GitHub - LadybirdBrowser/ladybird: Truly independent web browser
-
Lunduke is an alt-right shithead.
My mistake. I didn’t look far enough into it. But the accusation was made without context so I didn’t know. I’m not trying to defend him.
-
The Discord-based "support" makes it a "meh." The main devs alt-right BS makes it a "hard pass."
Lemmy was created by a tankie, many of whom's opinions I abhor.
As long as it's FOSS and doesn't inherently promote their beliefs, I will use the software.
I agree it's not great and I'd prefer if it weren't made by imbeciles
-
My mistake. I didn’t look far enough into it. But the accusation was made without context so I didn’t know. I’m not trying to defend him.
Stay vigilant. Content about "Political correctness gone mad!" is step one of the alt-right pipeline.
-
If the latter is Safari, then WebKit-based browsers are available for Windows and Unix-likes too.
Actually WebKit is often used in the same role Gecko would be used, until Mozilla decided they don't want alternative browsers on Gecko.
If the latter is Safari, then WebKit-based browsers are available for Windows and Unix-likes too.
Which are? Please list a few current ones that have reasonable backing and at least a mid-size community.
-
This post did not contain any content.
To go along with the alt right stuff, one of their major donors is Shopify.
-
It was a niche story, I’ll have to dig through the GitHub issues. Basically someone tried to change the documentation pronouns to be gender neutral rather than masculine and the lead dev had a freak out and refused. Really soured me on the project
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.
-
“Don’t Be Evil” happily indexing while Bingcrosoft sleeps
-
Congratulations on completely misunderstanding the comic.
Ladybird is not a new standard. It is a new implementation of existing standards. Nobody has to change or adapt anything.
It still has some of the same problems as the comic, though not to the same extent, it doesn't need to be a standard for the comic to make sense, it's also about market share. Having yet another browser has the potential of diluting the market and making people just go for the default.
-
Why always discord.... Why!!!!
-
https://mkultra.monster/tech/2024/07/03/serenityos-and-ladybird
This was a little „write-up“ back when everything became more public.
I'm surprised this got any kind of attention.
Here's the turn of events from my perspective:
- Someone submits a 1-line PR changing the gender used in a code comment
- PR rejected on the grounds that the change is "politically motivated"
- Submitter got mad, and proposed removing the rule against "politically motivated" changes
- Someone wrote a blog post about it
Here's my analysis:
- Stupid change - don't make PRs that simply correct an irrelevant typo in a comment somewhere; some people do this to put stuff on a resume (look at how much FOSS work I do!), and it just wastes everyone's time
- Stupid response - it should've been rejected because it's a useless change, not because it's "politically motivated"
- Stupid proposal - do you really want to waste a bunch of time fighting over wording in a comment? Because that's the kind of crap you get without a rule like this.
- This is all about an irrelevant change to a comment? Why is this getting so much attention?
-
Ladybird is a brand-new browser & web engine.
-
I'm surprised this got any kind of attention.
Here's the turn of events from my perspective:
- Someone submits a 1-line PR changing the gender used in a code comment
- PR rejected on the grounds that the change is "politically motivated"
- Submitter got mad, and proposed removing the rule against "politically motivated" changes
- Someone wrote a blog post about it
Here's my analysis:
- Stupid change - don't make PRs that simply correct an irrelevant typo in a comment somewhere; some people do this to put stuff on a resume (look at how much FOSS work I do!), and it just wastes everyone's time
- Stupid response - it should've been rejected because it's a useless change, not because it's "politically motivated"
- Stupid proposal - do you really want to waste a bunch of time fighting over wording in a comment? Because that's the kind of crap you get without a rule like this.
- This is all about an irrelevant change to a comment? Why is this getting so much attention?
"comments must be accurate," is not a rule you should bend. Bending it even a little leads to last programming and shit code.
-
That blog post is pretty ridiculous, IMO.
You'll see the alt-right do that a lot, for some reason.
There's real criticism, but they always mix it in with some made-up complains like the slavery thing, which is some of the most obvious sarcasm I have ever seen on the internet, but somehow taken literally by the author of the post.
IDK if he's a transphobe or whatnot, but his reaction to the change in language was indicative of, at the very least---with the most charitable of interpretations---, a disregard for inclusive language and, more realistically, some philosophy that doesn't allow for "others" to participate because the existence of those that aren't male is "political," somehow.
You might not see it, because you haven't seen it enough times to recognize it, but it happens again and again and again... But it's always quiet.
"Don't make this political," "ideology isn't welcome," stuff like that. Statements that sound reasonable, but are only wielded to quiet those aiming for inclusiveness and acceptance of marginalized people.
It might sound like a less-than-generous interpretation, a bit callous and over-zealous, but it's just patterns. I hear wolf, I say wolf.
Also, I thought that article had a really funny passage:
One activist ("cafkafk") seen below, within the GitHub repository for the developer being attacked, celebrating the fact that other activists -- organized on "The Fediverse" -- had arrived to harass the Ladybird developer.
This alone made me think that it might be satire, but I don't think it is... The Fediverse, huh? OK.
I would've rejected the PR too, but not for violation of that rule, but because one-line changes that merely fix a comment waste everyone's time reviewing it, and are often just to build someone's resume. I've even seen some that remove trailing whitespace.
If you want to fix it alongside other changes, go for it (and the reviewer said as much on the PR). But if you're only interested in sending in drive-by commits to build a resume or something and aren't actually interested in helping, then it should be rejected as noise.
If there's a broader pattern of this, maybe that's cause for concern. But if it's literally just this instance, I could see the dev being annoyed at drive-by PRs.
-
Lunduke is definitely right wing and has been for years
Lunduke used to be somewhat interesting, and I enjoyed his "Linux sucks" series, but he really has doubled down on political nonsense.
-
The Discord-based "support" makes it a "meh." The main devs alt-right BS makes it a "hard pass."
Is there any source for this?
-
Stay vigilant. Content about "Political correctness gone mad!" is step one of the alt-right pipeline.
It also can be a reasonable take though, and you'll need more context to distinguish it.
In this case, Lunduke has a history of injecting politics where it doesn't belong, which is a shame because I used to watch some of his content (esp. his "Linux sucks" series). But now it's filled with nonsense.
My point is, don't write someone off because they don't want politics or political correctness in their project. Write them off when they use that excuse to silence things they don't like and allow things they do.
-
We definitely need more competition in the browser space, I just wish it wasn't using such a permissive license as the BSD.
You're free to fork and use a more restrictive license, that's one of the cool things about BSD licenses. It's not like it's something dumb like the CDDL, which is incompatible with the GPL (and many other licenses) and the reason ZFS can't be directly included in the kernel.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Politics aside, I'd be curious to see how far something like this can go. Can't not think of Opera Software - even they were not successful while they were using their own proprietary tech.
-
Lemmy was created by a tankie, many of whom's opinions I abhor.
As long as it's FOSS and doesn't inherently promote their beliefs, I will use the software.
I agree it's not great and I'd prefer if it weren't made by imbeciles
Tankies are annoying, but they're not on the same level as fascists.
-
Transphobic main dev ruined the project for me
I see zero reason to out the "transphobic" label on the dev.
Think and read before labelling people.
