a better solution would be if the store itself allowed you to inspect the source that went into building the plugin. Then you would only need to trust the store itself, which you already do (when you trust the browser).