Arch Linux and Valve Collaboration - Arch-dev-public - lists.archlinux.org
lists.archlinux.org

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.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nlEnglish
    0·
    1 month ago

    If they’ve already been deemed a monopoly? Sure. That’s a response to anticompetitive behavior.

    like Microsoft with Apple in 1997

    Don’t know anything about that.

    Google with Mozilla today

    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.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 month ago

      like Microsoft with Apple in 1997

      https://wccftech.com/microsoft-invested-150-million-in-apple-27-years-ago-today-on-august-6/

      Google with Mozilla today

      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.

      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.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nlEnglish
        0·
        1 month ago

        Didn’t know about the MS/Apple thing, thanks.

        When it was time to sell, Microsoft pocketed a sweet $550 million, making it more than a three-times multiple.

        I hardly think this could be considered “helping” Apple.

        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.

        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.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 month ago

          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.