How depressing is it that the organization that funds arguably one of the most beloved open source projects ever is actually just a front for big tech companies to twiddle their fingers behind
It didn't start that way. This is a corruption of what it was meant to do. It all often starts with corruption, and will get buried by it. For now, we need to band together the best we can to support the kernel itself, or if it becomes irrecoverable somehow, we need to band together with BSD and support them financially.
@WilliamShinal in spirit I agree, but easier said than done. But look at the biggest FreeBSD donor. "Alpha-Omega", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, under copyright of The Linux Foundation.
@WilliamShinal I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. "Alpha-Sigma", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. "Alpha-Sigma", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
@WilliamShinal I've tried to reply 3 times but for some reason it keeps getting marked as spam. Maybe editing works. I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. Some random organization called Alpha Sigma, funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
"I know nothing". Remote code execution was a stupid idea in the first place. The option being removed is a good thing, if you believe otherwise - you're pretty ignorant.
Linux foundation is 'owned' by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, intel, redhat, etc. Through funding and board. They will ask nothing, they spend like 3% Linux related stuffs
@@em_the_bee You want the blocker to download random bits of code from the internet all the time and run it on your PC - you're a genius. Clearly that whole idea of signing software and sand-boxing untrusted code is just sooo stooopid. "Change my mind" - I'm good fam, you do you.
Of course that's not at all why Google is doing this, but, yeah. As Johnny Guitar Watson once remarked in song: "Somebody's doin' somethin' slick... yeah they are, yeah they are."
Joke aside, you need to purchase the dev team and management. 99% of the software is designed by Google's team, not by the open source community. There is knowledge that isn't known by the community.
1 year without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Chrome 2 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Google 3 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Alphabet
Maybe google can donate a lump sum to the Linux foundation- enough to cover the cost of buying chrome + a little “thank you” bribe to the directors of the foundation… with no apparent strings attached. That would pass the smell test
their is a concept known as Piercing The Corporate Veil it is when their is no difference between the shareholder and the company, it's usually used when some rich person incorporates his car as rental service only to him then get's in wreck and does not want to be held responsible for his drunk driving. basically it's a way of saying the paper work does not matter it's really this. Is San Francisco really just one big state monopoly because I bet if you just ignore the paper work I bet it is, just look at the workers of the companies.
Whatever happens to Chrome or Chromium due to the outcome of the lawsuit, we can be sure of only one thing. Google will make every attempt to ensure that whoever ends up with control of the project will not make any change that might threaten Google's business model in any way whatsoever. The court might catch on and decline their "offer" to sell Chrome and Chromium to this new "Supporters of Chromium Based Browsers" group, but the one and only bet I'm willing to make is that Google will make the attempt.
Let me get this straight --- Linux Foundation should buy a Browser based on Freeware ? Maybe it's just me - but the world is getting screwier & screwier every day.
@@MyAmazingUsername he's not talking about the tweet, he's covering the story behind it. he has critical thinking skills, a train of thought, and years of experience with the nonsense he reports on. if you don't want to listen to his angle gtfo
@@manitoba-op4jx I might. I've got like 20 hours total of listening to him ramble on various topics and it's wearing very thin since it's all the same over and over again, with the same long, rambly, identical rants.
It won't. Even if Mozilla Firefox were to be discontinued, I will switch to one of the many Firefox forks, like Palemoon, Seamonkey, Waterfox or LibreWolf.
@@markwiering But the forks are based off of the base of Firefox. If the firefox devs go bye bye then so does the forks unless they develop it 100% themselves.
I guess they could, but despite the fact that they make a solid amount of money, they in no way could outbid several other tech giants that may be interested if it came to that.
I've had to uninstall Chrome since it is giving me pop-op hell after I fatfingered a website. Scanners won't fix the malware but uninstalling Chrome did.
It's worth nothing unless you have an online platform like a search engine with advertisements to support. And I'm not sure the Linux Foundation would be in the business of selling user data to advertisers, I could be wrong though.
Software Engineer here. Chrome has huge amount of investment from Google. Chromium is dead in the water without Google. Do you love Safari? - I don't How is that Firefox working out for you? Chrome is the best thing that happened to the web since Mosaic. Some of you are probably too young to remember, but Chrome is really really important. Google forked webkit because webkit was too slow to change and to adopt new standards. Google basically paved the way on every front for new web tech. Take pretty much anything, WebGL, Canvas, SVG, WebAudio, WebAssembly etc. Chrome was the first to ship it, and Chrome did it best. Google is also very responsive in bugfixes. Sure, cheer for Chrome being taken away, but realize that web will be worse for it, much worse. The only logical option I see would be for Google to create a new browser after that. Other companies likely won't do it, as it's very expensive and you need very specialist knowledge.
I agree. They should have hit Android. My base AOSP phone is fantastic. The only benefit I can imagine from hitting Chrome is potentially keeping Mv2, which isn't even given at that point.
Hang on, what does Google care if they "own" Chrome? If they sell "Chrome" to whoever, it's still open source, and they can keep on distributing "Google Chrome", which points to Google search without owning a damned thing! What can the DOJ do about that? Yes your honour, we don't own Chrome, we just distribute it.
I've been using linux since 1997. But Linux stopped being "Linux" between 2000-2003. In 2000 IBM, HP, and Intel(i.e. International Corporations) founded the Open Source Development Labs which changed into the the "Linux foundation" in 2007. Back in the 90's Linux really was "hacker" culture. Now Linux is just another "lie" frontman for Big Brother.
How does it matter at all who owns Google Chrome if Chromium remains open source? Could it be that Google is just trying to preserve their maintainer status on Chromium regardless of who ends up owning Google Chrome? Without Chromium, what value does Chrome really have? The whole case revolves around a hard coded preference for the Google search engine and its ads. Would a different owner with more control by Microsoft than Google really keep that feature?
It’s not clear to me how force-selling Chrome solves the problem of their search monopoly. Just enforce behavioural remedies instead. Can’t pay for default placement. Must provide search engine choice dialog on new installs of Chrome and Android. The EU already requires this in Android.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Corporations are people and we can't constrain their free speech. It's important to remember that our owners have rights, which is not the norm.
i still predict ibm would be interested in buying chrome. they have the money, they have the infrastructure to support the project, and they have close enough ties to the linux foundation.
How would ever anyone want to buy Chrome? What for? Chrome basically consists of two parts: Chromium (which is free for everyone) and Google proprietary tracking code (which is designed strictly for Google and is useless for anyone else). Why would anyone pay for it? If Linux Foundation want to have "its own Chrome" - just click Fork button and voila! Free, immediate, perfectly legal. The proprietary part is not suitable for anyone but Google, so no need to buy it.
I don't think they'll buy it; the purpose of this organization is to guide Chromium's development, not Chrome. They NEED to keep MV3 so they can get rid of users' personal autonomy. This isn't just a goal of Alphabet; all the other lead members have the same desire to eliminate the concept of users by turning them into taxpayers. We've been through this before. It happened in the early to mid 1900s and was stopped only by massive military action.
@@williamthesoccerstar Current Platinum Members (Highest Level of Influence) Platinum members contribute the most significant funding and have representation on the Linux Foundation’s Board of Directors. These companies typically include: Google IBM (including Red Hat) Microsoft Intel Meta (formerly Facebook) Samsung Oracle Huawei Amazon Web Services (AWS)
So, basically this is a way to make TLF or its Chromium sub org have its goals fully aligned with the advertising giants Google, MS and Meta, so that while Google may no longer own Chrome it won’t make a huge difference.
I think putting it in a multi corporate organization makes more sense then selling it off to for example to Microsoft or meta. Microsoft already got in trouble for IE and being a browser monopoly. Why give them a new monopoly?
it worked cause people dont care at all... "oh it looks flashy and has round edges when i right click" ... thats why edge has climbed up to something like 13% of the desktop share ... edit: Plus the being default on machines from the start.
I hear what you're saying and I still think you're right about them planning for a worst possible outcome. However, I remain unconvinced that such a worst possible outcome will actually happen. They have a duty of care to shareholders to plan for the worst. I do not buy the argument about them not planning for a good outcome as some kind of evidence they don't think that's the most likely outcome. Firstly, no one needs to plan for a slap on the wrist, and secondly even if such planning were taking place we wouldn't see it. That wouldn't be general knowledge around google campuses. It would be a very selective group of people in the c suite and legal, who know the whole thing. People who will not talk about it even if you're their best friend who does a journalist podcast. If we look at the details of the Microsoft case and the Google case they are ridiculously similar. They even had similar set ups in court transcripts. But you also have a new administration taking office in 5 days. That includes a new DOJ. The Trump administration is stacked with monopolists. Some of which have their own antitrust cases coming down the pipe. You really think they're going to let this Google case buck the trend and create new precedent that puts them at greater risk? I don't buy it for a moment. I'd also like to point out that if you and I can see with transparency what Google is doing as their backup plan, then prosecutors and judges can too. So if they were really trying to nail Google to the wall, this back up plan wouldn't work the judge would order the sale of Chrome to an entity google has no involvement with. That you acknowledge this back up plan might work, is an acknowledgement that the courts are willing to overlook transparently obvious things and aren't really going after Google that hard. And if that's the case, a fine instead becomes much more likely. I have a long history of getting these kinds of predictions right too. Maybe I'm wrong this time, maybe you are. Time will tell.
Why is Google scared of losing Chrome? Chromium is open source, they can literally just fork Chromium and call it not-chrome and it'll be the same thing. Are the courts going to ban Google employees from contributing to Chromium including in their free time? That would be hugely overreaching.
Flashbacks of the microsoft anti-trust prosecution. The target is a clear bad guy, but the prosecution legal theory of the crime makes no sense. As if the lawyers have no clue how the technology and the crime comitted works.
I am sorry but isn't the Linux foundation a non-profit organization? Doesn't this legally violate something? This seems like this legally violates something? Does anyone feel violated by this, are their any IRS feminist that have any opinions on this?
I mean the experts in ethics argue that " Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert" (its the title of a "scientific" article published in Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.). Moral bioenhancement meaning drugging people to make them behave more "moral". And i quote: "I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does."
@turtlefrog369 I dont think theres anything wrong with soy. They have been looking into psilocybin, but appearently while it does appear to promote what they see as "pro-social" behaviour, it might also increase "racism".
Linux foundation spending less than 2% on Linux when it needs somany things fixing They rather spend Millions on Chrome Google who don't need the Money 😢
It has about 65% global market share. However, the target is not Chrome as such, its search. Google has 90% market share. The theory is that ownership of Chrome (and Android) helps them to maintain their search monopoly, so selling off Chrome will level the playing field. I’m not convinced.
idk what if that would be good or bad ... cause at one point the linux foundation isnt at bad as google but i dont like chromium based browser ... i use firefox
Interesting. Have you been traveling down South lately, Boo? 😁 Why am I not surprised by Google's behavior before the court? They still think they are the 800-pound gorilla in the room. They may be right, but even an 800-pound gorilla can be brought down by a big green government Lizard King breathing radioactive fire.
why would you be hallucinating on LSD? i actually think ith might be a thing that could happen certainly when you take into account tje cloud native foundation where they l!ke to work with, however by doing so this will mean that essentially no linux distro that gets shipped with chrome in unaltered state from now will have chrome as standard set and what will the people then have to say about freedom of browser choice? also go check who sponsorred all systems go! meta! Microsoft had Lennart Poettering giving a talk about measuring to the point he was about to lose ir over metrics, to me Lennart Poettering is a threat that needs neutralizing?
i also fear that if google must sell chrome they might use android as their bigger cashcow wich can be pretty bad as iphone arent better and are way too expansive.....
How depressing is it that the organization that funds arguably one of the most beloved open source projects ever is actually just a front for big tech companies to twiddle their fingers behind
It didn't start that way. This is a corruption of what it was meant to do. It all often starts with corruption, and will get buried by it. For now, we need to band together the best we can to support the kernel itself, or if it becomes irrecoverable somehow, we need to band together with BSD and support them financially.
@WilliamShinal in spirit I agree, but easier said than done. But look at the biggest FreeBSD donor. "Alpha-Omega", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, under copyright of The Linux Foundation.
@WilliamShinal I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. "Alpha-Sigma", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. "Alpha-Sigma", funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
@WilliamShinal I've tried to reply 3 times but for some reason it keeps getting marked as spam. Maybe editing works.
I agree in spirit, but easier said than done. Look at the biggest donor of the FreeBSD Foundation. Some random organization called Alpha Sigma, funded by Microsoft, Google, and Amazon, and under the copyright of The Linux Foundation.
Would be funny to ask the Linux Foundation to ask about Manifest V3
Yeah, it certainly would. Thanks for mentioning it.
"I know nothing". Remote code execution was a stupid idea in the first place. The option being removed is a good thing, if you believe otherwise - you're pretty ignorant.
Linux foundation is 'owned' by Google, Amazon, Microsoft, intel, redhat, etc. Through funding and board. They will ask nothing, they spend like 3% Linux related stuffs
@@AlexGoldringbrowsing the web without an ad blocker is an even more stupid idea. Change my mind.
@@em_the_bee You want the blocker to download random bits of code from the internet all the time and run it on your PC - you're a genius. Clearly that whole idea of signing software and sand-boxing untrusted code is just sooo stooopid.
"Change my mind" - I'm good fam, you do you.
So if Chrome is based on open-source Chromium, why do we really need Chrome ? Exactly what needs to be "purchased" ? Our data ?
So true
The special closed source patches that make Chrome Chrome (so Google tracking code.)
@@kaos-tan So the US government wants to give someone a Google's user tracking code. 😤
Of course that's not at all why Google is doing this, but, yeah. As Johnny Guitar Watson once remarked in song: "Somebody's doin' somethin' slick... yeah they are, yeah they are."
Joke aside, you need to purchase the dev team and management.
99% of the software is designed by Google's team, not by the open source community. There is knowledge that isn't known by the community.
"dont be evil" - linux foundation
"OK, it depends..." - one year later.
Exactly, 3% Linux focus, Linux foundation.
GPL is evil. That ship sailed away a long time ago.
"Everyone who doesn't like out choice is a Russian troll" - Teh Linux Foundation 1 year later
It sounds more like Google is going to buy the Linux Foundation.
foundations cannot be bought or sold
@@erkinalp If there's money there's a way.
@@Terra101 it's simply "not for sale"
@ The Titanic was also unsinkable.
@@erkinalp legally no, technically yes. It is called a hostile take over.
1 year without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Chrome
2 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Google
3 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Alphabet
10 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases Finland.
@@John_1-1_in_Japanese 25 years without DEI: Linux Foundation purchases the entire world.
Maybe google can donate a lump sum to the Linux foundation- enough to cover the cost of buying chrome + a little “thank you” bribe to the directors of the foundation… with no apparent strings attached.
That would pass the smell test
Linux Foundation kind of reminds me of an organized crime ring
their is a concept known as Piercing The Corporate Veil it is when their is no difference between the shareholder and the company, it's usually used when some rich person incorporates his car as rental service only to him then get's in wreck and does not want to be held responsible for his drunk driving. basically it's a way of saying the paper work does not matter it's really this. Is San Francisco really just one big state monopoly because I bet if you just ignore the paper work I bet it is, just look at the workers of the companies.
Tell us how stupid you think the Courts are.
Google: Hold my evil
Love your vids man
Goggle may lose but they will not lose control of their browser. Its similar, sort, of to Microsoft and internet explorer.
Whatever happens to Chrome or Chromium due to the outcome of the lawsuit, we can be sure of only one thing. Google will make every attempt to ensure that whoever ends up with control of the project will not make any change that might threaten Google's business model in any way whatsoever. The court might catch on and decline their "offer" to sell Chrome and Chromium to this new "Supporters of Chromium Based Browsers" group, but the one and only bet I'm willing to make is that Google will make the attempt.
Let me get this straight ---
Linux Foundation should buy a Browser based on Freeware ?
Maybe it's just me - but the world is getting screwier & screwier every day.
Largest search engine and ad revenue company on planet earth... makes their own web browser. Who would have thought this could end badly...
You have a gift for making a tweet last 30 minutes. But at least thanks for not burying the lead.
Yeah he is tedious as hell. All of his videos not only could but should be 1/3rd as long. He has a talent for word vomit.
@@MyAmazingUsername he's not talking about the tweet, he's covering the story behind it. he has critical thinking skills, a train of thought, and years of experience with the nonsense he reports on. if you don't want to listen to his angle gtfo
TH-cam likes watch minutes.
@@manitoba-op4jx I might. I've got like 20 hours total of listening to him ramble on various topics and it's wearing very thin since it's all the same over and over again, with the same long, rambly, identical rants.
This would kill Firefox even faster.
It won't.
Even if Mozilla Firefox were to be discontinued, I will switch to one of the many Firefox forks, like Palemoon, Seamonkey, Waterfox or LibreWolf.
Good
@@markwiering But the forks are based off of the base of Firefox. If the firefox devs go bye bye then so does the forks unless they develop it 100% themselves.
Faster than Mozilla is trying to kill Firefox?
I guess they could, but despite the fact that they make a solid amount of money, they in no way could outbid several other tech giants that may be interested if it came to that.
Both Meta and Microsoft are part of it. Which means... deep pockets.
I've had to uninstall Chrome since it is giving me pop-op hell after I fatfingered a website. Scanners won't fix the malware but uninstalling Chrome did.
Don’t give shady pr0n websites notification permissions
"My bad, boo!" 😆😆
Considering how much big tech colludes with each other I can’t believe they still aren’t treated as the one big monopoly they really are.
My only comment is, if I would be forced to use a computer with only Chrome installed I would strongly consider just stop using Internet at all
I have no idea what the pricetag on Chrome would be, but I imagine it's very, very high. How much money does the Linux Foundation have laying around?
It's worth nothing unless you have an online platform like a search engine with advertisements to support. And I'm not sure the Linux Foundation would be in the business of selling user data to advertisers, I could be wrong though.
Next video: Lunduke drops acid.
keen to see that vid, or maybe normal video but 2 hours in a hero drop of shrooms lol
@@StephenMcGregor1986 yeah, acid lasts like 12-14 hours, and stays strong for at least 8-10 it would be better as a lunduke drops acid *stream*
Linux Foundation has nothing to spend money on? There are so much things Linux is missing or needs to get fixed.
so many distros, desktops environments, wayland, toolchains, cli tools etc. could use funding ...
Software Engineer here.
Chrome has huge amount of investment from Google.
Chromium is dead in the water without Google.
Do you love Safari? - I don't
How is that Firefox working out for you?
Chrome is the best thing that happened to the web since Mosaic. Some of you are probably too young to remember, but Chrome is really really important. Google forked webkit because webkit was too slow to change and to adopt new standards. Google basically paved the way on every front for new web tech. Take pretty much anything, WebGL, Canvas, SVG, WebAudio, WebAssembly etc. Chrome was the first to ship it, and Chrome did it best. Google is also very responsive in bugfixes.
Sure, cheer for Chrome being taken away, but realize that web will be worse for it, much worse.
The only logical option I see would be for Google to create a new browser after that. Other companies likely won't do it, as it's very expensive and you need very specialist knowledge.
I agree. They should have hit Android. My base AOSP phone is fantastic. The only benefit I can imagine from hitting Chrome is potentially keeping Mv2, which isn't even given at that point.
Hang on, what does Google care if they "own" Chrome? If they sell "Chrome" to whoever, it's still open source, and they can keep on distributing "Google Chrome", which points to Google search without owning a damned thing! What can the DOJ do about that? Yes your honour, we don't own Chrome, we just distribute it.
thats still called a monopoly
I've been using linux since 1997. But Linux stopped being "Linux" between 2000-2003. In 2000 IBM, HP, and Intel(i.e. International Corporations) founded the Open Source Development Labs which changed into the the "Linux foundation" in 2007.
Back in the 90's Linux really was "hacker" culture. Now Linux is just another "lie" frontman for Big Brother.
Interesting as always.
How does it matter at all who owns Google Chrome if Chromium remains open source? Could it be that Google is just trying to preserve their maintainer status on Chromium regardless of who ends up owning Google Chrome? Without Chromium, what value does Chrome really have? The whole case revolves around a hard coded preference for the Google search engine and its ads. Would a different owner with more control by Microsoft than Google really keep that feature?
It’s not clear to me how force-selling Chrome solves the problem of their search monopoly. Just enforce behavioural remedies instead. Can’t pay for default placement. Must provide search engine choice dialog on new installs of Chrome and Android. The EU already requires this in Android.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 Corporations are people and we can't constrain their free speech. It's important to remember that our owners have rights, which is not the norm.
Probably.
Can we expect someone to put JPEG-XL support back into Chrome after this?
Buy it and bundle it with the linux distros.
How do you know all of this? A lot of this seems like information that could only be known by a few people at Google or the Linux foundations.
i still predict ibm would be interested in buying chrome. they have the money, they have the infrastructure to support the project, and they have close enough ties to the linux foundation.
IBM chrome would be crazy ngl
@Norbert011 yep
lets buy it together and open source the closed parts :)
How would ever anyone want to buy Chrome? What for? Chrome basically consists of two parts: Chromium (which is free for everyone) and Google proprietary tracking code (which is designed strictly for Google and is useless for anyone else). Why would anyone pay for it?
If Linux Foundation want to have "its own Chrome" - just click Fork button and voila! Free, immediate, perfectly legal. The proprietary part is not suitable for anyone but Google, so no need to buy it.
I don't think they'll buy it; the purpose of this organization is to guide Chromium's development, not Chrome. They NEED to keep MV3 so they can get rid of users' personal autonomy. This isn't just a goal of Alphabet; all the other lead members have the same desire to eliminate the concept of users by turning them into taxpayers.
We've been through this before. It happened in the early to mid 1900s and was stopped only by massive military action.
Whatever remedy happens, I definitely **don't** want it to be good for Google. If Google doesn't squeal like a pig, it wasn't harsh enough.
Could be worse. Could be Microsoft.
That's the thing. It *is* Microsoft. This organization is Google, Meta, and Microsoft working under the Linux Foundation.
Can you please expand on how Big Tech are working under the Linux Foundation?
@@williamthesoccerstar Current Platinum Members (Highest Level of Influence)
Platinum members contribute the most significant funding and have representation on the Linux Foundation’s Board of Directors. These companies typically include:
Google
IBM (including Red Hat)
Microsoft
Intel
Meta (formerly Facebook)
Samsung
Oracle
Huawei
Amazon Web Services (AWS)
Seems like Google is trying to sell Chrome to themselves.
They are the main contributors to the foundation, look up the platinum funders, it's google Microsoft IBM etc@@williamthesoccerstar
dear god pleas no.
So, basically this is a way to make TLF or its Chromium sub org have its goals fully aligned with the advertising giants Google, MS and Meta, so that while Google may no longer own Chrome it won’t make a huge difference.
6:40 That would be a Nanosoft then.
I want the FSF to own Chrome.
yes that will be way better imo
I think putting it in a multi corporate organization makes more sense then selling it off to for example to Microsoft or meta. Microsoft already got in trouble for IE and being a browser monopoly. Why give them a new monopoly?
Oh god please no.
Yeah. That’s been the plan since ‘14. All browsers under Chromium. All browsers one. All ready for the SSH sensorship op. coming up.
Meanwhile, at Mozilla...
it worked cause people dont care at all... "oh it looks flashy and has round edges when i right click" ... thats why edge has climbed up to something like 13% of the desktop share ...
edit: Plus the being default on machines from the start.
@@nikolaiBigideas its because edge is the best chromium browser(despite the obvious privacy intrustion from ms)
I hear what you're saying and I still think you're right about them planning for a worst possible outcome. However, I remain unconvinced that such a worst possible outcome will actually happen. They have a duty of care to shareholders to plan for the worst.
I do not buy the argument about them not planning for a good outcome as some kind of evidence they don't think that's the most likely outcome. Firstly, no one needs to plan for a slap on the wrist, and secondly even if such planning were taking place we wouldn't see it. That wouldn't be general knowledge around google campuses. It would be a very selective group of people in the c suite and legal, who know the whole thing. People who will not talk about it even if you're their best friend who does a journalist podcast.
If we look at the details of the Microsoft case and the Google case they are ridiculously similar. They even had similar set ups in court transcripts.
But you also have a new administration taking office in 5 days. That includes a new DOJ. The Trump administration is stacked with monopolists. Some of which have their own antitrust cases coming down the pipe. You really think they're going to let this Google case buck the trend and create new precedent that puts them at greater risk?
I don't buy it for a moment.
I'd also like to point out that if you and I can see with transparency what Google is doing as their backup plan, then prosecutors and judges can too. So if they were really trying to nail Google to the wall, this back up plan wouldn't work the judge would order the sale of Chrome to an entity google has no involvement with.
That you acknowledge this back up plan might work, is an acknowledgement that the courts are willing to overlook transparently obvious things and aren't really going after Google that hard. And if that's the case, a fine instead becomes much more likely.
I have a long history of getting these kinds of predictions right too. Maybe I'm wrong this time, maybe you are. Time will tell.
Honestly it would be awesome if they could buy Android. Just imagine full privacy based phones with no ads and spyware!
Why is Google scared of losing Chrome? Chromium is open source, they can literally just fork Chromium and call it not-chrome and it'll be the same thing. Are the courts going to ban Google employees from contributing to Chromium including in their free time? That would be hugely overreaching.
Chrome works worse than Firefox on Wayland.
Flashbacks of the microsoft anti-trust prosecution. The target is a clear bad guy, but the prosecution legal theory of the crime makes no sense. As if the lawyers have no clue how the technology and the crime comitted works.
I am sorry but isn't the Linux foundation a non-profit organization? Doesn't this legally violate something? This seems like this legally violates something? Does anyone feel violated by this, are their any IRS feminist that have any opinions on this?
I mean the experts in ethics argue that " Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert" (its the title of a "scientific" article published in Medical Ethics, Humanities, and Law, Western Michigan University, Homer Stryker M.D. School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, MI 49008, USA.). Moral bioenhancement meaning drugging people to make them behave more "moral".
And i quote: "I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does."
so soy, fluoride, hops, PFAS, GEN-X, atrazine etc.?
is it really moral to turn men into gay frogs?
@turtlefrog369 I dont think theres anything wrong with soy.
They have been looking into psilocybin, but appearently while it does appear to promote what they see as "pro-social" behaviour, it might also increase "racism".
Does this even work? Aren't they on the board of TLF too?
So they would 'sell' it and still have control?
They don't have the money
Linux foundation spending less than 2% on Linux when it needs somany things fixing
They rather spend Millions on Chrome Google who don't need the Money 😢
I'm not fan of Google or Chome, but how is it a monopoly, the browser is pretty much open source and Microsoft uses it. I'm kinda confused.
It has about 65% global market share. However, the target is not Chrome as such, its search. Google has 90% market share. The theory is that ownership of Chrome (and Android) helps them to maintain their search monopoly, so selling off Chrome will level the playing field. I’m not convinced.
@@kevinmcfarlane2752 could have made it illegal to set default search engine to google.
Google loose the case But still control Chrome they will never surender 😅
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR CHROMEOS 😭
Patronizing drama queens owning Chrome?
idk what if that would be good or bad ... cause at one point the linux foundation isnt at bad as google but i dont like chromium based browser ... i use firefox
hahahahaha ... is a quite possibility.
🤔
Interesting. Have you been traveling down South lately, Boo? 😁 Why am I not surprised by Google's behavior before the court? They still think they are the 800-pound gorilla in the room. They may be right, but even an 800-pound gorilla can be brought down by a big green government Lizard King breathing radioactive fire.
why would you be hallucinating on LSD? i actually think ith might be a thing that could happen certainly when you take into account tje cloud native foundation where they l!ke to work with, however by doing so this will mean that essentially no linux distro that gets shipped with chrome in unaltered state from now will have chrome as standard set and what will the people then have to say about freedom of browser choice? also go check who sponsorred all systems go! meta! Microsoft had Lennart Poettering giving a talk about measuring to the point he was about to lose ir over metrics, to me Lennart Poettering is a threat that needs neutralizing?
i also fear that if google must sell chrome they might use android as their bigger cashcow wich can be pretty bad as iphone arent better and are way too expansive.....
Chrome has no value, Google could just take the Chromium source code, and compile a new browser
The DOJ proposed remedy bans Google from the browser market for 10 years.
These big tech like Google makes me sick, literally.
no, lol
have you already made a video about uefi ( the current motherboard firmware norm) being woke ?
I use Chrome everyday. I hope Google wins.
Lunduke makes it sound like a crypto scam or something I swear.
Corpo hate
The best kind