It's as if Toyota and Samsung are adjectives just as the word "dangerous" and "mortal" can be used as an adjective.
The image of asian women in their traditional clothing hints of them gossiping. They are probably talking about some event and one of them comment "Toyota, Samsung, even" to remark the positive/negative significance of the event.
Ideal reality: Google doesn't buy advantage from browsers to make their search engine the default. This way, other search engines can compete at the same level, right?
Reality: browser developers will have their income cut down because now their main source of income is dead (see recent news on Mozilla).
Usually these kinds of policies that may or may not come up out of goodwill results in unintended consequences that negatively affect others.
In this thread are people who screams monopoly, thinking they know what it means. One comment said Google is a monopoly, followed by "along with
<other giant companies>
"
They're giants because they're successful and good at what they do. They're successful because people are benefiting and find values from the products they use. The moment these giants stops "exploiting" people will be when they stop bringing values to society.
They've confused economic reality with their own ideal reality.
But open-source doesn't always mean working for free, nor does it mean people do it for purely ethical (or socialist?) reason.
There are lots of reason why open-source is attractive after discounting ethics and money. I imagine being credited for being a major contributor to a popular open-source project would mean better job opportunity in the competitive tech job market. The gig doesn't directly offer you money, but it does gravitate the right company that has the money to fund your work they find very valuable. In a sense, this isn't that far from how capitalism work -- credits are due to the people who brings most value to the society, whether the source of the software are open to all or not.
This is of course a very superficial statement to make, but I remember Eric Raymond wrote about this in more a detailed (and more convincing!) manner in The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
I don't use screw drivers enough to know what these are for. But from a programmer's standpoint, punishing people to deviate away from standard may cause more harm than good, no?
Suppose it's easier/cheaper/more effective to deviate a bit from standard, why should I be punished to do things a bit differently?
It's as if Toyota and Samsung are adjectives just as the word "dangerous" and "mortal" can be used as an adjective.
The image of asian women in their traditional clothing hints of them gossiping. They are probably talking about some event and one of them comment "Toyota, Samsung, even" to remark the positive/negative significance of the event.