Gentil

Rust foundation has not been very community friendly. That's cos corporates run it. There was a fork of the language called crab or something cos of this at one point. Take Linus out of the scenario, it's the same thing that's probable about Linux Foundation.

> Mozilla CEO

Laura Chambers is just an interim CEO. I am not sure how Mozill Foundation/Corporation is exactly linked in the decision making. But the key people are still Mark Surman and Mitchell Baker who is the Chairwomen of Mozilla Corporation.

If Laura is getting paid lots like Mitchell Baker, it is still an issue. But, wouldn't she be just a scapegoat? I am pretty sure as Chairwomen, Mitchell Baker still has more power than Laura the CEO when it comes to Mozilla Corporation. I have felt this is just to chill the uproar against Mitchell Baker. Now everyone will blame the next CEO. But I wonder how much power she has. I could be wrong of course.

Did I say anything is run poorly? Or good for that matter? The difference is intent. Run for community and run for corporate are both different. Currenlty Linus is the only thing standing in the way of LF pulling another Rust Foundation. Cos it's run by corporates as well. Time will tell.

Linux is a trademark of Linus. Which is why Linux Foundation which is run by corporates like Microsoft, Google etc is staying aside. After Linus, it would like corporate board memebers changing CEOs at their wish.

Let us donate directly to Firefox development. That is the solution. You don't have to look anywhere else. Thunderbird is a good example of what can be done when the donations reach the project. I just hope they don't screw it up as well. I have zero belief in Mitchell Baker and the Mozilla leadership. And every decision they did to screw MDN and Rust among other things puts their competition in a better position.

Unfortunately, I am done pretending otherwise. I haven't seen anything that is indicative of otherwise. Especially after acquiring a behavioural ads company. I will believe when they make decisions that aligns with it. Not with marketing materials saying otherwise or cos of whatever Firefox fans are left is saying. I stuck through the Firefox abandoned phase until Quantum release even for work. It's not cool that Mozilla is doing this.

It's interesting to note that Linux Foundation is not even mentioned anywhere in the discussions. It is all Linus Torvalds for people apparently. Linux Foundation and their corporate lawyers should be the ones who recommended this right?

Moreover, I am interested if this effects FreeBSD which is not run by corporates like Linux Foundation but is still US. And what about OpenBSD which is Canadian?

> That being said, it always irks me when people worship "philantropic" billionaires.

I hate that people are using philanthropic to describe Tatas. The western description about it is some random guy who made a lot of money and then later in life decides to do some charity BS for good PR.

66% of everything of revenues from Tata Group of companies goes to Tata Sons - which is a charity trust. Not to the boardroom. This is not some random billionaire paid some money for PR.

This is also why you are wrong. He was never a billionaire because the majority of the money didn't come to him. But to the different charities which opens high class cancer treatment hospitals and other charitable endeavours.

You should read up more about Tata. How they operate. Then you will understand Tata - the brand and the Tatas the people behind it.

The default expectation here means "doing the right thing while no one is looking". Ambanis is far far away from it.

I am sorry. Ambanis are not everyone's favourite. Definitely not even comparable to the Tatas. I can see why the hustle culture folks and fast money folks like ambanis. But that is not Shri Ratan Tata or Tatas at all.

I will quote Shri Ratan Tata himself: "They are business men(Referring to Ambanis). We are industrialists."

That quote properly differentiates the differences between them IMO. Not just the perception about them. But also how they think.

Probably. I don't think it's possible to please everybody. Also, under Rata Tata, Tata went truly global. I can only presume that it means increased responsibilities & increased issues. JRD Tata didn't go through the same problems as Ratan Tata did. And I don't mean that JRD Tata struggled less. Or more for the matter. The problems were simply different.

There is also the fact that we humans are connected 24/7 unlike previous generations. This also means you don't hear the negativity or problems like we do today about someone. This is the norm these days. If you need to find the same for older generations, you really need to dig through it.

I say this cos everyone I admire from yester generations come out with a lot more mistakes and issues as I learn more about them. I find it humane. It just makes them human. What I admire about Ratan Tata is that he tried to be better person. As much as he can. And he was one of the nicest human as well. That is enough. :)

I don't think people outside India understand what Tata means. Who Ratan Tata was. He was not some random rich person who did some philanthropy. ~66% of everything that Tata companies make goes back to philanthropy and the people of India. And these days to people where Tata companies operates (I presume). To the TATAs, people are of primary importance. They are a behemoth of a group comparable to Samsung or other big companies/conglomorates.

They don't deceive, they don't put money over people. Because their mission IS to the people. You can buy a Tata product with a level of trust that no other brand can provide. Seeing TATA along with a product is more than enough. They are the best definition of capitalism I have ever come across.

This is why you don't see Ratan Tatas in billionaire's list or rich people's list.

Everything India is because of the Tatas. They single handledly is responsible for building India's foundations. Whether it is in Health, Nuclear, Tech or anywhere. You will see Tata's presence everywhere.

I genuinely shed a tear today morning because of his passing. And I am not sure I would do the same for any other business man.

Today is indeed a sad day. May he rest in peace.

Yeah. But I guess that might change. They maybe trying to implement end-to-end encryption with the new talent pool.

Not OP. But why should I? It's a hassle to do migration. So if there is a non-vc funded choice, why would I bother with all the trouble?

OK. Now where do I learn all these functional aspect of UI/UX? I was thinking of following Human Interface Guidelines. But reading from people here, it just means the UI will look more uniform and fancy. The functionality aspect is not guaranteed.

Any resources someone can point me towards?

All services have permissible use clause in their terms & conditions. And if this is about cryptocurrencies and blockchain. It's absolutely a valid choice for a small service provider to block them. They are resource hungry and resource abusive. A small provider like SourceHut can't afford to take that unnecessary stress. VC funded or big players can. And they do that for easy, quick & short boost in money or marketing PR.

Also, I always have observed this. This reminds me. Not targeted at gray_-_wolf but a general observation which I just remembered...

There is a trend where people attack small actors/entities for smaller mistakes or opinions. But give free card to big players you cannot touch for atrocious BS. Because they are monopolies or filty rich.

Especially in tech, you don't talk shit about google or ms a lot publicly. Cos that makes you less hirable.

> but who is paying that for a blog or hobby site (or even some small businesses)?

I was trying to. I highly recommend you to bring back the paid plans. Just leave it as it was. Opt-in for personal and for small commercial websites, paid plan. Like someone else mentioned, for a business, invoices helps a lot to bill as expense if they want to pay you.

When I first added analytics to my website, I couldn't afford to pay for his then plan (There was a plan for opt-in pay for personal use and paid plan for commercial use. Or something of that sort IIRC). But when I move to a new gig, I wanted to pay for GoatCounter monthly plan but he stopped it in favour of github sponsors for some reason.

I highly recommend and wish he moved back to the old pricing where he was allowing people to use it for personal use but was charging for commercial use. And it was super flexible since if you couldn't afford it, he mentioned you can email. Many more would pay for sure.

We are currently in this mess off app store monopolies issue because of Google and Apple. PWA is trying to be the solution to this. Why would you upload it and repeat the same mistakes all over again?

It's like those people who use 2FA TOTP functionality along with the password managers. My friend, that defeats the whole purpose of 2FA. It's not just supposed to be an extra step, it is supposed to be isolated in another device from where your passwords are not. And 2FA's are NOT supposed to be in the cloud.

But this will happen. Because VC's will tell them to do this. And thus people it will eventually become a norm. sighs

I avoid using google wherever possible. Forget all the hate they get. Their customer service sucks making it harder to recommend any of their product. Then there is the fact that they will just kill the product any time.

If you are going to use google products, stick to dinosaur products like android, gmail etc. DO NOT EVER INVEST IN A NEW GOOGLE PRODUCT. It is just a matter of time before it disappears.

This has become a joke. The last project I had hold my breath for was Project Ara. And I don't plan to do that again.

I am not sure I can agree. What is stopping them from using only permissive license and adding attribution for all the licenses in a single long page? Nothing. This is not a technical issue.

This is the wrong way to look at it. This comes in the same line of saying "we need a new license for AI" argument. There is nothing stopping an LLM/AI from abiding the license. The OSS license can be used by AI's or LLM's as long as they comply with the terms.

A license exist with terms. You can abide the terms and use it. It doesn't matter whether an AI, a person or an alien from a distant planet is using it. They can follow the terms. This is not a technical challenge but arrogance to abide.

Also, are you saying a model like chatgpt can do so much complex tasks and text processing but can't recognise an OSS license text of 20ish lines?

> Are you claiming this because they used copyrighted material as training data? If so, I think you're starting from the wrong point.

All open source license comes under copyright law. It means if they violate the OSS license, the license is void and the tech/material becomes copyright protected. So yes, it would mean that it is trained on copyrighted material.

> Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses explicitly forbid using their code as training data.

It doesn't forbid. For example, permissive license like MIT can be used to train LLM's if they are in compliance. The only requirement when you train on a MIT licensed codebase is that you need to provide attribution. It is one of the easiest license to comply. It means, you just need to copy paste the copyright notice. The below is the MIT license of Emberjs.

Copyright (c) 2011 Yehuda Katz, Tom Dale and Ember.js contributors

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This copyright notice needs to be somewhere in ChatGPT's website/product to be in compliance with MIT license. If it is not, MIT license is void and you are violating the license. The end result is you are training on copyrighted material. I am more than happy to be corrected if you could find me any single OSS license attribution shown somewhere for training the openai model.

Also, this can be still be fixed by adding the attribution for the code that is trained on. THIS IS MY ARGUMENT. The absolute ignorance and arrogance is their motivation and agenda.

Which is why I am asking, WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM VIOLATING THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CHATGPT ENTERPRISE?

The ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses (including MIT license which needs attribution. Show me one single OSS project's license attribution before arguing please.) and is standing still. With the backing of microsoft, I am confused. What will happen if they violate their promise and train data selectively from competitors or potential small companies?

What is actually stopping them? Most companies won't have the fire power to go against microsoft backed openai. How can we ensure that they can't violate this? How can they be practically held accountable?

This as far as I am concerned is "Trust me bro!". How is it not otherwise?

I don't think google invokes confidence when it comes to customer support. Especially when it comes to occupying a small space on the internet.

Not to mention, I would be linking another thing with google. As an indieweb enthusiast, it just doesn't align with me. I also recommend against them because of privacy.

GoDaddy has never been a good domain registrar. They have horrible practices. Sell our data. And buy the domain you did a lookup for in their website and try to sell it to you for more money. Not a service to use in so many ways if you are looking for something dependent.

Namecheap is good. Their customer support has been reliable in two instances I needed it.

And I know you shouldn't use GoDaddy and Google domains. Also, any place which is going to lock your domain and data. Keep this in your basic checklist. :)

I am a big fan of XFCE and I can agree with biggunz. Thunar freaks out randomly. And there were some other issues which I don't remember. Thunar was always the most important one I remember. Talking about the reality shouldn't be the reason for downvotes.

It went on for a few years before it was fixed. In the meantime, I went to i3wm and started using PCManFM. Came back to Thunar after a year or so. But the issue still persisted so went for a while to Nautilus. Only recently was this fixed(I think last year or so?).

KDE is not buggy for most of it's core part and uses less or similar resources wrt XFCE. I use XFCE components cos it's interchangeable and can be used as independent components... Without dragging in a ton of dependencies like in a KDE component.

Am happy as there is a significant improvement in UX with the recent minor/major releases. So am happy and back to using XFCE components.

People who are ranting about PHP should know that it still powers a significant portion of the internet. The nodejs, deno and bun are an evolving space. If you want to take that train, that is definitely a good idea as it is HOT and popular now. But not everyone wants to you know.

PHP is one of those "boring technologies". Mature, slow paced and reliable tech. It has fixed a lot of the real issues which made it a meme language. If you are writing JS in the front, PHP is very similar and easy to pick up.

For people who are looking for a more mature and slow moving area, they could just fall back to PHP. Or try Laravel which adds some hotness to it.

TIL about the LED thought. As a person who is infront of the computer for most of his day, only recently have I taken lighting extremely strict.

I am not sure if everyone will do the same. The whole reason behind dark themes and working at night and why they are also popular paints a good picture or hind on how serious people are about lighting. :/

But didn't another study conclude that giving kids mobile at early age makes their eyes don't grow well with their eye being short sighted easily?

I mean it makes sense. I used to run around outside and play sports through my vacations. Current generation for the majority are looking at screens and are indoors.

Isn't that an disadvantage for the kid and hence linked to their well being?

TLDR: So Firefox is trying to cater to general audience NOW. To increase the user base with features and what not. But a noteworthy amount of them have already left Firefox cos of inconvenience and broken websites. And they definitely are pissing their current loud and vocal "power users" with MDN layoffs and many more reasons.

I see that the main comment is about why Firefox is hated/losing market share. Let me try and share my guess/assumption. I could be wrong. So do share any counter opinions you may have.

People really do forget that Firefox is more than just a piece of software. Firefox stands for privacy, ethics and a lot more. It's user base and the community around it is looking for something that is far more than a piece of software based on technical merit. Keep this in mind as you read the rest.

When Firefox quantum was released, I had just moved to Chrome finally. It had just been a month or so. Before quantum, Firefox was horrible, slow and bulky. Firefox lost majority of the "average" users around this point. Because many websites broke with important things like Google Meet not working.

This left Firefox with a user base of enthusiasts and privacy nerds or power users. For good chunk of the userbase who are very local. Firefox has been ignoring the community and things like MDN layoff while CEO is getting paid is not a good mark.

How community volunteers are ignored is a good thing to keep in mind. I will not go there. Research them. A lot of community volunteers have posts about it. Keep in mind that Mozilla is still spending a crazy amount and wasting money on these events while ignoring what made it good. Money that they don't have.

And now, Firefox enthusiasts are perplexed on why Firefox is not gaining any ground. We should stop looking at it from technical merit alone. Then you will have the answer.

I don't see Firefox as some great movement for freedom anymore due to current leadership. While I understand the need for a browser with a different browser engine, I am not at all invested on Firefox emotionally. A lot of the conversations I recently have with others says the same. They like me are ready to ditch Firefox any day.

That being said, let me clarify that Firefox is really good these days. But I do think it might be really late to get a noticeable amount of general audience.