> It is better to let everyone speak and everyone to make their own decisions
Majority of the people simply trust the media they like or get used to. They usually assume news from these channels have been fact-checked or are trustworthy but we all know messages can be crafted in different ways.
In other words, the media can potentially/likely manipulate how people think and make decisions.
>They usually assume news from these channels have been fact-checked or are trustworthy
I think this is irrelevant. People will listen to what they like to hear or what matches what they already think. NOBODY is exempt from this, I dont care how smart you think you are.
Not sure how this counters my point at all. Mozilla wants to eat his cake (we are the champions of Privacy) and have it (yes the most Privacy destroying corporation on Earth is funding us so we never mention them anywhere as if they are not involved in what we do).
Completely, utterly hypocritical. I'm sorry if you are blind to it.
Unfortunately it costs a lot of money to develop a modern browser and your only alternative browser developer which isn't an ad company, isn't dependent on ad company money and didn't base its browser on one developed by an ad company is Apple.
Or there's the actual middle ground of using Firefox and trying to get more information on why something is the way it is and understanding what's going when something looks wrong to you rather than making assumptions and using that to label people hypocrites.
If you know something, feel free to say so. Otherwise you're just one more person on the internet spreading FUD instead of knowledge about one more company. We have enough of that already, don't we?
It's arguable since it's "donation" so one may expect to get the full donation instead of 30% cut by google but one may argue what exactly is (or isn't) a donation.
I’m not sure why you’d expect to not pay a fee. Google’s expenses are the same for apps that take a charge as those that take a donation. Credit card processors charge the same fees on donations.
A donation doesn’t magically make everyone else work for free.
> Credit card processors charge the same fees on donations.
Yes, they charge 1/10 of what Google charges. The 30% has nothing to do with how much it cost them to run the service, so let's not pretend that they _have_ to charge them.
(I'm not saying they should offer cheap/free donations, I just don't think it's fair to talk about how much it costs them to run the service given that that's clearly not the driving factor)
With Kong Studio, they're now competing head to head with apiary, swaggerhub, stoplight.io, postman and more. Looks like Kong wants to be the king in API.
More competitions in the API space is good for the developers.
I think it's very clever move. Looks like Istio & Envoy is becoming the standard for service mesh and Kong needs to do something about it. Tapping into the Envoy community is definitely a nice try and not everyone likes Istio.
If Kuma gains traction, they can later offer additional capabilities in Kuma to swap Envoy with Kong (their API gateway) as my guess is that Kong API gateway is their cash cow at the moment. (of course they can potentially make money from Kuma via enterprise support, training, etc if Kuma goes mainstream).
These are purely my guess. From a user point of view, not a bad idea having Kuma in addition to Istio and other open-source/commercial alternatives.
[1] https://developer.foursquare.com/