free-riding
If you're gonna have that kind of attitude, then you don't really care about user freedom.
Yes but the advantage of Linux over windows is obvious. It's open source. Where's the advantage of FreeBSD? Companies can make their own proprietary fork and give nothing back?
The idea is that you're not supposed to minimize windows at all under Gnome's workflow, and you maximize by double-clicking the headerbar to save space. You get used to it.
For a 100% libre kernel, I feel like this is the more sensible option than Hurd, just to take advantage of all the effort that goes into the Linux kernel. I'm not knowledgeable on kernels in the first place though, so maybe a micro-kernel really is the best way to go once you figure out the proper architecture.
Number 3 is by far the most important, because most people just don't think about what web browser they're using. A lot of people don't even think about web browsers at all. They just think of the web browser app as "the internet", and that's it.
With no context, completely in isolation, yeah Overwatch 2 isn't the worst. But for a lot of players, it's not just about what Overwatch 2 is, but also about what it did and what it means. That factors into players' feelings about the game.
There’s no need to shoehorn in your dislike of Chinese people into this video gaming story.
Strawman flame-bait everyone. Please ignore.
This actually sounds like a really good idea! This could be big! I wanna try this for myself to get a feel for it.
I second the recommendation. I know a lot of people don't like the browser (although I find that a lot of that dislike comes somewhat misleading rumors or stories) but the search engine really doesn't have anything to do with the browser except that it's by the same company. I often switch between it and Duck Duck Go, and I don't use Brave browser.
In my experience, downvotes do little but encourage dog-piling and echo chambers. I have a few accounts on instances that disabled downvotes, and few that enabled them. The difference is very clear. The instances that disabled them have noticeably more rich and diverse discussion, with users being less afraid to disagree with each other and have proper debates.
The instances that have them enabled vary a bit, but I noticed a pattern that certainly reminds me of The Hard R: Most comments on a popular and highly upvoted post are basically people agreeing with the post over and over again with different words, and then there a few comments that actually disagree, but you'll have a hard time seeing them because they were downvoted into oblivion. This isn't always the case, certainly not as much as the other place (at least not yet) but I have already noticed it happen.
And if they're disagreeing in a respectable or kind way, then that's good! It encourages discussion and debate, instead of simply clicking downvote and leaving the poster no way to know why you disagree at all.
If they're being rude or inflammatory, then that's breaking the rules anyway, so instead of being downvoted, it should be reported.
I agree that it's better than the "open core" model because it limits by time rather than space, as they say, but it kinda misses the point of open-source software. The conflict of interest is that they effectively want to be the only ones who can profit off the software, while still benefiting from the free work of others, but commercial-use is within the open-source definition.
My real issue is that it seems like they're trying to spin it as a kind of "open-source", but it's not. If they were more up-front about that, I probably wouldn't care as much.
Also saying that it's less restrictive than copyleft is just outright false.