We are excited to announce that Arch Linux is entering into a direct collaboration with Valve. Valve is generously providing backing for two critical projects that will have a huge impact on our distribution: a build service infrastructure and a secure signing enclave. By supporting work on a freelance basis for these topics, Valve enables us to work on them without being limited solely by the free time of our volunteers.
This opportunity allows us to address some of the biggest outstanding challenges we have been facing for a while. The collaboration will speed-up the progress that would otherwise take much longer for us to achieve, and will ultimately unblock us from finally pursuing some of our planned endeavors. We are incredibly grateful for Valve to make this possible and for their explicit commitment to help and support Arch Linux.
These projects will follow our usual development and consensus-building workflows. [RFCs] will be created for any wide-ranging changes. Discussions on this mailing list as well as issue, milestone and epic planning in our GitLab will provide transparency and insight into the work. We believe this collaboration will greatly benefit Arch Linux, and are looking forward to share further development on this mailing list as work progresses.
While I disagree with the other commenter’s approach and attitude, he/she/they are partially correct with the comment they left next to this one.
There is no legal obligation for a company to fund or assist its competition, even if it holds a significant marketshare. The companies that do help their competition, like Microsoft with Apple in 1997 or Google with Mozilla today, begrugingly choose to do it so their lawyers can make the argument that they are not a monopoly because they still have competition.
If they’ve already been deemed a monopoly? Sure. That’s a response to anticompetitive behavior.
Don’t know anything about that.
That’s funny because this is the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting. This is not helping their competition, this is paying another company hundreds of million dollars to be anticompetitive against their competition. They paid Mozilla (and dozens of others) to be the default search engine. Its the exact anticompetitive behavior that caused them to be legally classified as a monopoly.
https://wccftech.com/microsoft-invested-150-million-in-apple-27-years-ago-today-on-august-6/
Google has multiple ventures: advertising, search engine, email, web browser, cloud storage, cloud infrastructure, etc.
I’m not saying they don’t get any other benefit from paying Mozilla. I’m saying that one of the reasons Google shovels money in their direction is to stop regulators from having a reason to take a closer look at Chrome’s dominance.
In terms of browser engines, we have: Blink (Chromium), WebKit2 (Safari), and Gecko (Firefox). WebKit2 is exclusive to Apple devices, which leaves Blink and Gecko as the only two browser engines available on Windows and Linux. If Mozilla went bankrupt and stopped developing Gecko, Google’s Blink engine would have no competition on non-Apple platforms, which would invite some regulatory scrutiny.
No it’s not. In fact, GNOME’s default browser uses WebKit, which is also FOSS since it was forked from the LGPL KHTML.
WebKit, or WebKit2? Last I checked, which was a year or so after WebKit was transitioned to a multi-process architecture, smaller FOSS browsers were stuck with the older single-process WebKit.
That must have changed since then, but if not, I can’t imagine a forked single-process WebKit has successfully kept up with new web features introduced since.
Both, since WebKit2 was renamed to WebKit the same year iOS Safari started using WebKit2, while WebKit1 was renamed to something something legacy. As an LGPL project, there’s no reason WebKit2 would be restricted to Apple.
And anyways, we do have proof: GNOME Web uses https://webkitgtk.org/, which has clear evidence of using WebKit 2.
Didn’t know about the MS/Apple thing, thanks.
I hardly think this could be considered “helping” Apple.
I really don’t think they do. And the contracts reflect as much.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with my point that no companies have an obligation to help their competition, which you’ve already agreed with, so maybe I’m missing your point.
No, yeah. We both agree here. Zero obligation for a company to help it’s competition, and the likely reason they would ever do it is either to profit or avoid regulatory scrutiny.