nsmartt

And that’s exactly what we’re dealing with. Not a balance of forces which are looking for the perfect compromise between security and privacy, but an enormous steam roller built out of careers and billions in revenue from surveillance contracts and technology. To negotiate with that, we can’t lead with concessions, but rather with all the opposition we can muster.

http://thoughtcrime.org/blog/we-should-all-have-something-to...

Market share is power. Popular open-source projects can, and do, shape the industry. If you believe your trajectory is the right one for the industry, competition matters a lot.

As an example, Mozilla's Firefox was created to compete with Internet Explorer. It succeeded, and now Mozilla is working to defend the open web, so market share is still crucial for Mozilla even today.

> The function is short enough to paste below. It is pretty unique to Neovim, as it was wrought for its brand new event-oriented nature:

https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/272#issuecomment-370...

Writing in the public view is a great way to get feedback on your writing and the subjects you discuss—e.g. corrections, further education, etc. For some people, it also increase the pressure to improve.

Vanity is only one possible reason for writing in the public view, and it's an exercise with large potential gains. Your perspective is entirely off, and you've decided to take an opportunity to attack someone who was either brave enough or indifferent enough to risk being attacked in the first place.

It's worth being concerned about losing the lessons learned from Qt, but this is a kind of false dichotomy between the old and the new.

With that said, I don't think those lessons will be lost anyway. Qt can't (and shouldn't!) last forever or remain in its current form. C++, though it will live for a long time yet, will eventually fall out of favor, and large sections will eventually be purged from Qt as the project matures. The man-years that went into the portions that were, or some day will be, removed have taught Qt developers and users a great deal.

Qt developers and users will bring knowledge and wisdom to new projects that will compete with Qt (directly or indirectly). Some projects will survive and some won't. Some will be much the same as Qt, while some will be completely different from the start. Conrod, as it happens, is an approach to a different kind of GUI development (see this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8244224).

This, of course, doesn't include developers who do their own things without ever using Qt. Hopefully, they will encounter blog posts and articles about some of those lessons, as well as attracting developers who've learned some of these lessons.

This isn't a case of getting away with reinventing the industry. In this nascent stage, computer science, with all the renegade hackers and developers, is still a necessary occurrence when new languages and frameworks are invented.

While I could have relied on the defaults, I wouldn't trust my users' data with a default configuration. It would be irresponsible at best, and this is even more important to companies.

Is IRC an acceptable medium for a company? Maybe it can be. Is it wise? Not with tools like irssi.

I don't think driving down the advantages of becoming a teacher is an effective way to improve performance. Many people interested in making a difference would, rightfully, forgo being a teacher for their own sakes and take a different approach.

Many of the memory leaks have been fixed over the years, benchmarks suggest [Firefox can compete with Chrome in terms of speed](www.tomshardware.com/reviews/chrome-27-firefox-21-opera-next,3534-12.html), and Mozilla, realizing their UI still feels sluggish, launched a project (called Snappy) to fight this UI sluggishness.

Many improvements have been made over the years on all counts.

The auto-suggestions have helped improve my results a few times, particularly when I can't think of a bang.

The red bar and default coloring are probably a little more subjective, so I can understand that. I do hope changes don't accumulate to become more negative, but I find these changes to be largely pleasant.

I'm not a big fan of this argument, and I argued that DDG, or another privacy conscious search engine (though DDG is the best I've used), would be very much in line with Mozilla goals. I'm sure many users are still unaware of Google's practices (whether those practices are inherently harmful or not), and exposing DDG as a search option would be a means of raising awareness.

I don't quite understand the rationale behind it.

The part about the pendulum swinging back to some degree seems like a reasonable progression from flat design.