21–30 of 170 posts
The reason I am asking is that I see volunteering time for extremely wealthy big corporations as foolish.
At very least developers should get together and lobby that if big corporations use open source software, they should be paying royalties to contributors.
That said, if you look at volunteering time, it is much better to do it for charities that often struggle getting competent IT people, but of course it is not as glamourous.
Congratulations! And thank you for the great write-up. I work with the Chromium code base a lot, and it can indeed be daunting. I use Sublime Text, which treats the code as plain text, apart from syntax highlighting. But it's also possible with at least VS Code to get some more intelligence, such as going to the definition or declaration of a function, etc. People who have now become interested in creating their own…
> you will (...) want to change the name of your browser [to] "Browser of Bliss" instead of as "Chromium". You will find that this is already hard to do. The browser name is hard-coded in many places in the millions of lines of Chromium source code. (...) Viasat are offering a (...) fork called Rebel that makes this easier
I am surprised that kind of change has not been upstreamed, or is Google actively working against forks?
Congratulations! And thank you for the great write-up. I work with the Chromium code base a lot, and it can indeed be daunting. I use Sublime Text, which treats the code as plain text, apart from syntax highlighting. But it's also possible with at least VS Code to get some more intelligence, such as going to the definition or declaration of a function, etc. People who have now become interested in creating their own…
From your post > you will (...) want to change the name of your browser [to] "Browser of Bliss" instead of as "Chromium". You will find that this is already hard to do. The browser name is hard-coded in many places in the millions of lines of Chromium source code. (...) Viasat are offering a (...) fork called Rebel that makes this easier I am surprised that kind of change has not been upstreamed, or is Google activel…
Also, for example the browser name appears in a lot of places. It is very hard to fully extract it into a single configurable option.
Have you got paid for this? The reason I am asking is that I see volunteering time for extremely wealthy big corporations as foolish. At very least developers should get together and lobby that if big corporations use open source software, they should be paying royalties to contributors. That said, if you look at volunteering time, it is much better to do it for charities that often struggle getting competent IT peop…
Have you got paid for this? The reason I am asking is that I see volunteering time for extremely wealthy big corporations as foolish. At very least developers should get together and lobby that if big corporations use open source software, they should be paying royalties to contributors. That said, if you look at volunteering time, it is much better to do it for charities that often struggle getting competent IT peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The changing bit is at the beginning, unless I misunderstand you. Worker and Worklet are primitives, you can't really split them up. You can't have a LetWorkGlobalScope and an ErWorkGlobalScope, so WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope is the best you can do. That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back…
I think subconsciously I look to the end to find differences too. So maybe I'd prefer er/let to come last
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The changing bit is at the beginning, unless I misunderstand you. Worker and Worklet are primitives, you can't really split them up. You can't have a LetWorkGlobalScope and an ErWorkGlobalScope, so WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope is the best you can do. That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back…
> That said, I usually prefer the changing bit at the end. So something like GlobalScopeForWorker, GlobalScopeForWorklet. But then that's clunky, so we're back at WorkerGlobalScope and WorkletGlobalScope again. I've done this and it's always ended up biting me in the ass when I want to auto-complete and have 9 million "GlobalScope..." to chose from. Which is where "Work..." becomes handy.
Not that I really see away around it, given the size and feature set of Chrome, but those build requirements are just crazy. It kinda throws the open source and "everyone can contribute" model out the window, if you can't afford a pretty insane workstation then you're going to have a bad time. I doubt that Firefox is better, I seem to remember that building Firefox and the VIA C3 processor years back as around half a…
Firefox builds are seemingly more modular. I was hacking on the Firefox devtools a while back, which from source involved downloading a pre-build main brower binary and building just devtools from your source. This made it significantly faster due to not having to build the rest of Firefox from source. Of course, this will all depend on which part of the source code you're changing.
And at the same time, reading the code in question and putting myself into the position of a person writing the code, I would totally have thought that I'm handling the "is there a global scope" case, totally forgetting that the same check is also checking the "is the global scope a `WorkerGlobalScope`" condition but mixing both checks into a single return value.
And here we are with the code happily chugging along and (for all intents and purposes) causing data corruption (by causing network requests to not be logged and not respect policy).
And here I was thinking that `if let` is fixing exactly this problem while also providing the best ergonomics.
So here we are back to the drawing board, ready for the next pattern which will compromise on ergonomics in some as-yet unknown way in the future.
Interesting to read all of this. Bugs in more obscure areas being open for years is something I am pretty familiar with, although then on the Firefox side of things. I personally never have been able to muster up the courage or energy to try and dive into the code base there, though. Part of that is simply because such a huge code base is daunting to delve into. But an even bigger stumbling block was always the prosp…
> Certainly with Mozilla the interactions I have had on Bugzilla with various people there as well as in other places simply made me decide to work around the issues. Can you elaborate on your experience?
What it mostly comes down to is that communication several times seemingly seemed a one way street. Where I provided information (often explicitly asked for) only to be effectively ghosted. Not in the sense that I was dealing with busy people where it just took time for them to get back to it again. But really getting no response at all. Often when I then did follow up on it (several months later) I would see the bugzilla ticket change a tag or some other meta attribute but nothing more.
To be clear, this isn't even unique to Mozilla/Firefox. I had similar experiences on other open source projects, although it differs really per project. It is more that with something as big as a browser, where setting up the development environment can already take up the better part of a day, it becomes an extra barrier for even trying.