Linked by David Adams on Tue 13th Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Editorial I was reading today about how Linux Mint developers altered the Banshee music player source code to redirect affiliate revenue from Amazon music orders to them instead of Banshee. They've reportedly made less than $4, which has caused a kerfluffle among those paying attention to that corner of the world. But it raises a larger point that has been swirling around for a couple of decades: an OS vendor has a lot of power to influence, and even monetize their user base. Where should they draw the line?
Thread beginning with comment 500033
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jabbotts
Member since:
2007-09-06

I could bare to see a little more curation under Google's watch though. Apple's heavy handed marketing vetting and lacking security vetting is too much but Google's cavaleer "upload keys to the kingdom" aproach is far too unregulated given the amount of malware being pumped into repositories. Something closer to how Maemo repositories where managed would due; software was not blocked in the basis of competing with a Nokia/Maemo build function bit it did have to wait in the development repository until proven stable and unmalicious.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I was referring to the replacement of one linux distro, with another. With MS/Apple I'd be stuck if I wanted to change companies but stick with the same platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2