Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Changing how we develop Ladybird

ladybird.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#251

Post by torben-friis »

patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

>But all now seems like a transition phase. Transition to f-ing what though?

It feels like being in the middle of a tornado. But I think it helps to turn off screens, sit in a desk, and calmly remember first principles and consider them slowly.

Quoting obama, "reality has a way of catching up with you".

I see a lot of talk, but iOS is not delivering a decade of features and fixes on each yearly release. Literally no one does, if anything people are complaining that existing functionality is breaking down. So it can't be true that we're at 10x productivity, and this fact will eventually catch up with us.

Let's be human, and remember that many people are emotionally invested. Juniors want this to be a chance to shine in a market that otherwise rejected them. CEOs placed their bet on AI and don't want to walk that back. Seniors want to signal that they are not obsolete. AI companies will poison discourse. But all this smoke will eventually clear.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#252

Post by patates »

BrissyCoder wrote: post #223
patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

[flagged]

I'm talking about Ladybird, AI and its effects on communities.

Stickers start conversations with people I have common interests with in unexpected places. I didn't know of this effect until I experienced it a couple of times, so that's why I keep them.

The reason I started was, to be completely honest with you, to show off my "skills" and beliefs. To be fair, I was much younger and naive.

Strong evidence against your implied accusation of me being insane is the fact that my licensed therapist not having me sent to an intensive psychiatry clinic yet. She says we'll be fine within the limited hours we get courtesy of the German health care system.

I do have ADHD and I do feel different all the time, and I tend to go off course when talking/writing, so maybe you mean that?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#253

Post by coldtea »

pulsartwin wrote: post #18

This seems quite misguided and is sad to see. They have every right to do this, but I was looking forward to continuing testing Ladybird as it improves and contributing in the future. I hope servo stays open to contributions, as it seems like it's all we have left.

>This seems quite misguided

Does it? Seems the only sane option. The other being being drowned in AI slop PRs.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#255

Post by jpc0 »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #170

> Ladybird remains open source. The source code will continue to be publicly available under an open source license. We usually call open source software without open collaboration source available software. This is terrible news, defeating core beliefs people had in Ladybird. Not an open browser I wished for.

    1. Free Redistribution
    2. Source Code
    3. Derived Works
    4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code
    5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
    6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
    7. Distribution of License
    8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
    9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
Open source has nothing to do with the right to contribute upstream. It's about you being able to use the software how you like and make changes to it and redistribute it.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#256

Post by hombre_fatal »

arzig wrote: post #246
hombre_fatal wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always seemed like a weird default to let people (esp strangers) submit PRs that weren't tied to an issue nor approved. What do you mean you just spent a week implementing something in secret? AI makes it extra silly because now you can craft up your unsolicited code change in minutes, making it extra obvious that code changes should spawn from real discussion and agreement. TFA is part of looking for new processe…

Good faith PRs were also suffering under the current model. Ive opened PRs by hand on small projects to try and fix personal issues that probably affected others. Then the PRs languish for months or in one case literal years under the deluge of ai slop being spammed at the repo. I’m not going to ping the maintainers constantly when I know they are struggling so I’m left running my fork and no one else gets the benefi…

Big projects pre-AI also can have hundreds of rotting PRs. It's a lot of work to go through them, and unsolicited PRs are kind of the wrong way to spend time as a maintainer.

AI just makes it so obvious how bad of a process it is that we can't ignore it anymore, and now we need to finally figure out good processes.

Even little stuff like: I've created issues on the Claude Code github that got agreement and then led to code changes. Why isn't there a default, built-in way for my issues to rise above the zero-effort chaff? If you finally do the work of vetting someone's PR, why isn't there a built-in (hidden) way to +1 someone so we can see that they have some reputation with the project on their future issues/PRs?

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#257

Post by ZenoArrow »

afandian wrote: post #136
dwaite wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really - it changes how the lines are drawn between components, rather than removing any of them. The EXT4 filesystem driver as an example contains most of the same code whether it is part of the kernel process or is a user process. A virtual filesystem abstraction is needed between the two in either case as well. The kernel also already has a module system to support loading externally maintained code. You won't…

Behind my question was another one: is there too much in the source tree that doesn't _strictly_ need to be? Maybe not? I just got the impression that there are a _lot_ of obscure drivers that have to be carried, and are eventually removed causing annoyance. An ABI for the people who cared about that random driver might localise the maintenance burden.

> An ABI for the people who cared about that random driver might localise the maintenance burden.

Yes, but one key reason that a stable ABI isn't provided for drivers is to help encourage companies that ship drivers to make their drivers open source. The idea being, if a driver is mainlined into the Linux kernel, the Linux developers will help maintain support for that driver, in exchange for it being released with an open source licence. There are companies (like NVIDIA) that ship closed source drivers for their devices, but they rely on a kernel-side shim that interacts with the userspace driver, and this is seen as second best compared to mainlining the driver in the kernel.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#258

Post by BrissyCoder »

patates wrote: post #252
BrissyCoder wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I'm talking about Ladybird, AI and its effects on communities. Stickers start conversations with people I have common interests with in unexpected places. I didn't know of this effect until I experienced it a couple of times, so that's why I keep them. The reason I started was, to be completely honest with you, to show off my "skills" and beliefs. To be fair, I was much younger and naive. Strong evidence against your…

[flagged]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#260

Post by dzonga »

patates wrote: post #131

When AI first happened, I was afraid I was going to eventually lose my job. And while I've been lucky since, many did, and that hurt a lot. When people are losing something to automation, regardless of the economics of the situation, you cheer for the humans, or at least hope that society keeps being fair to those who are most affected. Now I see communities being affected. When you kill PRs, you not only kill the co…

I think your response is reactionary.

how was open source managed before GitHub ? you had to find a mailing list, be involved in the mailing list - ask questions, make a proposal, then create code after -- code goes through x rounds in the mailing list. finally it is merged if it suits direction of the project.

this willy nilly of opening pr's while not being an active member of a community I would say decimated open source.

Post reply on HN