133
Ladybird web browser now funded by GitHub co-founder, promises ‘no code’ from rivals (devclass.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/foss@beehaw.org
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 28 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (28 children)

"What about the good things Hitler did?" Is not the flex you think it is. Also, using the Autobahn does not send support to Nazis

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    Using Lemmy without donating to the developers does not send support to them. Same goes for Ladybird, does it not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    Adding to popularity does support them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    you're kidding, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    If you see two pieces of identical software, one with 1000 downloads and one with 100,000, which would you choose?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    That would depend on the feature set

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Read it again...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I refuse to believe there exist two pieces of software that are truly for all intents and purposes identical, unless one is a very recent fork of the other.

    Both Lemmy and Ladybird are very pointedly not forks of anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    Which is unrelated to their point, which is that visible popularity of a piece of software (e.g. having many downloads in an app store) has a large impact on likelihood of people to trust it.

    You feigning ignorance at this just discredits your own position. Their question was essentially rhetorical, and you chose to answer it incorrectly rather than concede their correct point:

    If you encountered 2 identical pieces of software, you would trust the one that is more popular, thus proving that popularity is a meaningful benefit to a piece of software.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Of course not. I would do my research, like any responsible consumer.

    I'm a programmer. Which libraries I pick to add to my project have effects on everyone who will use the software I publish. I owe it to them to do my homework to compare them and figure out what the differences are and which one is better for my use case. If I just picked whichever one was most popular, I could have a polyfill.io incident on my hands every week.

    I do the same thing with software I personally use, because I'm a responsible consumer. Firefox and Chrome aren't identical. Chrome has way more downloads but I'm betting more than half the people in this thread use Firefox or one of its derivatives, like Mull or Librewolf.

    I dream of a world where doing your homework when choosing software to learn is not so rare that people assume no one does, and accuse those who do of lying.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago*

    I dream of a world where doing your homework when choosing software to learn is not so rare

    But when it comes to most people out there, we're not in that world right now, and popularity does matter, so boosting shitty devs' products is harmful to the FOSS ecosystem. HTH

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I guess that's true when you're a company trying to sell a product. For an open source project more popularity might just mean more hassle. Sure, it may increase your employment opportunities somewhat, but seeing how entitled and demanding users of os-software can be, I'm sure some devs wish their projects were less popular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I'm sure a few bad people make a living maintaining it, and all the roads you depend on everyday.

    Bad people are everywhere, doing all sorts of jobs you appreciate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    Sure, there is no ethical consumerism under capitalism. But I can do harm reduction. When someone says or does something shitty, I can avoid or stop using their product. In your example, if a road worker came out publically with some transphobic nonsense, I could raise that to my local road authority and they would likely lose their job. Are there more people that have shitty views in this theoretical? Maybe, but they will be less likely to spew them if they know there are consequences.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Is it harm reduction if all the bad people couldn't make an honest living? Would it be better or worse if they were living on the street? Do you think they might resort to criminality also?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    Given that what these people are being criticized for are not intrinsic traits, those people have the option to change their behavior in order to not be ostracized. I am certainty not under any obligation to give anyone my business.

    "What if all the bad people lost their jobs?"

    Well, that certainly might encourage them to rethink whether being bad is working out for them.

    And yes, I'd say that route sounds to me like it will reduce harm in several ways.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'm not sure of the origin, but that is a fair point. I typically us it in the context of there is no way to find a harm free source of anything in a capitalist society, so you have to find the path with the least amount of harm in it. That is basically what you are saying, but just tweaking the stated definition of ethical.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    something is unethical without stating or at least implying a specific ethical philosophy.

    Which is why I followed it up by saying the best we can do is harm reduction by choosing the less harmful paths when we find them. Nothing you are saying is different to what I said, just a different wording

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent