I would say don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, if you have a problem with Mozilla as an organisation it doesn’t negate the valid concerns about the monopoly, it would effectively hand control of web standards over to Google defeating the entire ethos of the open web. The Firefox browser engine is independent even if you don’t believe the organisation behind it is, that can be verified because of open source, there’s no need to be defeatist yet.

I deleted my comment fir a reason 🤨

Comment deletion doesn’t always federate straight away, I can still see it.

Answer me this, what chromium browser today is good??

I don’t use Chromium browsers because they’re at the verge of becoming a monopoly, it’s important to use alternatives for the foreseeable future to sustain what’s left of diversity.

It depends on your point of view, of the ones I’ve seen I’d guess Vivaldi has the best user features but it’s closed source so there’s double reason to not use it. It’s what I’d use if I didn’t care about any of this. But if you want my genuine browser recommendation from a Privacy perspective (since this is the privacy community) I suggest Mullvad Browser, it’s Firefox based and has strong anti-fingerprinting and privacy defaults - it does break some sites though and is missing some QoL features but that’s the price you pay.

Oh yes, it would be even worse if we only had one browser engine. We need more browser engines is the point, not more tweaked Chromium browsers.

Can’t tell if you’re joking but the problem is serious lack of competition for Chromium browsers. Every Chromium browser brings nothing meaningfully new but just strengthens Google’s monopoly.

As the person who made the (currently highest upvoted) comment about not needing a new Chromium browser, could you enlighten me on what I should know about “today’s industry”?

Don’t see the point, the world doesn’t need another Chromium browser.

My usual experience with non-computer people is that they really couldn’t care less and glaze over at any discussion of software choices what so ever. I’ve given up even trying to tell them for the most part. If you’re not required to use specific software by your employer (thankfully I’m not), then just use what you want and nobody will care, at least in my experience.

OK, not at all what I expected…

I was a bit confused as to what you meant; image browsing apps to me are things like EOG/Loupe, Gwenview, or whatever Apple/Microsoft use for that now. So you’re looking for a social media platform for sharing images, not software for browsing images? What is thirst content?

I’ve been using FreeTube for years, it does break from time to time but never for very long, and it’s a much nicer experience all round.

It’s an important software choice just like choosing a browser (though unfortunately browser choices are much more limited these days).

I usually see people discussing distros but I feel like picking the right DE makes much bigger impact.

Yes I do feel like the emphasis is often wrong; choosing a distro should be about choosing a philosophy towards included packages and updates, choosing a DE is much more relevant for day-to-day user experience/workflow.

I don’t like to ever assume negative intent without good evidence. I think I’m taking the neutral rather than optimistic view here. If you want me to speculate whether this new company is good or evil, that would just be my speculation; it would depend how they intend to make money out of it, from my gut instinct I can’t say they give me any specific Google vibes yet.

The freedom to decide what software am I allowed to run on my PC is important for me though

I’m right with you there, and it’s proprietary software that threatens that, nothing included in this announcement does though.

But how it’s implemented means everything. Google’s play integrity is corrupting because it’s designed to lock vendors in to Google’s proprietary ecosystem. You’re not getting that from this ‘language’ alone, it could be the case but it’s a massive leap at this point.

They haven’t announced anything other than a vague outline of what they’re trying to solve, it could be implemented in so many ways at this point.

That was my take, yes.

In what sense?

None of this affects what happened “back in the day” which is what I was talking about.

That said, my understanding of the current packaging philosophy of RHEL/CentOS Stream is that embargoed security fixes go in to RHEL first, then to CentOS Stream once the embargo is lifted (that’s pretty much as you’d expect), otherwise everything goes in to CentOS Stream first. Unless you have counter-examples I’ve not heard of?

Paying for services isn’t philosophically incompatible with FOSS, that’s how companies like RedHat broke through back in the day, but paying for “quick and high-quality security updates” strikes me as alarming. Am I to take from that that they’re holding back high-quality security updates from some users? Unless maybe we’re talking about extended support for EoL software.