I understand where you're coming from, but "open source" does not mean "I can read the source". If that were the definition, then Windows 2000[1] is open source.
That qualifies as Open Source under any reasonable definition of the word [1].
So being Open Source is no argument for or against either Adblock Plus or ublock origin, because both are.
The OSI definition of "open source" is not the only definition. I would argue that most people see "open source" as software where the source is "visible" (no data to back that up).
Then you have a gazillion of "Open source licenses", that can be less "free" to more "free", like BSD, GNU, MIT, Apache, the free source license, ...
My definition of open source is software where I can modify the source and use the resulting modified software without unnecessary roadblocks or fear of legal reprisal.
By open source, most people mean that the source is free to redistribute legally. The OSI definition is more formal. The source being viewable is not enough to qualify it as being open source.
the only thing I can think off right now is that the http "Host" header field is not sent. I have several sites on the same server and Nginx is used as a reverse proxy and uses the Host field to redirect traffic to different ports.
I support it 100%. I love Google but they have too much power and I'm sure they'll start taking advantage of that soon (like they did with Google+ and Youtube).
I can't see it being much better I find Wikipedia impartiality lacking it's very US-centric.
For example something like the history of the Alaskan panhandle as seen from the US perspective is totally different when seen from a Canadian perspective.
I never use Wikipedia as a primary source of info even the linked sources I try to use as least three independent sources.
I would certainly like to see "Reliable and trustworthy information" but who do I trust who is reliable?
I don't know if you can trust anyone, I mean bias is everywhere. You can pick a side.
For example the Portuguese Wikipedia, shared by Brazil, Portugal (and other countries), with controversial matters many on colonization in the last 500 years, where both sides have academic work to support their contradictory views. Which views prevail?
An example of things being done differently are some Ex-Yugoslav countries (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, etc) whose languages are more similar than Portuguese and Brasilian Portuguese, and each one has its own Wikipedia, with different articles on the same subject depending on their point of view. Lately, I've been seeing more of the Serbocroatian Wikipedia, which I think aims to unite more of the others.
I don't know which way is better, I'm just a user.
Another reason you can't trust anyone, and this is general to the Internet, is that shilling, commercial and political interests aiming to change perception are everywhere. On reddit or facebook, with or without sources. It's the worst aspect of the internet for me these days.
Google has been the dominant search engine for a solid 12 years. They have a practical monopoly. They're under constant anti-trust scrutiny - of one form another - in all of their major markets. And you think they're going to start taking advantage (as in particularly egregious behavior) of their position soon?
No need. It's generating $23 billion per year in operating income and growing. There are no serious challengers. It's far more likely their search engine will be constrained under piles of government oversight in the coming years. About the time governments start worrying about products like this in tech, is about the time they're just beginning to become less central. The exact same thing happened to both IBM and Microsoft.
