They're mostly reacting to the title, because that's all that most HN comments react to. This is a much stronger effect than I think people realize.

Had the title said "Min, a first attempt at a minimal browser that we hope might have some value someday, perhaps you could take a look", commenters would bend over backwards to find nice things to say, because that would be the only way to contradict the title.

Actually the nice comments mostly come up for the same reason as the harsh ones—contradicting what someone else said. First the harsh comments contradict the title and then the nice comments contradict the harsh ones. Contradictions R us.

Edit: I started calling this the contrarian dynamic: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

This is by no means specific for HN.

For example, a popular German radio moderator and podcaster once said:

"If I want to learn something about a topic, and ask a question on air, almost nobody answers. But if instead I make a false (or naive) claim about that topic, I receive lots of replies correcting me, and might even get an interview with an actual expert on that topic."

[Holger Klein, paraphrased, rough translation]

Yup, and Cunningham's Law also.

You're right about most generalizations about HN; I've noticed they're either false or "too true", as in they apply to much larger sets and therefore say little about HN specifically.

Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Klein rediscovered Cunningham's Law without noticing.

Yeah, it's all about framing. Subconsciously, I want titles and comments to reflect the world as I see it. I'll comment if I feel that the title is overly generous, or overly critical.

You're wrong.

(I was joking)

Isn't it great, though, that we hold FLOSS projects to the same standards as the big-bucks closed software?

Why shouldn't they be? If scoped correctly to the resources of the maintainers there is no reason that open source software can't be just as good as "big-bucks closed software".

Yes, this means more focused product, that doesn't do ALL THE THINGS!!! but does a few things really well. That type of software is exactly why I use the Mac. There's a ton of indy developers out there making absolutely kick-ass focused software for it, and they do so on incredibly tight budgets. There's no reason OS software can't or shouldn't be held to high standards.

There's literally no reason the quality of the core functionality of any project can't be as good. In fact it's probably easier for an open source dev to guarantee high quality stuff if they only get off their asses and write tests. This is their passion project after all. They _should_ care about the quality of the code more because it's their baby, not just a paycheck.

Most of the open source projects out there have crap UI & UX but it's not like it's terribly hard for a geek to find a friend with decent UI skills (UX is a bit harder) and ask them to mock some stuff up for them, and then implement it. Or you know, use the $$ programmers get paid (relative to most everyone else) to hire a professional to design it.

Note: to be clear, there are many OS things out there that are just some quickie tool someone threw together and are being kind enough to share. I've got a pile of these and I have NO problem with stuff like that being somewhat rough. There's a difference between quick and dirty scripts and things that are trying come across as, and be treated as a polished product.

It doesn't add any value, compared to Chrome and does a very bad job at selling itself.

Find anything instantly -> Chrome does this already.

Effortless tab management -> Someone's favorite plugin gone native, I don't need or want this. Does CERTAINLY not belong in a raw browser.

Built-in ad blocking -> A very little bit useful. Does not belong in a raw browser though.

Fast and efficient -> Dubious claim. How did you measure it?

Open-Source software -> I don't care.

Who are you to judge what belongs in a raw browser? What belongs in a browser is simply what the developers want. A "raw" browser as you say, would just be the HTML and JS engine? No need for any navigation!

It seems like this comment is a little understated. Maybe the commenter could think more about how to catch the attention if the persons he/she wishes to target. /s