1. 12

    Lots of us still use 80-column terminals every day, but sometimes Linus’ arguments are just “I don’t like it so it’s bad”. This is one of those times.

    Furthermore, his argument essentially boils down to “my monitor is big and my eyes are still functional so fuck you if yours aren’t”.

    1. 6

      no, the argument is “we use longer variable names and function names, as well as large indenting, which is more important for readability than 80 chars” … and isn’t it in fact hard to find screens on the market that physically limit to 80?

      1. 1

        Not everyone wants their code up full-screen. Most of my screen goes to a web browser with an 80-width terminal next to it so that I can see the results live-reload in real-time.

        1. 1

          then I hope you’re not using Java.

          It all depends on the language you’re using. I’ve used some where 80 is completely fine. And sometimes you kinda need 100 to not get an unreadable mess.

          1.  

            I’m not that kind of masochist, no.

      2. 6

        Furthermore, his argument essentially boils down to “my monitor is big and my eyes are still functional so fuck you if yours aren’t”.

        Exactly. As I said in my other comment, why should people who have these conveniences get even more, at the expense of people who have less?

        1. 2

          By choice or by necessity?

          I doubt there are really many out there, whose equipment literally can’t display more than 80 columns. Maybe you are one of the few.

          If by choice, then you are really just arguing that your personal preference on how to work is more valid or important than Linus’.

          I generally aim for 80 chars myself, because I’m old enough that this is a habit, but prefer to use tools like black to avoid even thinking about it.

          1. 1

            Even when I only have one window up, I still keep a thin window by choice Longer lines cause eye strain over longer periods of time. This is similar to how most well-designed news and other content oriented sites are designed to show somewhere around 76 characters per line.

            For instance, look at Twitter in full-screen. There is a maximum width of a tweet… At least until their designers ruin that like the rest of their recent UX changes.

        1. 6

          End-to-End doesn’t make sense in this case, because the other ‘end’ is a future version of yourself.

          A faithful equivelant to ‘end-to-end’ in context of a backup is “Is it encrypted at rest with keys only I have access to”. And the answer to “Are Apple iCloud backups encrypted at rest with keys I control” is: “Yes, but..”

          Yes Apple iCloud backups of photos/contacts are encrypted on apples servers, by keys that are yours, it works similarly to iMessage’s in that theres a keyring of unlock keys. But there is nothing stopping apple from intercepting decryption events and keeping a copy for themselves, or lying to people about having encryption features at all.

          This is how the 2FA works, it requests that another machine that has a key is granted a token to unlock the ‘vault’ of contents in iCloud, then you can basically used the unsealed version of the data for the session. When you open a new session you either have an unlock token or you don’t.

          So, for apple to add their own key to a keychain everytime they unseal a vault is relatively trivial, it’s impossible for you to know what unsealing keys are on your keyring. you can see what apple shows you (devices attached to your account, sessions active on the web etc;) but there’s nothing preventing them from adding themselves and not telling you.

          Ultimately when you don’t control the software or the platform, you only have trust left.

          1. 13

            Ultimately when you don’t control the software or the platform, you only have trust left.

            Picking out that last sentence because it highlights something that’s bothered me for a while. How many of us (software developers) have the ability to effectively audit the cryptographic tools we use on a day-to-day basis? Because it’s not enough to know C, or to have a rough understanding of RSA. Cryptography seems like a very intricate and fast-moving field, and even if you are competent, you need a lot of time to do a good audit.

            If I use open source software that I ‘control’, but I have to trust that people more competent than I have done their job well and made things secure, how does my position differ from that of an Apple user?

            1. 6

              End-to-end means that you have the key, you transport an encrypted blob so that anyone in the middle can’t see contents, then the receiver has a specific key to decrypt it.

              Whether the receiver is you in the future, your best friend on Tuesday, or an extraterrestrial in the past does not change this.

              1. 3

                Yes Apple iCloud backups of photos/contacts are encrypted on apples servers, by keys that are yours, it works similarly to iMessage’s in that theres a keyring of unlock keys.

                That is inaccurate. Backups are a special case where they get retrieved by a new device that has no keys whatsoever. The only authentication that is used is an account password, and sometimes a 2FA code.

                1. 10

                  End-to-End doesn’t make sense in this case, because the other ‘end’ is a future version of yourself.

                  Let’s implement some quick end-to-future-end encryption with GPG:

                  gpg --encrypt --sign --armor nora@nora.codes file.txt > file.asc
                  
              1. 10

                And? Why do we need to discuss iCloud in reference to zoom?

                1. 23

                  I think the author’s idea is, “why do we hold other companies blatantly accountable (like Zoom), and not Apple?”

                  1. 26

                    I guess I don’t see the need to equivocate both. They’re different threat models and different situations.

                    If the goal is to attack icloud, just note its flaws. Just like people did when they originally were known. Zoom is in the line of fire due to their current issues. If we’re going to start “yes and”ing every security failure I’m ditching both of these tags in lobsters. It is as bad as the constant arguments about countries doing bad things and hearing people bring up every other countries other problems as reasons why we shouldn’t care. We can legitimately care about both without constantly comparing between companies or countries.

                    The constant comparison really rubs me the wrong way like propoganda at derailing conversation away from the actual problems on their own merits.

                    1. 13

                      The one-word-ism for this is “whataboutism” and I too would like to see lots less of it all over the internet, but especially here!

                      1.  

                        this type of argument is a critique of media and our collective ethical standards, rather than a critique of the situation as such. there’s nothing wrong with this type of critique, and i just as often see people dismissing such valid forms of critique as “whataboutism,” thus derailing the conversation away from examining media and ethical standards.

                        this goes for /u/haldean’s comment as well

                      2. 12

                        we’re holding zoom accountable? huh?

                        1. 1

                          “accountable”

                      3. 4

                        Zoom and Apple are both companies that claim to be end-to-end encrypted, yet this person is claiming that they are not.

                        1. 18

                          Apple does not claim to be end-to-end encrypted for backups or notes or photos or videos. Apple’s own weasely KB article on the topic is linked from TFA.

                          They also fail to mention that backups include your complete conversation history with everyone you’ve ever texted or iMessaged with on your device.

                          This is me, shining a flashlight on that.

                      1. 1

                        No, it is necessary in many cases to meet the performance needs expected by many organizations. Generally in these cases, people are using node to render frontends in backend services - not as general backend API. Is this not the cases that you generally are seeing?

                        1. 1

                          CLIs are no more reified than GUIs are. The arguments only exist in a strong sense for shell-like programs but not CLIs in general, and - although it is arguable - I would say that shells and GUIs are still both equally reified. For instance, this may make sense for zsh but depending on the person it may not be true as much for tee.

                          The argument made by this article is based on the article’s subjective criteria which is being provided as “this is what it means to be reified”. Of course, this goes into the question of what consitutes a CLI as well. Is npm a CLI or are we only talking about shells here? Is a shell suddenly not reified if I disable the features that “reify” it in these examples - even if that is to my liking?

                          This article is simply making a specific arguments that they think GUIs aren’t reified because of an overly-qualified definition of what it means for something to be reified.

                          1. 5

                            Possibly a bug with this website or something, but I think your comment was meant to end up in here: https://lobste.rs/s/sjtxdi/clis_are_reified_uis

                            1. 2

                              Whoa, what the heck? I’ve never even seen the post that this is supposedly in reply to…Thanks! O_o

                          1. 9

                            I wrote some about ad blocking over here a few months ago: http://daemonforums.org/showthread.php?t=11265 (username=Carpetsmoker); some relevant parts:

                            Advertisements have been an important revenue source for the publishing industry for over 100 years, and I’m actually in favour of allowing ads that don’t have the tracking and such that most do; at its most basic this could just be an <img src="/ad.png">.

                            It’s easy to just say “all ads bad”, but things turn out to be a bit more nuanced once you start building products that are very hard to monetize otherwise. For example, one product I worked on a bit last year is a better recipe site with some novel ideas, but … how do you monetize that without ads? Not so easy. I ended up shelving it and working on something else that’s easier to monetize (hopefully anyway…)

                            There should probably be more transparency from AdBlock, but having advertisers pay some amount of money to vet their ads by AdBlock is not wholly unreasonable.

                            [ … some replies snipped …]

                            Yeah, I agree it’s complex; I have no easy answers either.

                            Right now my website has some ads from codefund.io – which explicitly advertises itself as ethical ads and is fully open source – which are blocked by default by uBlock origin (and I believe also AdBlock). These adblocking tools do much more than just block requests to third-party data-collectors, they frob with the HTML in an attempt to remove every single last ad, and while there is some merit to this for the really intrusive/annoying ones, I feel this is fundamentally a misguided approach which doesn’t consider the perspective of publishers/product makers.

                            I use uBlock origin too, for all the same reasons as you do, but I don’t really like it because of this. I’m currently working full-time on open source stuff, and the income from these ads isn’t a bit of pocket-money on the side, it’s part of my income. Removing these kind of ads kind of rubs me the wrong way. Basically, I’m “collateral damage”.

                            I maintained a “track blocker” (trackwall) for a while, which I think is much more reasonable than an “ad blocker”.

                            The current situation sucks for both users and publishers :-(

                            1. 13

                              The current situation sucks for both users and publishers :-(

                              I completely agree. Today’s situation is a perfect example of a defect-defect equilibrium.

                              From the advertisers’ standpoint: if users don’t have ad blockers, then they’re better off if they act badly (you save the money that would be needed to vet ads), but if the users do have ad blockers, they’re still better off acting badly (milk whoever remains for all they’re worth). As for the end users, it hardly matters what the ad company does, because blocking ads is always better than not doing so.

                              I still blame the ads industry for being greedy. Setting up ad blocking takes time, and while it’s hard to give it up once you have it, few would go through the time investment unless things were really bad.

                              1. 12

                                It’s easy to just say “all ads bad”, but things turn out to be a bit more nuanced once you start building products that are very hard to monetize otherwise.

                                IMHO, “products that are very hard to monetize otherwise” sounds a lot like “products that people don’t think it’s worth paying for”. I’m very much into things that people aren’t usually willing to pay for myself, so I sympathize, but not everything that you or me like is also a good business idea. If the only way to monetize something is by having a third-party siphon other people’s data, that probably means it’s just not a great commercial venture. Lots of things aren’t, it’s just how it is.

                                1. 10

                                  I think it’s a little bit more complicated than that. There are an untold number of cooking books, websites, TV shows, etc. Almost everyone cooks at least occasionally, and many do it regularly. It’s a big market, and these kind of products (including sites) bring a lot of value to people. Cooking is not even an especially big hobby of mine, it’s just something I noticed where improvements can be made, and I have a few ideas on it.

                                  I think it’s more a “race to the bottom” kind of thing. It’s just really hard to compete against “free”: given two websites which are equal where one is €5/month subscription and the other is “free”, then many (probably most) will use the “free” one (often with adblock), leaving me with no option to offer a “free” option as well. Even with a great product, you really need a clear edge to compete against that.

                                  Or to give an analogy: if I set up a stand with “free cooking books” next to the book store, then I’m fairly sure the book store’s sales of cooking books will drop.

                                  1. 6

                                    First off – I apologize if I was/am harsh or unfair. I understand this is probably important to you (and as the “happy owner” of several entirely unmonetizable – and, worse, probably expensive – passions, I know how it can feel). I’m not trying to discourage you or anything – the tl;dr of these posts is “here’s why x64k doesn’t wanna pay for recipes”, not “here’s why your idea sucks and you suck”. The fact that I’m unwilling to pay for recipes may well put me so much outside your target audience that if I were to think your idea sucks (which FWIW I don’t, since I don’t know too much about it in the first place), it might actually mean it’s great :-D.

                                    So, with that in mind:

                                    There are an untold number of cooking books, websites, TV shows, etc. Almost everyone cooks at least occasionally, and many do it regularly. It’s a big market, and these kind of products (including sites) bring a lot of value to people. Cooking is not even an especially big hobby of mine, it’s just something I noticed where improvements can be made, and I have a few ideas on it. I think it’s more a “race to the bottom” kind of thing. It’s just really hard to compete against “free”

                                    It is – but then again, “free” is what recipes have been since practically forever. It’s not like websites with free recipes have “disrupted the recipe market”. If all free recipe websites were to close tomorrow, and only subscription-based websites were to exist, I still wouldn’t pay a dime for these, since all I need to do in order to find out how to make pastitsio (random example ‘cause that’s what I had for lunch and it’s not from my part of the world) is ask someone who knows how to make pastitsio. I learned how to cook dozens, if not hundreds of things from family and friends. Some of them from far, far away, which is how I can cook Carribean or Japanese dishes in the middle of Europe (when I can get the ingredients, that is). I’ve never paid a dime for any of these things, I just asked nicely when I was abroad, or when someone from abroad was here, and did a few hilarious screw-ups until I got it right.

                                    Of course it’s a race to the bottom (the bottom being “free”) when learning how to cook from friends and family is how virtually everyone who’s not a professional in the field learned has done it since practically forever, and when this is still available.

                                    1. 3

                                      I didn’t take it as either harsh or unfair, so no worries :-)

                                      Recipes are not even eligible for copyright, but it’s not the recipes as such that you charge for but rather the making available of them. There are about 18 million cooking books sold in the US every year, so there’s definitely a market.

                                      I personally wouldn’t pay for a recipe website either, as I’m too casual of a user. Then again, I have bought cooking books, which are pretty much the same. Kinda funny how that works 🤔 I think this is a general problem with the internet: if every “casual user” would pay a low (<$1, depending on usage) amount of money then there’s no need for ads – that’s basically what ads are right? – but there’s no real way to do that AFAIK. I know Brave has gotten a lot of flak here, but I really like it for at least trying to solve this problem (although I’m not really sure about their whole cryptocurrency approach; but that’s a different discussion).

                                      I’m not angry, bitter, or resentful about any of this, by the way, they’re just observations. I wrote this as a hobby thing early last year after I quit my job after a bit of a burnout and it was the first time I had fun programming in a long time. In a way it’s probably the best thing I’ve ever worked on; it was very therapeutic. After I decided I wanted to work on my own product I looked at my options with what I already had, and came to the conclusion this probably wasn’t the best way to earn a living so shelved it for the time being. I still want to get back to it as a hobby thing once I have some time (and think of a name for it!)

                                      If you look at the existing big recipe websites then almost all of them suck: they’re shitty “recipe dumping grounds” with untold popups and all sorts of bullshit, and in a perfect world someone providing a better product shouldn’t have a hard time making an earning from it without crapping their product up with a zillion ads.

                                      I think the best thing we (as programmers/community) can do here is to make good alternatives available, which could be a “sane ad network” or perhaps something entirely different. I know that’s easier said than done but people do things to solve real problems they have (the same applies to many other things, and many people are working on this, with varying degrees of success).

                                      1. 2

                                        Cookbooks are a pretty decent example of how recipe-centered sites can monetize, though. Binging with Babbish on YouTube is always pushing his cookbook, along with whatever product has sponsored his video. If people want to feel like they’re getting something that took effort to make (like a physical book) in return for their $20, then that’s how the recipe space will be monetized. Patreon is also gaining significant ground in monetizing quality content made available for free.

                                        At the end of the day, people seem to recognize that the marginal cost of serving information on a website to an additional person is near zero and they balk at paying (subscription or not) for something digital unless it is perceived to be expensive to provide (like music, movies, internet itself, etc.).

                                        1. 1

                                          If we’re being honest, most recipe books suck, too – I guess it’s easier to pay for them because they’re a physical item and people are used to paying for books in general. But by and large, I discovered that even expensive books with fancy endorsements turn out to be… well, not wrong, these are recipes after all, but somewhat untrue to their topic. For example, I’m yet to see an English-language book that recommends anything even close to an useful amount of olive oil for recipes around the Mediterranean (or at least the ones I’m familiar with).

                                          What I really wish we had, especially now that the world is much better connected and Internet access is universal, is something akin to rec.food.recipes, alt.gourmand and rec.food.historic :).

                                          Edit: FWIW, I kindda like the idea of what Brave did. Back when rec.food.recipes was still a thing, I didn’t really have a problem with ads. I used some ad-supported software, including Opera (which I still miss so much), and I thought it was okay. I didn’t really mind the large banners, either, some of them were actually pretty neat..

                                          1. 1

                                            I suppose Sturgeon’s law (“90% of everything is crap”) applies 😅

                                            I was a long-time Opera user as well, and used the ad-supported version back in the day. That was a different time though, before the ad-tech industry became what it is today. I’d be more hesitant to use a similar model today. And I also still miss that browser :-( Pretty much everything about it was fantastic.

                                    2. 5

                                      Yeah, “ideas” aren’t “businesses”.

                                    3. 4

                                      at its most basic this could just be an <img src="/ad.png">.

                                      Part of the problem is that even this type of innocuous-looking “non-tracking” ad can, without much effort, be turned into a tracker. It doesn’t take that many ads like this one to be able to generate and track a unique user identifier via HSTS, for example.

                                      1. 7

                                        The amount of information it can track is quite limited though, compared to canvas/font tricks and whatnot. It’s also much more in transparent and in your control on what you send. It would still me a massive improvement over the current situation.

                                        You can use src=data:base64 too.

                                      2. 3

                                        Maybe if publishers had real businesses that deserved to make money because they actually provide a good service to the community then they wouldn’t have this problem! :)

                                      1. 17

                                        Yes, always.

                                        1. 3

                                          How is a cert that works for every domain better than no encryption? Like, if someone actually uses this then the private key used is openly available on GitHub and all traffic can be MITM.

                                          1. 2

                                            It can be but not after the fact. Encryption still works exactly as intended, just with more opportunities for others to be in the data stream

                                            1. 1

                                              If you know the key, you can read what people are sending. It’s not rocket science. Privacy doesn’t exist in that situation.

                                              1. 1

                                                If you know the key used. The cert is not the key used for most data transfer.

                                            1. 2

                                              I love pcengines, but I wish more people would use the APU4 instead: https://www.pcengines.ch/apu4b4.htm it’s very excellent and much better for my workloads.

                                              1. 4

                                                There is no APU4 yet ;)

                                                The apu4b4 model belongs to the APU2 series. Here is a list of all models within that series:

                                                • apu2d0 (2 GB DRAM, 2 i211AT NICs)
                                                • apu2e2 (2 GB DRAM, 3 i211AT NICs)
                                                • apu2e4 (4 GB DRAM, 3 i210AT NICs)
                                                • apu3c2 (2 GB DRAM, 3 i211AT NICs, optimized for 3G/LTE modems)
                                                • apu3c4 (4 GB DRAM, 3 i211AT NICs, optimized for 3G/LTE modems)
                                                • apu4d2 (2 GB DRAM, 4 i211AT NICs)
                                                • apu4d4 (4 GB DRAM, 4 i211AT NICs)
                                                1. 2

                                                  I got an APU2 before the APU4 was out. I don’t see any major differences besides an additional Ethernet port and SIM slot. I’m curious, what makes it so much better for you, and why does it matter what other people use?

                                                  1. 3

                                                    Oh you are correct, I was thinking the original APU so this was my mistake. The APU & ALIX didn’t have AES-NI support and were really hard to get to handle gigabit saturation, which is what I was thinking.

                                                2. 1

                                                  I posted about OpenWRT on the Netgear 7800 above, but honestly thinking of switching to one of these. This is pretty dope. Thanks a bunch for sharing!

                                                  Seems like maybe they’re releasing apu3 soon? Seems like this mentions it: https://pcengines.ch/spi1a.htm

                                                  1. 1

                                                    But how do you use this? Do you install OpenWRT on this and use it as your router?

                                                    1. 2

                                                      I’m using its predecessor ALIX with OpenBSD for

                                                      • routing/firewalling between 3 subnets (LAN, WLAN, Uplink)
                                                      • DHCP
                                                      • DNS
                                                    2. 1

                                                      I see the APU2 mentioned a lot recently. What’s the big selling point for it? Would I use it instead of a Ubiquity Edge Router X?

                                                      1. 4

                                                        One of the selling points for me is it being an amd64 machine and thus (probably) having better support in most OS. Being designed by a Swiss company is also nice.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          Thanks. Use case is what I think it is? Edge Router/VPN Endpoint/things Raspberry Pis are used for? But amd64 and coreboot

                                                    1. 13

                                                      In the last year, I’ve had a ton of different routers to try out and the same thing seems to be consistent: The hardware is negligibly different and the software is always junk. In the last year, I gave up on my ASUS AC5300 after trying a bunch of other routers before it.

                                                      I got a Netgear AC2600 (R7800) because it has the best OpenWRT support and installed it. Things have been a lot better now. Since it’s open source, you can install software for QoS and such. If it doesn’t work well, you can just SSH in and do what you’d like to the network configuration. So far, it seems pretty good. For half the price of the ASUS, I now have better software and decent system.

                                                      I think it has all of the specs that you’re asking for, although QoS may required extra software. :)

                                                      1. 4

                                                        I’m doing exactly the same; R7800 with OpenWRT. Works well & ticks all your feature boxes: 4 downstream gigabit ethernet ports, one up, 802.11ac networking (simultaneous dual band capable), bufferbloat under OpenWRT is A+. You can do QoS on a per-interface basis IIRC, but I’m just using the default packet shaping on the WAN port for bufferbloat avoidance.

                                                        You can convince OpenWRT to do mesh networking I think, but obviously if you can manage a wired connection between the routers themselves you’ll do a lot better.

                                                        1. 3

                                                          I’ll also back up OpenWRT. It is very irritating when the factory firmware misses the one option or flexibility you really need. Being able to copy most of your configs across multiple-era devices is also really handy (and saves time).

                                                          OpenWRT isn’t perfect, I have some devices where the support is a bit flaky for wifi. I recommend sticking to the more popular and more expensive devices.

                                                          Once project I rolled out involved 20 GLinet devices running a tinc VPN for sensor installations; everything was OK until I discovered the wifi driver in the kernel crashed after a random amount of days. It was a known issue, I had to throw together a watchdog that tried to sense the interface failure without directly using any networking features (because that would hang the watchdog process itself). Fun.

                                                          For general wifi usage: I’ve had mixed success, depending on model. I bought some MR3420s because they were easy to get and cheap, but they do not seem to be greatly reliable. Albeit my config involves guest networks and traffic shaping, so there’s lots of room for error. YMMV.

                                                          1. 2

                                                            Thanks for the info - I’ve been looking at the R7800 to replace my pair of Linksys WRTs (1900ACS and 32x) as their wireless drivers are not well maintained and have some issues with OpenWRT. What kind of wireless performance do you see from a reasonably close range (I find iperf is reasonable for measuring this, between, eg, a laptop and the access point itself)?

                                                            1. 2

                                                              iperf reports about 400Mbit/s real world data transfer to my laptop. For some reason I only get 120Mbit/s to the desktop. Not sure why - both are Intel chipsets.

                                                              That’s with an 80MHz channel in the 5Gz band. I could step up to a 160MHz channel, but I’m told the wider channels don’t gain you much in the real world when you have a lot of neighbours in the same radio spectrum. (I can see something like 40 access points from where I sit in the 2.4GHz band & about a quarter of that in the 5Gz band.)

                                                              1. 2

                                                                Sounds like maybe not an AC wifi device in your desktop? or maybe the desktop case impacts the signal?

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Thanks - that’s considerably faster than I get from my MacBook Pro to my WRT1900ACS (the closest AP to where I normally sit). I can normally get around 100Mbps, also using an 80Mhz channel. Quite poor really :(

                                                            1. 5

                                                              I’m just waiting for Google to break uBlock Origin. It’ll be a lot easier to coax people into installing Firefox once it has some real, unavoidable, tangible benefits.

                                                              I’ve already got people running Firefox for Android because of it.

                                                              1. 1

                                                                They have no privacy anyway, though. They’re already running Firefox within Android. Do you realize how tightly Chrome is integrated into Android?

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  Firefox has First-Party Isolation. That’s its killer feature.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    First-Party Isolation is cool, but it’s basically invisible. It doesn’t have the kind of quality-of-life improvement that uBlock can provide on some sites.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      It doesn’t have to be invisible. Up to you.

                                                                1. 22

                                                                  Lots of us still use Firefox. I don’t know how that means “lost the browser wars”. Providing something that millions of people use which isn’t completely evil seems like a big win from my POV.

                                                                  1. 6

                                                                    i have stopped for different reasons (all imho):

                                                                    • the web can’t be rescued anymore.
                                                                    • mozilla constantly knee-caps itself with doing less then ideal things like:
                                                                      • buying pocket and deeply integrating it instead of as addon.
                                                                      • not really opensourcing their sync servers (last time i’ve checked it was a broken python/node hack, not the official version)
                                                                      • just replacing the plugin system with something worse. for example, the old tree style tabs was amazing, and the author did it’s best to replicate it with the new system, but it’s not as good.

                                                                    i was so pleasently surprised when the new rendering engine was released some years ago, but then the (again imho) bad decisions started instead of focusing on creating a slim browser with a fast modern engine, targeting “techies”. even a good alternative to webkit/blink engines to embed as “webview” would be great.

                                                                    1. 14

                                                                      mozilla constantly knee-caps itself with doing less then ideal things like

                                                                      I’ve never really understood this argument, honestly, because it really seems to come down to imposing some sort of purity test that only one browser is required to pass – everybody else can just get a zero over and over and over and still be assumed a good choice, but if Firefox gets only a 99% score instead of 100%, well, now we have to think long and hard about whether Firefox is still a realistic choice.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        Great reply, a good argument that works on many topics!

                                                                      2. 3

                                                                        The problem is that making a modern web browser is expensive. Giving it away free doesn’t make money. Mozilla is trying desperately to not be propped up by Google as an antitrust lightning rod, but failing.

                                                                        I still use Firefox most of the time, but I don’t think the modern web is redeemable.

                                                                        1. 4

                                                                          but what has this to do with my points? :)

                                                                          The problem is that making a modern web browser is expensive

                                                                          imho, netsurf has amazing rendering capabilites for it’s development resources.

                                                                          so, let me rephrase:

                                                                          the web can’t be rescued anymore.

                                                                          the mainstream web can’t be rescued anymore. it’s a too quick moving target for anyone not able to spend millions on browser development.

                                                                          it’s just not worth the fight for me, especially as i generally dislike the webification of the internet (everything-over-http). i just want to use my online banking etc. without (intentional) bugs. i don’t dislike mozilla, but i’m not using firefox anymore as it tends to make my life harder with no big gains. the mainstream focus doesn’t work, while other browsers seem to claim the important tech-affine userbase.

                                                                        2. 3

                                                                          Expecting Mozilla to be “perfect” may be asking too much of them. It is made up of humans, after all.

                                                                          Regarding Pocket, while it is annoying, I was able to remove it from the new tab page via a setting. A better default may be preferable, but is there a deeper integration than that?

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            i never expected anyone to be perfect, as i’ve written, all points are imho.

                                                                            i just don’t see how they can gain more market share with the current decisions. i was pleasantly surprised that thunderbird is getting some attention again, though.

                                                                          2. 1

                                                                            I just can’t agree that the web can’t be rescued any more.

                                                                            Mozilla does have to make changes as time goes on and sometimes they’re going to hurt people’s feelings, but it’s worth remembering that their addon system is taking that risk. The opposite of taking that risk is giving you a half-assed addon system with nearly no internal integration, which you get with Chrome. We need to give some level of flexibility to them somewhere.

                                                                            As for pocket, maybe it wasn’t approached perfectly but I think they had good intentions in mind.

                                                                          3. 2

                                                                            I’m a Firefox user, and love it. But as far as I know, the percentage of people using it is pretty low (I saw 4% recently, but haven’t done any research myself).

                                                                            I can’t imagine that Mozilla’s goal is for only 4% of people to use Firefox, and perhaps that’s what the article means by “lost the browser wars”.

                                                                            But you’re also right. It is a big win that there is a great alternative to Chrome.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              I guess that my point is that we shouldn’t care about having 90% of users if we are making 4% happy. Firefox is not at a point yet where websites tend to not support it, which is still a rare case. This means that we are still doing okay.

                                                                          1. 1

                                                                            Does this still require ridiculous amounts of energy to run?

                                                                            1. 2

                                                                              Apparently the point of this is to batch up to 20 transactions, so it would stand to reason that this would require 1/20th the amount of energy. It’s also built on top of the Ethereum blockchain which is actively moving towards a method of consensus that will require significantly less energy.

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                Bitcoin batches transactions too, so I don’t think your first point holds? Intrigued to hear that Ethereum is trying for a different consensus method. Are they having any luck?

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  That doesn’t change anything

                                                                              1. 2

                                                                                Not that I don’t agree w/ this, but - to play devil’s advocate - if I store my data in UTC then I have that information in less memory. It’s X time in UTC. It’s rare that the place of the local time isn’t being store along with it, so I think that it’s a bit much to call it “bad advice” although I agree that storing it together is a good approach.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  You say that it’s rare. I have a few customer systems right now that for some opaque reason are running on CET and not UTC - everytime I’m reading a log file I need to check my notes if THAT log file is now written in UTC or local time :P (yeah, yeah, server time is not 100% the same as dates in general, but there IS no location information)

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    Well, that’s unfortunate. What I mean is that it is rarely recommended against. My apologies for the miscommunication.

                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                  It gets the results you want.

                                                                                  That is all.

                                                                                  1. 5

                                                                                    What makes a programming exercise good at getting the results you want?

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      Depends on which results you want

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        This is true but not useful. The propose of asking “what makes an exercise good” is to get insight into how to write exercises and how to evaluate them. Saying I should judge my exercise based on “it works” doesn’t actually help me decide if an exercise is good or not.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          …but I’m not sure that anyone can answer the questions that you extend it with in a general way. Like, everyone has their own factors for measuring even the more specific questions. This article surely doesn’t bring anyone any closer, either. Not that I’m saying that is it’s goal, but it just makes it a brainstorm about someone’s personal opinion which isn’t super valuable to others.

                                                                                  1. 3

                                                                                    This only tests how long it takes for the prices to start up, not how long it takes for a browser to be ready. A browser can easily fake this test and still be super slow. This is not a good test.

                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                      The entire article implies and treats concurrency as if it is the same concept as parallelism…

                                                                                      1. 3

                                                                                        Thank you for your critique! As far as I understand the two concepts, parallelism is a special case of concurrency. If you can indicate the text passages that you find confusing, I will be happy to rewrite them more precisely.

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          I think that they are completely separate things, but - regardless - the confusing part is that the entire article is about parallelism and is referring to it as concurrency. This can cause a lot of confusion to people who may not know the difference.

                                                                                          There’s no specific passage, it’s just inherently awkward terminology.

                                                                                      1. 6

                                                                                        Let’s just throw this on top of the ICE support news from a couple weeks ago. That’ll look good. If they have a PR team, they’re about to be busy again. :)

                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                          VC money talk.

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          This was never what robots.txt was intended for. The intention of robots.txt is to tell good citizen web indexing services which pages they have permission to index.

                                                                                          1. 3

                                                                                            Are these hardware designed to play the original cartridges?!

                                                                                            1. 1

                                                                                              Yeah

                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                Without emulation?… How cool :O :O

                                                                                                1. 4

                                                                                                  The original cores are implemented on the FPGA, so depending on how you look at it, sort of without emulation. But also unlike e.g. the Super Game Boy, without using the original parts.

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    Yeah. which is pretty cool :)