I knew the "elephant in the room" section of the article was coming before I started reading... but then it wasn't even about the right thing! The other different, bigger, angrier, elephant in the room is about Brave being YACB (Yet Another Chromium Browser). A browser built on the Chromium project is riding on top of that elephant trying to tell it where to go.
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
From what I can tell, Iceweasel is more or less a reskinned Firefox: there's some code changes to make it compatible with Debian's licensing guidelines, but it would be reasonable (in my opinion) to describe Iceweasel as 'Firefox for Debian'. And so are you also certain that the maintainers of Firefox comply with your requirements?
EDIT: Seems like they edited their comment instead of replying (kinda weird?), answering "yes" to my question. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I am doubtful that every single maintainer involved in Iceweasel complies with their requirements. And presumably this applies to more than just the browser: what OS are they using? What apps do they use? What phone do they have? What bank do they use? What car do they own? Etc. When you take such a hard stance against something over a refused pronoun PR (which btw was definitely chuddy of him), you nonetheless invite scrutiny against yourself, particularly when you say things like "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck."
What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability. Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
> Your takedown of Iceweasel completely misses the point.
This is not a takedown of Iceweasel: it was merely the example that they provided. It could've been anything.
> Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability.
One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
And let me be clear, the goal with these comments is not to convince 1attice to use Ladybird against their objections: the goal was to invite them to reflect on their boycott and question whether it was a proportionate response. But instead I got the usual moralistic response where I'm accused of being amoral for not [presumably] not engaging in the same boycott. Alas.
>One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
Or, to your point, these arguments could count in favor of Firefox in opposition to Chromium.
Very true, though the suspicious mind seeking to evade Google's dominance will be naturally wary of then picking a browser that's kept afloat in-part by Google. I do correct my previous assertion though of a "Chromium/Firefox hegemony" since Firefox only seems to hold ~5% market share: <a href="https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide" rel="nofollow">https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl....
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
I think Google created a "moat" in terms of hyperaccelerating browser development with disproportionate firepower that nobody else could keep up with. And one potential non-terrible use of AI might be diminishing that moat and with it Google's ability to steer the whole web into their ecosystem. So if you want to be an optimist maybe that's a silver lining that will grow with time.
__MatrixMan__ · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
1attice · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
EDIT: Seems like they edited their comment instead of replying (kinda weird?), answering "yes" to my question. Perhaps I am a pessimist but I am doubtful that every single maintainer involved in Iceweasel complies with their requirements. And presumably this applies to more than just the browser: what OS are they using? What apps do they use? What phone do they have? What bank do they use? What car do they own? Etc. When you take such a hard stance against something over a refused pronoun PR (which btw was definitely chuddy of him), you nonetheless invite scrutiny against yourself, particularly when you say things like "You might be amoral, some of us give a fsck."
What I'm assuming is that 1attice is boycotting public statements, not actual impact. It's why JK Rowling is so hated but not Orson Scott Card: the latter is likely giving just as money money to objectionable causes but he's not being loud about it [anymore], whereas JK Rowling is being loud... very loud. And so buying Harry Potter merch becomes a litmus test for morality, but not buying Ender's Game merch. Alas.
radlad · · focus · HN ↗
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗
This is not a takedown of Iceweasel: it was merely the example that they provided. It could've been anything.
> Some people don't allow imperfection to stop them from achieving their goals to the best of their ability.
One could use this exact argument to explain one's continued use of, shills for, or even contributions to Ladybird, because what does the maintainer being a bit chuddy have to do with combating Chromium/Firefox's hegemony?
And let me be clear, the goal with these comments is not to convince 1attice to use Ladybird against their objections: the goal was to invite them to reflect on their boycott and question whether it was a proportionate response. But instead I got the usual moralistic response where I'm accused of being amoral for not [presumably] not engaging in the same boycott. Alas.
glenstein · · focus · HN ↗
Or, to your point, these arguments could count in favor of Firefox in opposition to Chromium.
Defletter · · focus · HN ↗