I won’t give you that. Ladybird is already quite a bit more capable than that. The JavaScript engine is not nearly fast enough but more and more real websites just work.
LeFantome
joined 2 years ago
It is a debatable point which would be easier:
1 - get Ladybird to the point it is competitive
2 - establish a viable and popular alternative dev and governance infrastructure capable of stewarding and evolving Firefox
The fact that people want to try option one is far from crazy.
See the other comment about Las Vegas
And a lot of other places
Kraft being labelled as Canadian is daft
If you are going to pitch “public, terrestrial infrastructure”, you better link to some explanation of how it would be remotely economic or feasible.
Holding out for terrestrial infrastructure means no connectivity in practice much of the time. Classic case of letting the dream of a perfect plan become the enemy of a good one.
[edit: not pro StarLink by the way]
We are talking about problem in their living rooms or offices, not just on the trap line.
Not even a fork. New code.
Clearly.
However, look at the polls before and after the recent swing in Liberal fortunes. There is little movement in the conservatives. It mostly a shift to Liberal from NDP.
So the Liberals have gotten back people protesting the Liberals, not people the genuinely like the Conservatives.
Sadly, I do not think he will pull many conservatives. All he needs to do though is hold them to the 30% of wing it’s who love the blue and to pull enough NDP votes to win.
Personally I think it should be a requirement to be vetted by a country’s intelligence service in order to run for office.
I am not saying that you cannot run or be voted in. You can run no matter what.
I do think that the results of your screening should be public. Not the details, more just the thumbs up or down.
People need to know the danger you are in.
using the Linux / BSD situation as a benchmark ignores a lot of history. I would argue that the BSD lawsuit was the deciding factor.
the Linux project is not representative of a typical GPL code base. It rejected GPL3 and features a rather significant exception clause that deviates from GPL2.
Clang vs GCC is probably a better metric for the role of the license in viability and popularity. Or maybe Postgres vs MySQL.
Why has nothing GPL replaced Xorg or Mesa or now Wayland?
Why hasn’t the MIT or Apache license held Rust back from being so popular? Why would Ubuntu be moving away from GNU Coreutils (GPL) to uutils (MIT)? How did Pipewire (MiT) replace PulseAiudio (LGPL)? How did Docker or Kubernetes win (both Apache)? Actually, what non-Red Hat GPL software has dominated a category in the past 10 years?
If the GPL is the obvious reason for the popularity of Linux, why would RedoxOS choose MIT?
This is not an anti-GPL rant.
My point is that choosing the GPL (or not) does not correlate as obviously with project success as you make it sound. It is an opinion that would require a lot more evidence.