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

591–600 of 602 posts

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#591

Post by account42 »

TeriyakiBomb wrote: post #141

It's inevitable that more projects follow this path. The elephant in the room is so many projects already operate like this without formally announcing it. If you look at Blender, one of the biggest and most successful OSS projects out there, it's effectively run as source available. Some PRs make it through, but for the most part there have been heavy barriers to entry to get your work into the product. In this exam…

It's not "source available", that term already has a different meaning. The cathedral development model doesn't make the result any less open source or free software.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#592

Post by nunez »

jatora wrote: post #563
nunez wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every like to an AI-generated work is (literally!) one more data point in support of record labels dropping human artists for AI artists that will do what they want, perform where they want, and give all of their profits back to the label. Movie studios are "signing" AI artists from AI studios for massive dollars; this is happening. Maybe you don't care, but music is beautiful and difficult, and I really enjoy hearin…

I dont think AI music proliferation is in favor of music studios at all, hence why they want to crush it by all means necessary. You should question your stance when you find yourself on the same side as the MPAA/RIAA/etc. I am in favor of being able to find music I like, with the least friction possible, without fueling the legacy music industry that is inflated far beyond reasonability.

AI music is EXCELLENT for the labels.

They (theoretically) have the physical infrastructure and capital to produce entirely AI-generated records, master and press them, promote and market them, retain an in-house band to play the record and book venues for them to play in (see also: Live Nation/Ticketmaster).

The members of the band are replaceable, thus capping the compensation ceiling.

The label retains almost all of the revenue end-to-end in this model. No messy contracts (except to AI providers).

Why would they invest in human talent that has needs, like, idk, sleep, when they can have AI-generated artists that can be available any time for any reason? (Lots of people don't care where their music comes from, unfortunately, and Spotify, the biggest streaming app, is already working hard to desensitize people to AI-generated tracks.)

This is already happening:

- https://www.ohio.edu/news/2025/07/your-new-favorite-band-may...

- Even Timbaland (very successful producer in the 2000s) started an AI-only label: https://www.thefader.com/2025/07/25/imoliver-human-ai-music-...

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#593

Post by boutell »

Recently I got a PR that is (1) genuinely correct and useful, and (2) not from someone who uses the software in question at all. A happy outcome, but clearly the economics of open source contribution have changed.

Although I no way suspect this particular individual of anything untoward, of course it's always possible it could be part of one of the long-term goodwill-generation campaigns mentioned by the Ladybird team. Generating credibility by making seemingly difficult genuine contributions over a long period, then abusing that credibility. But in our particular project we're not in the habit of delegating approval authority, so I'm less concerned about that.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#594

Post by einpoklum »

domenicd wrote: post #80

Fascinating to see that Chromium/Gecko/WebKit are now more "open" browser engines than Ladybird, at least in one important respect. (Servo is arguably in the middle, accepting outside contributions as long as you don't use AI.) It's understandable that a team without much funding would have to close off contributions to spare on labor costs. But, it makes me feel that people don't give Google/Mozilla/Apple enough cre…

> Chromium/Gecko/... Are now more "open" browser engines than Ladybird

Chromium? You mean the browser engine controlled by the Be-Evil corporation Google, which recently killed support for a huge swatch of important extensions (manifest-v2)? And thus prevents much of adblocking?

Gecko... now that's something less people are aware of, but let's just say if you know how the Mozilla ecosystem is governed internally, I believe you would be rather aghast.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#595

Post by [deleted] »

duskdozer wrote: post #168
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…

You can stop at any time. It's an unfortunate reality that many will not pay much mind as long as it's other people who are being harmed, but why support something morally and financially when it's now destroying something you personally care about?

[deleted]

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#598

Post by Anamon »

jatora wrote: post #332
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…

> Also: I liked a song and it was sonos. I unliked it after discovering. I feel so stupid, so often. This is asinine. Keep depriving yourself of things you enjoy I guess?

That's like saying it's irrational to disregard a news report after finding out it was fake. You believed it and found it interesting at the time. Why would knowledge about it being untrue change that?

Because we don't read reports just to have something to read, we do because we want to learn something about the world. And actual music fans don't listen to music just to drown out the silence, they want to listen to what another human being has to say, someone with their own history, experiences, views on life and the world, something to say and the creativity to express it in an interesting way. It makes absolute sense to be pissed off at something artificially generated, devoid of any intent or meaning, statistically generated based on a mass-pirated library of real musicians' work, skinsuiting as music with content.

I admit there are situations where music is used just to have sound, and some people just want to have something on in the background without having to pax attention to it. And one could lament or not the fact that humans are no longer really necessary to produce vapid muzak. But going by the GP's words, I don't think that that's what they were doing or looking for.

Re: Changing how we develop Ladybird

#599

Post by Anamon »

maplethorpe wrote: post #353
efficax wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> open your repo to the public, and have a stream of code flow in from millions of contributors. More code than you could ever write in ten lifetimes, uploaded to your repository in a matter of days. why would you want this. this sounds terrible

It would be free labour! Truly crowd-funded development. I'm picturing something like folding@home, but where people donate their spare tokens to a service, and those tokens get distributed amongst all open source projects on GitHub. You don't think that would be cool? Like, someone might initialise a repo with only a readme and a to do list before they go to sleep, and then wake up to a complete software ecosystem t…

You write "so much code that no one person could possibly understand it" as if it was a good thing. Surely, you're being sarcastic?
Post reply on HN