"healthy, ad-supported web" — how to tell the article was written by Google.


No, Google, ad-supported web is not "healthy", and there is no such thing as "good ads". You're privatizing the web and are trying to normalize this disgusting effort with these dead-pan statements. As if nobody remembers what the web was before you decided to make a market out of it.

I told myself I'd take my motorbike to replace its seat for a better one this Saturday morning, but heck if I feel like getting out of bed today.

I know this is a long-shot, but is there a [Patreon-alike] way to support Mozilla? I'm definitely in the "please don't kill yourselves trying to be something you're not" camp.

[Patreon-alike: Noun. A service where I can give money in some fashion so they can use it. Note that Patreon here is used in the generic sense. Suggesting your favorite service in my replies is not welcome, and I'm requesting that move along]

By the way, in April I'll get some vacations and you can bet I'll try to clean up my "future blog posts" list a bit.

(I'll try to write it anyway, some time in the future.)

Guess I should just put those thoughts in a blog post, so I'm not limited to 500 characters per point.

But I'm always scared of commenting on the community part of open source, specially 'cause there is no true answer.

Anyway, sorry about just rambling about a bunch of changes in the ecosystem.

And so, here's some Wonderwall.

Another thing that just could be the problem is the rise of forges, like Github and Gitlab. I'm not saying they are bad, but they lowered the bar for contributing and, thus, contributing to an open source project became easier.

So now people want to show the world they are open source contributors, but don't want the burden of carrying their own version of it.

When forges didn't exist, you _had_ to maintain your own version, no matter what.

A big example of those problems is Android: Goog has so much control over it that there are thousands of patches floating around to fix some corner case/improve something that will never get approved and the only solution is a fork.

But Goog puts so much force around spreading their version of Android that a fork would never succeed -- specially due "tivoization", which, again, Goog has no intent to fix 'cause their community is not the Android users, its the other Android OEMs.

Sometimes, the problem is that the target for a project is not the users, but something else. For example, Actix dev pointed that the company he works for was using it, so maybe he saw the company as the real user, not the community.

(Disclaimer: Just to push an example here, not saying the Actix dev actually did this.)

Sometimes, the problem is that the AS is holding the whole ecosystem hostage by exerting so much control over the ecosystem that no other competitor can appear.

Sometimes, it may be that the Authoritative Source (AS) got so big you can't fight it. Take, for example, OpenSSL: if OpenSSL has an issue and the AS doesn't want to deal with it, forking won't solve the huge amount of things using OpenSSL.

And _this_ is really wrong.

Long time ago, when things didn't work, it was fine to fork and do your own version: When GCC didn't want RedHat patches, RedHat released eGCC; when Compiz didn't want more patches, Emerald appeared.

That is fine and should be the way to go when the "authoritative" source of a project fails the views of the community.

But recently, when the authoritative source fails, people jump into it instead of going another route.

Random thought: I see the Rust community in arms against/for the Actix dev and I have to think if the problem isn't that "open source" isn't what it used to be.

"Celular da Samsung com tela dobrável chega ao país por R$ 13 mil"

Maldita Apple!

Não, pera...

Show more