And who is forcing anybody to use Gnome3?

A better question is why does it matter. Nobody is forcing systemd on distros. They are free to use whatever init system them want. The only reason this is an issue is because debian change to it and all of the derivatives, including the *buntus are now changing because of debian's change. However, nobody is forcing anybody downstream to change.

Distros are free to use whatever init system they want. Now, if they don't want to expend the effort and use the upstream init system, well, that is a design decision on their part. But, they aren't being forced into it.

Because when gmail came out, Google wasn't a major player and there were already other free mail services. As for Youtube, didn't they buy them out?

Actually, their cash cow is selling information. Search is just how the primary way they obtain it.

Your reasoning sounds very similar to what Microsoft said about internet explorer vs Netscape in the 90s. Maybe what makes such giving the service for free anti-competitive is the market share of the the one giving it away. Obviously Google and Amazon are huge players in the market. If giving their stuff for free eliminates the other competition, then it can be anti-competitive.

Walmart did this in its early expansion days. They would come into a small town sell products much cheaper than any other store and once those stores closed, WMs prices were raised. What's to keep Google or Amazon from doing the same thing?

When you are the little guy, it is permissible to undersell to gain market share. When you have the majority of the market, and you decide to do so usually means there are other motives.

Why anybody would be worried about those groups or any other boggles the minds. If the content isn't illegal, then why censor it? Surely if kids are smart enough to be in college, they are smart enough to hit a delete key for content they don't want.

Maybe tech firms should hold on to some those dividends paid to shareholders and use them to train their employees if the employees are just "sort of ok." Or, maybe the government should say for every foreign worker you higher, you need to pay 20% of gross wages and benefits into a fund that will be used to train those "sort of ok" workers. That way, the short-term solution of hiring foreign workers leads to a long term domestic solution. It also keeps companies from having a windfall profit from the practice.

Maybe he should teach about how not to run a company into the ground by going over his tenure at Msoft.

It doesn't matter what you believe, only what the law/courts say. There are ample court cases, most of it under state sales and use tax laws to show that electronic content is not a sale but a contract agreement to use it. That's one of the reasons there are federal proposals to tax edelivery of content -- because current tangible property laws don't apply. It has nothing to do with the RIAA or MPAA. It has to do with 200 years of property law. Like all laws, if you don't like it, work to change it.

It has nothing to do with the RIAA. An mp3 file is not considered tangible personal property, the media it is on is, however. It is also not considered real property (ie land and buildings). As such, there is nothing to transfer or inherit. Now, if the files are stored on a local computer, that is personal property and you can inherit that. However, your remote hosted drive is not owned by you and cannot be inherited.

I can buy a book and somebody can inherit it. I cannot buy a pattern of electrons called an ebook and somebody inherit it. You can only inherit tangible personal or real property. An ebook or other electronic media may have a license that allows it to be assigned to another person, in which case somebody else may have access to it after your death, but 1) most do not and 2) if they do, you still don't inherit it. Like the original purchaser, you don't own it, you just have a license to use it.

Unfortunately, it does. You also don't usually buy software. It may look like a sale and even be called a sale, but you are accepting a license to use the product in a manner that the owner of the product deems appropriate. If it were a true sale, you would be the owner and thus could do with it whatever you want. Also, for a sale to take place, there has to be an exchange money for tangible property. Electronic distribution has already been determined by the courts not to be tangible personal property, so again, there cannot be a sale.

In reality, it makes no difference what the transaction is called, it is all about who retains ownership and with electronic content, it is not, usually, the person paying for it.

Ebboks, movies, etc. are not personal property. They are simply licenses to view the copyrighted content. Physical books, on the other hand are tangible property and can be given, willed, etc. Until the license agreements change, it won't matter what Delaware's law says. You cannot inherit from the deceased what is not theirs in the first place.

The deceased, unless they created the music, does not own the music. The purchased a license for them to listen to the music. Same with ebooks. You aren't buying anything, you are licensing the content. Most of these things are licensed to specific users (the one paying the fee) and are not licensed where anyone can use it as long as it is only one person at a time (although some are). However, the deceased party created the music, or photos or whatever, then they, as copyright owner, do own it. That is of course unless the service you turned it over to includes that you transferred copyright to them.

In short, except for user created content, there is no electronic data to inherit.

If you are having surgery and the mortality rate is 1 in 4000 (0.025%) those are excellent odds. Usually surgical mortality rates vary between 1% and 6% depending on the procedure.

The real problem is that the goal of most IT companies is to maximize profit in the short term. As such, engineers, like most employees are just a resource to be consumed. This isn't unique to IT companies, but it is most obvious there because many are started by venture capitalists who want to make their money and run. While engineers focus on quality solutions, the typical VC wants quick results at a low cost. The old adage of fast, quality, and cheap are at play in the IT world and you can't have all three.