Why we can’t regulate Google, etc:
Because of useful idiots like @conservancy legitimising them by being sponsored by them.
Me: Google is a surveillance capitalist that makes billions tracking and profiling you. They are a threat to our human rights and democracy. We just regulate them.
Policymaker: you must be mistaken, they’re the good guys. Look, here they are allowed to sponsor CopyLeft Conf with the FSF logo displayed proudly next to theirs.
Some of the foundations not only take Google's money, but also let Google dictate what to do. GNOME has this rule for the Board of Directors:
"Keep confidential discussions private. This includes legal discussions or conversations with the Advisory Board." Google is in the "Advisory" Board.
I don't think Google uses GNOME in any of their products.
But GNOME Desktop has an option to integrate Google services into the desktop environment. For example automatic syncing user's GNOME calendar to their Google calendar. Also it can sync email, contacts, documents, photos and even printers.
Also, GNOME Desktop has native Google Drive integration.
When I was using GNOME I could easily access my Gmail account from a browser. You don't need a standalone app for that. The reason why I stopped using GNOME is that it keeps pushing some hidden corporate agenda, using corporate money. I care about my privacy and freedom more that I care about interface usability because I know how dangerous surveillance capitalism is. Exploiting non-tech-savvy people who have no idea about how modern tracking works is a shame.
It's the call-out culture, purity-politics, very much outrage-driven, circular firing squad (and thus *very* FAANG-like in its engagement qualities) to which you are subjecting @conservancy and GNOME that hurts.
We're supposed to be doing better than that, here. Please do so.
There was a long discussion about that 5 days ago:
In short: GNOME has Google in their “Advisory board”. Their conversations are strictly private (GNOME has that as a rule). Google gives money and GNOME implements integration with Google services, refusing to include alternative privacy-friendly solutions. All that goes without any warning about privacy violations for the users.
@aral mentioned it in his article:
And the reasoning for not integrating Fastmail specifically is that they want to do something a bit more generic with it. Because they're one of the few eMail providers which implemented for allowing them to download these settings.
If you want something more privacy protecting then that, it requires more effort.
But I don't think it's because of Google's influence or a desire to push an agenda that we have this. If it was, GNOME Web would be very different.
GNOME's simply trying to deliver what they think people expect.
Thus, can we agree that GNOME will not protect people from Google (because why would you protect people from a thing that isn’t harmful and is – moreover – advising you?)
Can we agree that that is a problem?
@aral @neoncipher @mjog @bob I can agree that the GNOME foundation doesn't appear to see Google as (at least too much) of a problem. Though I hear they really don't have that much off an influence over their projects.
And that I prefer an approach of using standards to improve your experience BEFORE you resort to integrations. Let that heavily influence your designs. But I won't vilify anyone for doing otherwise.
I wonder if the anonymous donor who pledged $1M donation to the GNOME Foundation is aware that “The GNOME Foundation is disconnected from every day development on GNOME”. They must be pissed right now. 😮
1. services (e.g. hosting) cost money
2. contributors to OSS should be paid
3. many horrible corporations are built on top of OSS
4. these corporations are told they “owe” the OSS projects they’ve leveraged
5. some of them write checks to “support” the thing that helped them generate profit
6. if the OSS project takes the money, their morals have been compromised
how does this make sense?
@Shamar @brainblasted @alcinnz @neoncipher @mjog @bob @aral i agree with this entirely. users need to have accurate information presented in the proper contexts in order to make informed decisions. integration with the insecure 3rd party can’t be presented as equivalent to the privacy-respecting option.
@Shamar @brainblasted @alcinnz @neoncipher @mjog @bob @aral we need a way to reliably fund OSS that isnt pity payments from corporations. much thought has been given to that (see the list at https://github.com/nayafia/lemonade-stand). github also hosted a meeting related to the topic which has a forum: https://discourse.sustainoss.org/ . i would also caution against assuming a board or advisory seat = a great deal of influence. not only are there bylaws etc, their competitors are sitting at the same table.
@Shamar @brainblasted @alcinnz @neoncipher @mjog @bob @aral unfortunately i don’t. it’s extremely corporate. there is tremendous emphasis on sales and market penetration. it seems entirely in the service of capitalism and “enterprise software”. if i could think of anything positive to say, it would be that they have facilitated the long-term stability of some important things that nobody else wants to pay for.
@Shamar @alana @brainblasted @neoncipher @mjog @bob @aral I haven't been following The Linux Foundation (or most others foundations TBH), but for the Linux kernel last I studied it I'm quite happy with.
It does a great job making sure all our hardware just works, and any privacy concerns would be due to misconfiguration that typically doesn't occur.
Personally I'm happy to continue using the Linux kernel as long as my favourite operating system (even if that's no longer elementary OS) still likes it. As long as they don't enable the network file systems by default, they can be extremely useful if they're opt-in.
@alcinnz @neoncipher @brainblasted @mjog @bob @aral folks, it’s not an issue of teaching grampy zemlin to use the linux; its an issue of being able to plug into that jack on the podium and have your presentation come up on the overhead looking how you’d expect it to look. even windows can scarcely manage to do that.. there’s a whole bunch of users like that who just buy macs. who cares, honestly
@alcinnz @neoncipher @brainblasted @mjog @bob @aral oh lord, thankfully no. it’s the hell of their audio visual setups, and the technicians who they assign to your event, and so on. it’s miserable and, since it’s the LF CEO’s main requirement, i think him not using linux is not so important. if i made a pie chart of the types of people i think the linux desktop should target as users, jet-setting executives who do a lot of public speaking wouldn’t really be a significant group
@popefucker don't be an asshole
@alcinnz @neoncipher @alana @brainblasted @mjog @bob @aral yeah the (worst and best) thing about linux is that there are widely varying configurations. My system is totally different from your system, and a lot of the times stuff that works on one linux installation won't work on another for a variety of reasons.
It's nice for those of us who like to tinker but sucks for people who just want to install the OS and use it. Then you get Ubuntu and whatnot, which are nice but don't always have what you want.
Drop "Linux" (or "GNU/Linux") from the names of all the distros that have it. Drop the expectation that they are configured in pretty much the same way.
Because to most people they look widley different, and impressions shouldn't transfer.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!