“I’m against surveillance capitalism but Google’s service is listed first on my app because it is so popular” is the “I’m against the tobacco industry but I offer anyone coming into my home a cigarette because smoking’s so popular” of tech.

If you offer people easy access to cigarettes without so much as a warning about the risks, you might want to reconsider whether you really are against Big Tobacco or whether you’re doing their bidding.

@aral how about "this is what we have right now because of bad choices made by the people who came before us, but eventually it's going away in favour of a better UX which doesn't favour any provider"?

I wonder if dropping Google as a search engine would drop Firefox's "Market Share"

@ProfessorBitRot for a long time Mozilla was getting a lot of their funding in the form of donations from Google. I've heard many people suggest this has shaped both their technical and organizational decisions. This is a major downside of the Foundation model of stewardship for free code projects. If you ban corporations from donating, like #Greenpeace does, you just give them an excuse to use your code anyway, without contributing to funding. It's a complicated problem.

@strypey @ProfessorBitRot They’ve gotten over $1B from Google (conservative, based on published data). They continue to get hundreds of millions from them every year.

@aral good to know. That explains a lot. So basically Google has acquired them, without actually having to acquire them ... :-{

@strypey @ProfessorBitRot @aral That's a lot of money that could buy Goya cookies for homeless people, and give them homes.

Exactly, this is a slow takeover. Sometimes it's not only about the pressure to put some Google service integration. It's also about what NOT to implement. For example, distributed data storage, decentralization protocols support, peer-to-peer technologies.
Take a look at how GNOME's Foundation Board discusses "importance" of centralized cloud services
It also shows that GNOME wants to follow Mozilla's example and become a not-for-profit for-profit org

@aral This entryism article about Microsoft Evangelists killing competing events is interesting and moderately relevant:

I remember when Microsoft tried this BS at LinuxFest Northwest (taking over 1/3rd of the conference booth space). Glad the organizers banned them the following year! That stuff is core rot, which will rapidly kill a community.

@bikecurious Wow. “I’ve killed at least two Mac conferences” – I hadn’t seen the linked transcripts before. Thank you. No matter how bad you think they are, they manage to prove themselves worse.

@aral Its impressive. Microsoft knows what its doing, taking all the oxygen out of these events. It isn't what people attend them for, and the larger & more consistent their presence is, the less likely people will return the following year.

Wish the Linux Foundation wasnt rotten to the core...

@bikecurious @aral
Thanks a lot for pointing the spot on this, wasn't aware that it's so deep already 🙄

True FOSSers really should move away from GitHub and the M$ trap it has become. It's just so unfortunate that it's so hugely woven in to the fabric of the open source world. If only more would see how amazing GitLab, Gitea & co. are.
As soon as there is a viable federated source code protocol (like ForgeFed), there really shouldn't be any excuse any more.

I've been moving (and still am) my projects over to, where my code is truly free and at home 😇

@noplanman @aral even if Gitlab was not amazing, even without federation, there is little excuse, popularity is the only thing driving Github.

@steko @aral
For sure, which is something that just needs some time to dissolve.

With the whole decentralisation of services however, there are some annoyances and things that need rethinking. So I honestly feel it's a necessary step for the masses to adopt and shift.

Look here:

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.