7 ms·
That's exactly what parent is pointing out, it just flew over your head. People saying Unity was not a good choice because it's closed source and controlled by
by malermeister 3y ago
That's exactly what parent is pointing out, it just flew over your head.
People saying Unity was not a good choice because it's closed source and controlled by one private company were laughed off as ideologues. Then what they warned about happened.
Now the same kind of people are getting the same kind of response. Maybe that "ideology" is based on practical considerations after all?
- kelipso 3y agoAnything I don't like is ideology and contrarianism, sorry.
- p1necone 3y ago> People saying Unity was not a good choice because it's closed source and controlled by one private company were laughed off as ideologues. I kinda feel like including what Unity pulled recently in your "private company threat model" is a bit overkill - I'm generally comfortable assuming that private companies aren't going to do something quite that self destructive and braindead. Based on prior behaviour I wouldn't trust anything google develops to not get canned within a year or two, I'm very weary of anyone trying to monetize open source projects, and building a business on top of someone else's saas product seems pretty risky. But commercially licensed development tooling that I'm using to produce my own binaries is pretty low on my list of concerns - most companies aren't as bugfuck insane as Unity's current management seems to be. And just using some closed source product for which the switching cost is effectively zero (for me - see other comment in this thread about chat being ephemeral) seems like a no brainer.