true, if it was a company like suse,redhat who was for-profit and had a good browser engine then sure if its like google then maybe but for-profit companies are known to be problematic.
I think the key thing is to have checks and balances and or incentives so that a browser doesn’t become just a tool to sell stuff. For instance, I hear the Mullvad browser is pretty good. It isn’t independent for obvious reasons but the idea still applies.
SuSE is problematic? As far as I know they released their system administration tools as open source without ever needing to, didn’t they? They’re for profit but seem to drive their profits on services rather selling software, as a good open source denizen. What am I missing?
Same cause nowadays you have to rely on a for profit company for your browser engine.
I don’t have any issue as long as there are options and the company isn’t actively hostile.
true, if it was a company like suse,redhat who was for-profit and had a good browser engine then sure if its like google then maybe but for-profit companies are known to be problematic.
I think the key thing is to have checks and balances and or incentives so that a browser doesn’t become just a tool to sell stuff. For instance, I hear the Mullvad browser is pretty good. It isn’t independent for obvious reasons but the idea still applies.
alr
SuSE is problematic? As far as I know they released their system administration tools as open source without ever needing to, didn’t they? They’re for profit but seem to drive their profits on services rather selling software, as a good open source denizen. What am I missing?
I mean I was using suse as a example not saying they problematic like redhat (which had some controversy in the past ik)