GitHub - LadybirdBrowser/ladybird: Truly independent web browser
-
Sigh, you do have a point.
Maybe this was by a different reviewer, idk.
It was. Some other member of SerenityOS, not the person behind Ladybird (awesomekling).
blog author should be more accurate (see above)
That's fair. I'll say though, the blog post is dated from 1 day after the PR was actually merged. It's not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn't been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
He may be. Idk.
Yeah, I was just trying to say that that wasn't the point of my rant. I get it I get it.
It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
That never happened on this PR. The only human reply before the merge (aside from the submitter) was this:
Please fix the commit messages (see BuggieBot's comment); and maybe this can go in one commit? Doesn't really need to be 5 separate ones.
And this is BuggieBot's comment:
Hello!
One or more of the commit messages in this PR do not match the SerenityOS code submission policy, please check the lint_commits CI job for more details on which commits were flagged and why.
Please do not close this PR and open another, instead modify your commit message(s) with git commit --amend and force push those changes to update this PR.It's a completely different.
This, plus the tone of the blog post looks like they were on a crusade instead of trying to accurately portray events.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, my point is that we all need to be careful jumping to conclusions, especially in FOSS where discussion almost exclusively happens asynchronously in text and with people with different backgrounds. Pretty much everyone involved failed at that.
-
It’s not unreasonable to think that, when they wrote it, it really hadn’t been merged and they only saw the initial denial citing the policy.
That never happened on this PR. The only human reply before the merge (aside from the submitter) was this:
Please fix the commit messages (see BuggieBot's comment); and maybe this can go in one commit? Doesn't really need to be 5 separate ones.
And this is BuggieBot's comment:
Hello!
One or more of the commit messages in this PR do not match the SerenityOS code submission policy, please check the lint_commits CI job for more details on which commits were flagged and why.
Please do not close this PR and open another, instead modify your commit message(s) with git commit --amend and force push those changes to update this PR.It's a completely different.
This, plus the tone of the blog post looks like they were on a crusade instead of trying to accurately portray events.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here, my point is that we all need to be careful jumping to conclusions, especially in FOSS where discussion almost exclusively happens asynchronously in text and with people with different backgrounds. Pretty much everyone involved failed at that.
And this is BuggieBot’s comment:
Yeah I was referencing that comment.
Sequence of events:
- PR trying to change pronouns.
- Automated response citing policy.
- Author takes note of it for blog post.
- PR fixed and merged.
- Blog post published.
Precocious, certainly, and I agree it was misguided. The blog post was indeed emotionally motivated, that's more than clear.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here
It's alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
-
And this is BuggieBot’s comment:
Yeah I was referencing that comment.
Sequence of events:
- PR trying to change pronouns.
- Automated response citing policy.
- Author takes note of it for blog post.
- PR fixed and merged.
- Blog post published.
Precocious, certainly, and I agree it was misguided. The blog post was indeed emotionally motivated, that's more than clear.
Sorry to beat a dead horse here
It's alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the "no politics" policy. It's right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
It’s alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
Agreed. And unfortunately, I felt it necessary to be really wordy to not come off as supporting intolerance in any way, while still arguing that I would've done the same (reject 1-line cosmetic PRs).
This is some kind of correlary to Poe's Law, or perhaps Godwin's Law.
-
Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the "no politics" policy. It's right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
It’s alright. I think these discussions need to be had.
Agreed. And unfortunately, I felt it necessary to be really wordy to not come off as supporting intolerance in any way, while still arguing that I would've done the same (reject 1-line cosmetic PRs).
This is some kind of correlary to Poe's Law, or perhaps Godwin's Law.
Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the “no politics” policy. It’s right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
Suspiciously close to what Hitler would say... /s
-
I donate to Ladybird and Servo, and I hope they succeed. We need serious competition and a check on Mozilla (not to mention Chrome and Safari).
That said, I'm sad that neither Ladybird or Servo are licensed under strong copyleft licenses. We need user-oriented browsers now more than ever, and strong copyleft enables that. I worry that, even if these engines are successful, they will be co-opted by proprietary browsers and eventually superseded by them.
This happened before - both Chrome and Safari ultimately derive from KHTML, Konqueror's browser engine. If KHTML had been licnesed under the GPL instead of the LGPL, Chrome and Safari may have been free software today (or at the very least, it would have been much more difficult for Apple and Google to get started).
That said, I wish Ladybird the best. There donation = no influence policy is excellent, and I really, really hope they can stick to it in the long term.
Isn't servo mostly a Mozilla-led project? I thought servo would probably just replace gecko as the engine firefox used if it ends up succeeding
-
Right, but the policy was commit hygiene (lots of small commits), which has nothing to do with the “no politics” policy. It’s right there in the comment, and the suggestion is to squash the commits into one.
Suspiciously close to what Hitler would say... /s
Lol, got me there.
Hitler would probably be a formatting Nazi too. Can't have that <insert slur> extra whitespace.
-
Isn't servo mostly a Mozilla-led project? I thought servo would probably just replace gecko as the engine firefox used if it ends up succeeding
Iirc it started its life that way but Mozilla abandoned it and the community picked it up
-
True, but that only applies if it's misleading. For example:
// pythagoran theorem distance = abs(p2.x - p1.x) + abs(p2.y - p1.y);Fixing that makes sense because it's wrong and misleading (it's actually Manhattan distance), and a quick glace is insufficient to tell the difference.
But fixing a typo or something that wouldn't be confusing is just noise and should only be fixed with other changes. For example, I intentionally misspelled Pythagorean in my comment above, fixing that to be the right spelling would be a useless change, even if the distance formula used the hypotenuse. It wouldn't be an unreasonable policy to reject PRs that only fix spelling or similar to reduce noise for the maintainers.
Yep, I understand but disagree. Maybe it comes from working with so many ESL coders, but I'll happily accept typo corrections because it's not always obvious what words should be if you're not steeped in the culture.
-
Yep, I understand but disagree. Maybe it comes from working with so many ESL coders, but I'll happily accept typo corrections because it's not always obvious what words should be if you're not steeped in the culture.
It really depends on the project.
If you're a larger project, you can see a ton of these from people hoping to land a commit to put "contributor to X" on a resume somewhere. Those add up and are really distracting and possibly automated. They waste everyone's time, especially if they spawn a bunch of conversion like this did.
If you're a smaller project, it doesn't matter as much. I work with ESL coders too, so I get it (1/4 of my office is ESL immigrants, and ~2/3 of the broader team is ESL). I fix comments all the time, I just include them with other changes.
So it depends. But in general, a high profile project should reject this noise to discourage this behavior.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Alright, read up on it a bit more. Sadly the language choices (C++ now, maybe Swift later) rubs me the wrong way for something that needs to be incredibly secure against attacks. I really really support additional browser engines, but likely not this one.
Thus I think Servo is a better choice for those looking to contribute. IMHO.
-
Why always discord.... Why!!!!
because a turn key platform they don’t have to self host and maintain frees them up to do the work.
-
They absolutely do. A lot of distros package Firefox or Chromium or something as the default, but those browsers are default for their respective DEs.
Konqueror is more or less dead as a browser. I don't even think kwebkitpart is maintained anymore since QtWebkit was abandoned with Qt6.
-
TBH, it is very difficult to me differentiating between the different flavors of authoritarians.
Fascism, just like Communism or even a Dictatorships are not inherently bad.
We as humans key in on the oppressive authoritarianism of them as the evil in the system.
That’s why I’d recommend you lump them all together as “oppressive authoritarianism” until one of them proves us otherwise, and not to need to find the nuances between them to prove they’re bad.
-
TBH, it is very difficult to me differentiating between the different flavors of authoritarians.
There's basically ideologues versus hateful people versus indifferent sociopaths (overlap is common)
I consider political ideologues and "technocrats" and extremely pedantic rule-following bureaucrats to be different flavors of ideologues (has a specific worldview they try to enforce / uphold)
-
Konqueror is more or less dead as a browser. I don't even think kwebkitpart is maintained anymore since QtWebkit was abandoned with Qt6.
It had a release this month, that doesn't sound dead...
-
Fascism, just like Communism or even a Dictatorships are not inherently bad.
We as humans key in on the oppressive authoritarianism of them as the evil in the system.
That’s why I’d recommend you lump them all together as “oppressive authoritarianism” until one of them proves us otherwise, and not to need to find the nuances between them to prove they’re bad.
Fascism, just like Communism or even a Dictatorships are not inherently bad
No offense but what the fuck are you even saying
Fascism is absolutely inherently bad, there is no removal of its evil, oppressive, and authoritarian traits after which anything is left.
-
Existence? Because somebody used a wrong pronoun?
You're right, words are meaningless and language has no bearing on society at large. after all, fuiebt eidiowb rhe efifo quifopim.
-
It really depends on the project.
If you're a larger project, you can see a ton of these from people hoping to land a commit to put "contributor to X" on a resume somewhere. Those add up and are really distracting and possibly automated. They waste everyone's time, especially if they spawn a bunch of conversion like this did.
If you're a smaller project, it doesn't matter as much. I work with ESL coders too, so I get it (1/4 of my office is ESL immigrants, and ~2/3 of the broader team is ESL). I fix comments all the time, I just include them with other changes.
So it depends. But in general, a high profile project should reject this noise to discourage this behavior.
In theory that's fair reasoning. Unfortunately the dev made it clear that his reasoning was based on politics
-
I see zero reason to out the "transphobic" label on the dev.
Think and read before labelling people.
Calling pronouns political is a straight up dog whistle
-
Someone else posted a writeup about it.
It wasn't in documentation, but a code comment. No user would see this.
One part was a rejected change on the README, which was trying to remove this "white supremacist language":
## On ideologically motivated changes
This is a purely technical project. As such, it is not an appropriate arena to advertise your personal politics or religious beliefs. Any changes that appear ideologically motivated will be rejected.
Someone changing "he" to "they" in a comment as their only change could absolutely be seen as "politically motivated." My understanding is that if changing the comment was part of some larger useful change, it would be fine (as would using "she" or "they" in a new comment), but just changing the gender of a pronoun in a comment is a useless change.
If the comment said "she," would someone have been motivated to make this change? Probably not. Should changing this from "she" to some other pronoun (he or they) also be rejected? Yes, on the same grounds as changing it from "he," it's not a useful change and just wastes everyone's time. If you're in the code already, then go ahead, correct silly language like this if you care to.
Inclusive pronouns are not political, full stop.
