On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200 > <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 05:19:28PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 10:10:35 +0200 [...] > I think terming Google's decision to call software that doesn't > implement OAuth "less secure" "evil" is hyperbole [...] This nicely demonstrates my point: OAuth is a HTTP oriented access delegation protocol. Why should that be at all relevant, e.g. in the context of IMAP? > > In general, > > > > - dominance on the server (adwords, visibility in search engines...) > > and on the client (Chrome/Chromium, Android) side. > > I don't consider dominance gained largely through superior > technology and legitimate means "evil". Undesirable, yes. This misses the point. The fact that my favourite news"paper" has to embed Google trackers in its website to survive economically has nothing to do with technical superiority and all with market dominance. Not long ago, Microsoft was in this position. Remember when Internet Explorer was the dominant browser and everyone was hot on implementig ActiveX? [...] > > (I'm sure you can think of two or three more). > > > > IMO they're far too big. > > Agreed, but again, I don't think that makes them "evil". Call that what you want. I call this "emergent evil". And I definitely want it out of my cereal bowl :-) Cheers -- t
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature