The author criticizes Unity's decision to ban the VLC library from its Asset Store while simultaneously utilizing and profiting from other open-source projects like LLVM and Mono. They argue that Unity's justification for the ban, citing VLC's GPLv2 license incompatibility with their terms of service, is hypocritical. The author points out that Unity's own products benefit from GPLv2-licensed software, suggesting the ban is motivated by competitive concerns, specifically the potential disruption VLC's inclusion could have on their own video player offering. This selective enforcement of licensing terms, according to the author, reveals a double standard regarding open source and demonstrates a prioritization of profit over community contributions.
Starting next week, Google will significantly reduce public access to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) development process. Key parts of the next Android release's development, including platform changes and internal testing, will occur in private. While the source code will eventually be released publicly as usual, the day-to-day development and decision-making will be hidden from the public eye. This shift aims to improve efficiency and reduce early leaks of information about upcoming Android features. Google emphasizes that AOSP will remain open source, and they intend to enhance opportunities for external contributions through other avenues like quarterly platform releases and pre-release program expansions.
Hacker News commenters express concern over Google's move to develop Android AOSP primarily behind closed doors. Several suggest this signals a shift towards prioritizing Pixel features and potentially neglecting the broader Android ecosystem. Some worry this will stifle innovation and community contributions, leading to a more fragmented and less open Android experience. Others speculate this is a cost-cutting measure or a response to security concerns. A few commenters downplay the impact, believing open-source contributions were already minimal and Google's commitment to open source remains, albeit with a different approach. The discussion also touches upon the potential impact on custom ROM development and the future of AOSP's openness.
The 2008 blog post argues that Windows wasn't truly "free" for businesses, despite the common perception. While the OS itself came bundled with PCs, the associated costs of management, maintenance, software licensing (especially for Microsoft Office and server products), antivirus, and dealing with malware significantly outweighed the initial cost of the OS. The author contends that these hidden expenses made Windows a more expensive option compared to perceived free alternatives like Linux, particularly for smaller businesses. Ultimately, the "free" Windows license subsidized other revenue streams for Microsoft, making it a profitable, albeit deceptive, business model.
Hacker News users discussed the complexities of Microsoft's "free" Windows licensing model for businesses. Several pointed out that while the OS itself might not have a direct upfront cost, it's bundled with hardware purchases, making it an indirect expense. Others highlighted the ongoing costs associated with Windows, such as Software Assurance for updates and support, along with the costs of managing Active Directory and other related infrastructure. The general consensus was that "free" is a misleading term, and the true cost of Windows for businesses is substantial when considering the total cost of ownership. Some commenters also discussed the historical context of the article (from 2008) and how Microsoft's licensing and business models have evolved since then.
This 2010 essay argues that running a nonfree program on your server, even for personal use, compromises your freedom and contributes to a broader system of user subjugation. While seemingly a private act, hosting proprietary software empowers the software's developer to control your computing, potentially through surveillance, restrictions on usage, or even remote bricking. This reinforces the developer's power over all users, making it harder for free software alternatives to gain traction. By choosing free software, you reclaim control over your server and contribute to a freer digital world for everyone.
HN users largely agree with the article's premise that "personal" devices like "smart" TVs, phones, and even "networked" appliances primarily serve their manufacturers, not the user. Commenters point out the data collection practices of these devices, noting how they send usage data, location information, and even recordings back to corporations. Some users discuss the difficulty of mitigating this data leakage, mentioning custom firmware, self-hosting, and network segregation. Others lament the lack of consumer awareness and the acceptance of these practices as the norm. A few comments highlight the irony of "smart" devices often being less functional and convenient due to their dependence on external servers and frequent updates. The idea of truly owning one's devices versus merely licensing them is also debated. Overall, the thread reflects a shared concern about the erosion of privacy and user control in the age of connected devices.
Austrian cloud provider Anexia has migrated 12,000 virtual machines from VMware to its own internally developed KVM-based platform, saving millions of euros annually in licensing costs. Driven by the desire for greater control, flexibility, and cost savings, Anexia spent three years developing its own orchestration, storage, and networking solutions to underpin the new platform. While acknowledging the complexity and effort involved, the company claims the migration has resulted in improved performance and stability, along with the substantial financial benefits.
Hacker News commenters generally praised Anexia's move away from VMware, citing cost savings and increased flexibility as primary motivators. Some expressed skepticism about the "homebrew" aspect of the new KVM platform, questioning its long-term maintainability and the potential for unforeseen issues. Others pointed out the complexities and potential downsides of such a large migration, including the risk of downtime and the significant engineering effort required. A few commenters shared their own experiences with similar migrations, offering both warnings and encouragement. The discussion also touched on the broader trend of moving away from proprietary virtualization solutions towards open-source alternatives like KVM. Several users questioned the wisdom of relying on a single vendor for such a critical part of their infrastructure, regardless of whether it's VMware or a custom solution.
Summary of Comments ( 64 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43914832
The Hacker News comments discuss Unity's seemingly contradictory stance on open source, banning VLC while simultaneously using open-source software themselves. Several commenters point out the potential hypocrisy, questioning whether Unity truly understands open-source licensing. Some suggest the ban might stem from VLC's GPL license, which could obligate Unity to open-source their own engine if they bundled it. Others speculate about practical reasons for the ban, like avoiding potential legal issues arising from VLC's broad codec support, or preventing users from easily ripping game assets. A few defend Unity, arguing that they are within their rights to control their platform and that the GPL's implications can be challenging for businesses to navigate. There's also discussion about the lack of clarity from Unity regarding their reasoning, which fuels speculation and distrust within the community. Finally, some commenters express concern over the precedent this sets, worrying that other closed-source platforms might adopt similar restrictions on open-source software.
The Hacker News post discussing Unity's ban of VLC has a moderate number of comments, mostly revolving around licensing issues, community perceptions of Unity, and the technical rationale behind the ban.
Several commenters delve into the complexities of licensing, particularly the LGPLv2.1 used by VLC and Unity's claim that static linking of VLC violates this license. Some argue that Unity's interpretation is incorrect, citing the allowance for static linking under specific conditions within the LGPL. Others point out the ambiguity surrounding static linking in LGPL and the potential for differing legal interpretations. A recurring theme in these discussions is the difficulty of navigating open-source licenses and the potential for misunderstandings or misapplications, especially in complex software projects.
A significant portion of the commentary reflects a negative sentiment towards Unity. Commenters express skepticism about Unity's justification for the ban, suggesting ulterior motives such as promoting their own video playback solutions or exerting control over the ecosystem. Some view this incident as part of a larger pattern of behavior by Unity, citing previous controversies and expressing concern about the company's commitment to open-source principles. This sentiment contributes to a broader discussion about the tension between open-source ideals and the business realities of companies utilizing open-source software.
A few comments address the technical aspects of the ban, discussing the implications of statically linking LGPL-licensed libraries. These comments touch upon topics like the potential for GPL "infection," the challenges of complying with LGPL requirements in closed-source projects, and the practical considerations of distributing software that incorporates open-source components.
Some commenters offer alternative explanations for the ban, speculating about potential patent issues or conflicts with Unity's internal libraries. However, these suggestions are generally presented as possibilities rather than definitive explanations.
Finally, a few comments focus on the practical impact of the ban for developers using both Unity and VLC. These commenters express frustration and concern about the disruption to their workflows and the lack of clear alternatives.
Overall, the comments paint a picture of a complex situation with technical, legal, and business implications. While the discussion acknowledges the complexities of open-source licensing, the dominant sentiment leans towards skepticism about Unity's motives and concern about their relationship with the open-source community.