I realize I'm opening up myself to more, but hell it ain't about the karma.
Nothing's wrong with being for-profit. Redhat's for profit, I like them. What I don't like is the cut of David's gib in this David and Goliath story.
If Adobe turned to Ubuntu and said "Hey, don't put our plugin in your repositories, we want to spam mcaffe at linux users". That would be a really good reason to get the pitchforks and torches out! Adobe is instead responding to another for-profit company who's removing adobe's advertisement in place of their own.
The consumer gains a little from this, yah they're less obnoxious, but they're still selling package management, what I would argue a fundamental operation in an OS, for the low low price of only 9.99.
This article is angry at Adobe for making Windows hard to use by baiting users. Ninite is guilty of the same crime, even if it's to a lesser extent.
Technically only the Mozilla Foundation is non-profit. The Mozilla Corporation which is the organization that has the deal with Google about the search feature, and is the one which distributes common versions of Firefox is not non-profit. Granted Mozilla Corporation is owned by Mozilla Foundation, but still, this just shows that in non-non-profits organizations the decisions are governed by owners, for better or for worse.
