On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 10:32:31 +0200 <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 09:15:45PM -0400, Celejar wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 23:43:35 +0200 > > <to...@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? >
I couldn't agree more. SMTP and IMAP have their own specs and any mail host that follows them is legit. Google is evil as it is monopolizing the market and following microsoft practices from 10-15 years back. Like either works with Google or we dont care. > > > 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 :-) And definitely is. I am happy that there are people out there recognizing it. > > Cheers > -- t Regards, -- Nektarios Katakis
