I see this parroted now and then. Often the people I’ve heard it from are the type of folks who would drastically underestimate the complexity and effort needed to make things. I’ve also seen and worked on codebases made by such folks and usually it ain’t pretty, or maintainable, or extensible, or secure, or [insert fav cut corners here].

I see they still don’t understand where the National Rally vote came from.

That actually makes the most sense. So similar to how Linux was started.

I think it was a general “when you leave Canada” policy.

I guess Chromium isn’t fully BSD. This could be the reason. Although I’d think reimplementing the non-BSD bits in Chromium would be less work than reimplementing all the bits, including the BSD ones.

Why are open source software monocultures bad? The vast majority of non-Windows OSes are Linux based. Teams who don’t like certain decisions of the mainline Linux team maintain their forks with the needed changes.

Manifest V3 is a great example of this. You can only backport for so long, especially when upstream is being adversarial to your changes. We need an unaffiliated engine that corrects the mistakes we made with KHTML/Webkit.

And we could get a functional one today by forking Chromium and never accepting a single upstream patch thereafter. I find it really hard to believe that starting a browser engine from scratch would require less labor. This is why I’m looking for an alternative motive. Someone mentioned licensing.

Perhaps some folks just want to do more work to write a new browser engine. After all Linus did just that, instead of forking the BSD kernel.

Any intuition on why we’d expect opening the same page on a newly implemented browser engine that implements all equivalent standards and functions will consume less resources?

I do not understand the urge to start from scratch instead of forking an existing, mature codebase. This is typically a rookie instinct, but they aren’t rookie so there’s perhaps an alternative motive of some sort.

Even as far back as 2010 the corpo I worked for had an official travel protocol that dictated backing up Blackberries, factory resetting them, crossing the border, then restoring them from the cloud. That was for crossing any border.

As many have pointed out, price wise it’s not competitive. But more than that, the main feature of the Pi is its software support. I buy a Pi not because it’s got the top specs but because I know I can load a rock solid OS with security support and I won’t have to think about it. This is a problem for every Pi competitor.

Perhaps to people who are used to watching ad infested cable and don’t pay for ad-free streaming. So it’s not that ads aren’t detracting from the experience but that some folks are used to it. Getting those folks is growth. Number go up.

It isn’t? You might be looking at a different market.

If you were actually able to set it up via ssh,

I never said that.

I’m on Ubiquity’s payroll, definitely. I’m expecting a check in the mail any day now.

Oh for sure. I ran them without a controller for years. I only set it up to do a wireless bridge.

For home, second hand Ubiquity might be. You can get flying saucers taken off from corpo upgrades for dirt cheap.

I was able to SSH into mine and I’m running their Docker container with a Unifi Controller instead of a cloud key.

Just signed up after they announced the non-profit and migrated all my mail. So far so good.

I wouldn’t go from Google to another for-profit though. I know how it ends.

Yeah, as someone who’s fought against the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobbying in my country, I think I’m on their side on this one.

Debian is as great as it’s ever been.

I’m serious. Politics are a good chunk of the job, meetings is a major place for that. What happens there can have dramatic effects on how long something takes and therefore on the “produced output per unit of time.” I’ve been at it for 13 years now and embracing that has had positive results on my well-being and career. 🥹