And by then it's too late and becomes painfully difficult to go back.
Examples: Linux, FirefoxOS. On the other hand, no DRM in HTML leads to the platform still being free.
It's easy to integrate proprietary solutions but it's incredibly hard to remove them. IT is way easier to not adopt them in the first place. In that regard, proprietary software is similar to AIDS.
>First, Mozilla has and does assist in the creation of FOSS game engines and tools
Parent comment didn't imply the contrary. "stop promoting nonfree software" doesn't mean "stop only promoting nonfree software".
>even the LGPL shows that absolute avoidance is not always the best thing to do regarding closed-source code
If you ask the FSF, the LGPL should really be used as a last resort. Unity is not too common yet (and hopefully will never be as long as it remains proprietary), so I don't see why we should push it forward by helping its integration. Same goes for HTML5's EME. I'd rather have a purely open platform with less features and popularity than a platform with an open base and countless incompatible binary blobs sitting onto it. And even the abomination that EME is would at least be an actual standard.
>Unity engine is a proprietary codebase, they also have lots of code that is FOSS
If you can't build it, it's not worth integrating. The only thing this is good for is making a FOSS alternative (although I guess they keep the important bits secret). I'd be using Google Chrome if "99% open source" was good enough. By using Firefox (though Chromium would be fine if it weren't for the user-hostile features), I precisely want to keep a clean FOSS platform. Conversely, I only use an Android ROM because there's no good alternative, which is not the case for Unity. So I wish they'd keep it out for now.
I get where you're coming from, I think, but Unity is not related to standards in any way, unlike EME. Unity is just another game engine that can now run on the web. All we did here is help them along the way, just like we help other game engines to port to the web. It is not going to become a standard or part of the browser in any way.
Even with Unity (and Unreal and others) porting to the web, web browsers remain open, while web content (what ported Unity is) was always non-open (since practically all websites are not FOSS).
I agree with you on the other hand that EME would in fact be a danger to the openness of the web.
I know, I mentioned it. I believe a standard at least has some practical positive impact, unlike the integration of a particular closed platform.
>web content was always non-open
It's true that obfuscated JavaScript makes, in a way, a closed platform, but much less so, in my belief, than straight-up binary code (which Unity delivers and EME enables).
I get your overall point, but it just seems a slippery slope...
I disagree, we already have watches with weak processors (e.g Pebble) but they lack features. Android can bring those, and ARM processors are powerful enough.
Indeed, the only difference between an Android watch and a full-size smartphone would be the smaller casing. The largest component nowadays is the battery, which can be greatly reduced thanks to the smaller screen.
So, I don't see a major obstacle to an Android watch, and the benefits of it are worth the CPU. Of course temperature will be a concern but I'm sure demand will produce lower-powered CPUs powerful enough to run Android.
A watch that aim supposed to wear 24 hours a day cannot runout of battery every three days. Give me two months of battery life on an ARM device that is smaller than an average cheeseburger and I will be impressed.
You could pretend they were perceived as a threat for Facebook and Facebook just bought the peace of knowing they have no remotely significant threat other than Google+.
Although, knowing Facebook, I have a really hard time just taking this guy's word for it. I won't be installing Whatsapp until it's both free software and has end-to-end encryption. I'll tolerate it being centralized because Facebook/NSA having our metadata would be acceptable while we wait for a better alternative.
You can fully disable these apps in Settings and you won;t see them again anywhere. As for the space, unlike iOS, you can install another OS with Gapps at all.
UI performance woes? Coming from an iPhone 3GS, it's flawless to me. As for battery, it fits my bill and it's the price to pay for the huge screen.
If people aren't willing to, nope. This is a slippery slope and we can't afford to pay every employee of dying professions forever.
I think utilities and reasonable physical safety and healthcare should be paid for by the people. But for the rest, the free market will work better than an infinity of laws and incentives to put people in a corner to pay up. Money, uh, finds a way...
The idea behind this comment is that if people don't care enough about the work to bother viewing it, the maker shouldn't be paid. Which I agree with; I hate the idea of government sponsorship of art no one wants. The difference here is, PEOPLE WANT THE ART, THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. That's a huge distinction. It has value to people, but because they have the opportunity to steal it with no consequence, they do so.
Examples: Linux, FirefoxOS. On the other hand, no DRM in HTML leads to the platform still being free.
It's easy to integrate proprietary solutions but it's incredibly hard to remove them. IT is way easier to not adopt them in the first place. In that regard, proprietary software is similar to AIDS.