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

The Ladybird browser project

ladybird.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 293 posts

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#261

Post by jraph »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #231
jstanley wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you may have different ethical standards Isn't this the exact opposite of zealotry? Zealotry is imposing your ethical standards on others.

It's at least a form of _casual_ zealotry. "You may have different ethical standards" is clearly the author's passive-aggressive way of saying "your ethics might not be as righteous as mine", as opposed to "reasonable minds may disagree".

I certainly read this sentence as your second option. It may depend on the tone you imagine for Drew's sentence.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#262

Post by ambigious7777 »

F3nd0 wrote: post #249

I want to feel excited for Ladybird, but it's an incredible shame that such a promising and potentially very important project has settled on a pushover licence and Discord for their communication platform. The latter especially is an antithesis of freedom and openness, which I feel ought to be valued by people celebrating Ladybird's progress.

I may just be being dumb here, but what is a pushover license?

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#263

Post by SpecialistK »

ambigious7777 wrote: post #262
F3nd0 wrote: post #249

I want to feel excited for Ladybird, but it's an incredible shame that such a promising and potentially very important project has settled on a pushover licence and Discord for their communication platform. The latter especially is an antithesis of freedom and openness, which I feel ought to be valued by people celebrating Ladybird's progress.

I may just be being dumb here, but what is a pushover license?

Presumably a derogatory way of describing a permissive license, rather than a copyleft one.

It's a religious disagreement.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#264

Post by oblio »

paulddraper wrote: post #252
JimDabell wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What would be the alternative in your opinion? Force Apple to allow alternative rendering engines, but only the ones with People already mistake Blink-only APIs like Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web MIDI, etc. for web standards. The market is already dangerously close to where it was 20 years ago, where a vast number of web developers treat the most popular rendering engine as if it’s synonymous with the web. Handing mo…

How is that a law? That's just playing sides.

Playing sides for the small guy is fair.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#265

Post by F3nd0 »

ambigious7777 wrote: post #262
F3nd0 wrote: post #249

I want to feel excited for Ladybird, but it's an incredible shame that such a promising and potentially very important project has settled on a pushover licence and Discord for their communication platform. The latter especially is an antithesis of freedom and openness, which I feel ought to be valued by people celebrating Ladybird's progress.

I may just be being dumb here, but what is a pushover license?

A licence which grants you rights to the software, but allows you to strip them away in derivative works. This is in contrast to (for example) copyleft, which requires you to share with your users the same code and rights that you got to use, when distributing derivative works.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#266

Post by oblio »

npunt wrote: post #253
legacynl wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European Union is coming after apple.... seems short sighted I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the goals of the EU in this matter. The objective is not to keep both companies on even keel, but it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws. If this results in Google gaining a de-facto browser monopoly then those same laws can be used to break up that monopoly when we get to it. What would…

> it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws It's never ever that simple in politics, and this is about a new law (Digital Markets Act). Ask yourself: - How were all the terms in the Digital Markets Act determined? - Which players or initiatives were able to scoot by unnoticed (e.g. Chrome's grip on web standards)? - What is the interpretation of what constitutes a gatekeeper? (note: its actually 'gatek…

Spotify has been losing money from day 1. It also would not even make the US top 50 for tech companies, by revenue.

Booking.com is registered in the US...

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#267

Post by logicprog »

F3nd0 wrote: post #249

I want to feel excited for Ladybird, but it's an incredible shame that such a promising and potentially very important project has settled on a pushover licence and Discord for their communication platform. The latter especially is an antithesis of freedom and openness, which I feel ought to be valued by people celebrating Ladybird's progress.

The weird thing is, a couple years ago when I contributed a little bit to Serenity OS, they were actually using an IRC channel

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#268

Post by BlueTemplar »

talkingtab wrote: post #232

A thought experiment. What about a new kind of browser for a new kind of web? Much of CSS is obsolete. So doing a "modern" version (I'm thinking css grid and flex in particular) would provide the same functionality without the cruft. All that old stuff about the holy grail three columns layout. And for me there is the question of canvas, threejs, react-three-fiber and react-drei. Is it possible that - especially with…

> Who writes games

Please stop following Google who is trying to turn the Web into an OS for their own ad-fueled, user-tracking profit.

If you want to make connected (or not) apps, there's already the Internet and OSes for that. And you don't have to make your interface worse by fighting with the browser about it ! (Especially important for games and other "deep" software.)

The whole point of the Web is to be an hyperlinked collection of documents, sometimes multimedia, with maybe a little bit of interactivity with some forms and scripts sprinkled on that.

(As an example to how incongruous the current situation is, imagine a parallel universe where it was Adobe rather than Google that got humongous, and it was the JavaScript in PDFs that was (ab)used instead to make apps.)

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#269

Post by npunt »

oblio wrote: post #266
npunt wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is merely about enforcing existing anti-monopoly laws It's never ever that simple in politics, and this is about a new law (Digital Markets Act). Ask yourself: - How were all the terms in the Digital Markets Act determined? - Which players or initiatives were able to scoot by unnoticed (e.g. Chrome's grip on web standards)? - What is the interpretation of what constitutes a gatekeeper? (note: its actually 'gatek…

Spotify has been losing money from day 1. It also would not even make the US top 50 for tech companies, by revenue. Booking.com is registered in the US...

Ah you're right, though Booking.com started in and is headquartered in Netherlands, its part of Booking Holdings based in the US.

Spotify is definitely no money maker. That said, its market share alone would/should put it in the crosshairs of gatekeeping laws.

Re: The Ladybird browser project

#270

Post by F3nd0 »

_chu1 wrote: post #179
marginalia_nu wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, he's pretty committed to his positive utlook on things. Mastodon seems to be the far angrier place in comparison to Twitter. Twitter used to be a lot more like that, but it seems like most of the angriest people on twitter moved ot mastodon when Elon took over. It's (IMO) very pronounced and hard to avoid on Mastodon.

Not only that but the frontpage of Mastodon is more angry political stuff than anything technology related.

Frontpage of Mastodon? Just what exactly are you referring to? :o
Post reply on HN