Slackware 14.2 release candidate 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?cpu=x86_64 <comment><USER2> For those of you that don't know about Slackware. Slackware is the oldest distro and it is still plenty alive today. When to setup linux on my computer in the early days with other distros (red hat/suse/etc), this would eventually crap up (rpm hell) and give me something unusable. Using Slackware forces you understand how everything works in a linux distro. This lets you fix your own problems.

<comment><USER3> It's not the oldest. SLS predates slackware (as do a few others iirc) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System) Slack was awesome back in the day, but the the philosophy as being "as unix like as possible" prevented it evolving and adding nice things like package managers. Using slackware is a good exercise, but I'd never use it for an application I care about.

<comment><USER4> This is simply false. Slackware has a package manager. It just does not resolve dependencies. It has also evolved. The Slackware developers have worked on packages such as wicd, which makes networking easy without dependency bloat; other distros reap the benefits of it too.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/wicd- re...](http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/wicd-requires- patch-after-update-4175551527/)

Wicd is proving difficult for 14.2. I must admit that I prefer network-manager because of the convenience of the modem-manager when using a usb mobile Internet dongle.

I take the general point you are making. I'm an end user of Slackware. I think that anyone who has ever successfully installed Windows on a laptop would cope with a Slackware install fine if they read the docs on the DVD. Slackpkg makes updates reasonably easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Slackware is the muscle car of linux distros. If you don't mind getting your hands dirty, it's fast and solid. Plus if you can master Slack, you can waltz into any other distro and not break a sweat.

I've run it on desktops/servers since version 8 and love it. People knock it for not having a "real" package manager, but if you like the control of compiling from source then this doesn't really matter (and you always have the latest versions of any packages available). There's almost always a slackbuild for the project you want. Plus there is the official slackpkg (and slapt- get/swaret for dep resolution as well).

So yeah, it's a bit more work, but I guess for some of us that's fun.

<comment><USER7> How does the difficulty of installing Slackware compare to Arch or Gentoo?

I've only ever installed and used Arch.

<comment><USER8> Slightly easier than Arch.

Just install everything when it asks you to. You can ignore the kdei disk set if you speak English (and have no plans to run KDE in, say, Urdu), and the kde disk set if you do not need KDE altogether.

Since there is no dependency resolution, when you install from SlackBuilds.org (Slackware's AUR, more or less), you have to install each package's dependencies as well. These are listed in the package info file and tools like sbopkg let you install many packages at a go through a queueing system, so this is not as bad as it sounds.

The benefit of this is a completely user-configurable system, and a lack of errors when you hosed the dependency resolver since there's no resolver to hose. :)

<comment><USER9> I just wish slack had something comparable to mkinitcpio that arch has, which makes it much easier to set up an initial ramdisk for an encrypted root partition.

<comment><USER10> README_CRYPT.TXT in the root of the distribution[0] describes how to do this, step by step, including the relevant theory so you know what you're doing. After all of that it shows you the /usr/share/mkinitrd/mkinitrd_command_generator.sh command which you can use to generate the command that you need to build the initrd. Quoting from the docs:

        The mkinitrd package in Slackware 14.0 (and on) ships with a script called
        'mkinitrd_command_generator.sh'.  If you run this script, it will analyze
        your Slackware configuration and make a smart suggestion about the 'mkinitrd'
        command you have to type in order to create an initrd.gz with all the bells
        & whistles.  The script will recognize your kernel version, root partition
        and filesystem, it will find out if you are using LUKS and/or LVM and will
        determine what kernel modules your initrd needs to mount the root filesystem.
        The following command will save you the headache of figuring this out all
        by yourself:

          # /usr/share/mkinitrd/mkinitrd_command_generator.sh -r

        It should emit a string like this (your system will probably give different
        parameter values):

        mkinitrd -c -k 3.14.10-smp -m ext3 -f ext3 -r /dev/cryptvg/root -C /dev/sdx2 -L

The administrator of that machine can examine the output of that command and determine if it is correct after reading the theory about how the initrd needs to be built. If it is, it's a simple one liner, but if not, it's simple enough to either write a wrapper script or copy the script to /usr/local/sbin/mkinitrd_command_generator.sh and make the necessary changes.

[0] ftp://ftp.slackware.com/pub/slackware/slackware64-current/README_CRYPT.TXT

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I really want the best for Slackware. I used to be a slacker 1996-2006 and grinded my Linux teeth on it. It escapes me why they don't want to innovate at all with a proper modern package manager. Also they need to remake their website and with that create a decent forum and a decent wiki just like Arch has perfectly done.

Nowadays I don't care at all about knowing every corner of my system. I have applications to manage, languages to learn, money to make and a life to live - so I lazily run Ubuntu on everything.

<comment><USER12> I'm a bit skeptical about the word "modern" these days. slackpkg is a good package manager and does everything you need to keep your system up-to-date. From the slackware website:

 _" Slackware is designed around the idea that the system should be a complete installation kept updated with any official patches. This avoids the mess of dependencies that some other Linux based GNU systems face."_

Why remake the website? The website is clear enough, has links to the Slackware Book and to a mailing list.

<comment><USER11> It's not adequate sorry. I am not happy with mailing lists for community building. And I know of Linuxquestions.com forums, but that's not adequate either. Seriously, it would take 60 minutes to get this sorted, and 30 bucks yearly of hosting these forums.

<comment><USER10> What are mailing lists and forums missing for you? What killer features do you think that the Slackware team need to implement beyond what they currently have? I ask in all sincerity because you haven't mentioned it in your post.

<comment><USER11> The community. As a user and potential contributor, I need that.

Also I am sounding like a downer... I'm sorry about that. My strong opinions can often be too much, and I get that because they might sound negative. I am saying the things as a long time Slack user that gave up.

<comment><USER10> But what is 'the community' to you? To many Slackware users it's precisely the mailing list, the LinuxQuestions forum, the subreddit (/r/slackware), things like slackbuilds.org and docs.slackware.com.

So what is missing from what Slackware currently offers that would make have 'the community' to you?

<comment><USER11> Based on what I have seen elsewhere (other distros and other major software projects), I am saying it would benefit greatly from a better approach.

<comment><USER10> Okay, you're talking in circles.

What would you like them to do differently in their approach? What could they do differently that would engage you better?

<comment><USER11> Yeah I am going to end the philology here. My advice and concerns above is more than enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would be nice if PV include slackpkg+ in the base DVD (in /extra a.e.)

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't see systemd in there anywhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> Patrick Volkerding is hesitant about systemd, but not openly hostile, so he has decided to stay away from it for now, but hasn't ruled it out for the future.

People who are set against systemd should probably better look elsewhere (although their options are pretty limited).

<comment><USER8> Alternatives include CRUX (whose maintainer's systemd stance is "over my dead body :)"), Void Linux (the only distro I know of to adopt systemd by default and then migrate _away_ from it; currently it uses runit with systemd as an option), and Alpine.

I'm sticking with Slack for the time being, but I've got my eye out for alternatives should the worst happen.

<comment><USER15> I've also played a little bit with Devuan, which is basically just Debian without systemd, and it seemed to work pretty well.

<comment><USER8> To be quite honest I didn't have much faith in Devuan as lasting beyond the "publicity stunt" phase, so it's remarkable to me that it's still around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Does it have a package manager yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Slackware has always had a package manager, from the beginning.

What you probably mean is "does it have a package manager with dependency resolution, yet?". And the answer has been "yes" for years now. Several, actually.

They aren't included in the main installation, but they are widely used.

See also [http://docs.slackware.com/slackware:package_management](http://docs.slackware.com/slackware:package_management)

<comment><USER3> Right, what I mean is can I type

apt-get/dnf/zypper/emerge/whatever install apache

and have that work

<comment><USER16> swaret, slapt-get, etc. listed in Unofficial Tools section on that page do exactly as you wrote.

However, I find that people who choose Slackware usually like to compile stuff on their own. It can be a painful experience with some programs that have narrow version compatibility ranges for some libraries. For example, I recall building Inkscape and Workrave to be a nightmare because you had to try 5-10 versions of some dependencies until it clicked.

<comment><USER17> I remember this, trying to install various dependencies. It was a complete nightmare.

<comment><USER5> I'm a lazy end user.

AlienBob has binaries of his slackbuilds for download and the Microlinux Desktop (Nicholas Kovacks) provides a range of binary builds for a nice xfce4 desktop. 14.2: microlinux builds are on hold a bit until 14.2 gets more stable.

There is also the slackonly binaries that are built from the slackbuild scripts at slackbuilds.org. Not sure how maintained slackonly is but many of the 14.1 builds work fine.

You don't have to compile a lot unless you want special options or if you have trust issues about binaries.

<comment><USER16> Yes, I used a lot of alien's packages. IIRC, there was no Inkscape so I had to do it manually.

<comment><USER5> To save some electricity for anyone else... Nicholas Kovack's microlinux has inkscape 0.91 binaries compiled for both 14.1 and 14.2.

The 14.2 32 bit version is working fine. You just need the inkscape package from

[http://www.microlinux.fr/microlinux/desktop-14.2-32bit/slack...](http://www.microlinux.fr/microlinux/desktop-14.2-32bit/slackware/)

On 14.1 you will need more libraries to support Inkscape version 0.91. I found these worked...

        atkmm-2.22.7-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        cairomm-1.10.0-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        glibmm-2.36.2-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        gsl-1.16-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        gtkmm-2.24.4-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        inkscape-0.91-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        libsigc++-2.2.11-i486-1_microlinux.txz
        pangomm-2.34.0-i486-1_microlinux.txz</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


AutoConnect: Computational Design of 3D-Printable Connectors - <AUTHOR> http://www.disneyresearch.com/publication/autoconnect/ <comment><USER2> No mention of existing tools that automatically optimize things like weight or stiffness given a design space:

[http://solidthinking.com/inspire2015.html](http://solidthinking.com/inspire2015.html)

This would seem an ideal step to fill the gap between 2 connectors in the Disney paper. They must have some kind of solution but I didn't see what it was.

</comment><comment><USER3> So how do I start using it?! They document the method. I didn't see anywhere that they provided a github link. ;) Maybe they want us to implement it?

<comment><USER4> I was recently thinking about printing a top using a technique they talked about a couple of years ago. I was dissapointed that I was not able to find any software. I have seen this happen several times from Disney. It's cool that they did this, but it's not very usable without some code.

<comment><USER5> The publishing criteria for a siggraph paper is that the description has to be detailed enough that it could be implemented by a grad student experienced in the area. It doesn't have to be directly usable.

I've heard that working code counts for more that it used to, but the main goal of academic research is the exchange of ideas and techniques, not making working production software.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This have the potential to be the killer application that 3D printers are missing.</comment>


Web Apps 101: Your Three Point Success Plan - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/03/22/web-apps-101-your-three-point-success-plan/ <comment><USER2> "You should never plan on being acquired. Remember that getting bought for $1.65B (or even $5M) just isn't likely for 99.9% of web apps. Profitability should be your #1 goal."

A variation of this comes up all the time, and I would claim that it means he's not really talking about startups. At least not in the Paul Graham, "How to Make Wealth" (<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html)> sense of the term. Presumably a startup taking investment is working toward liquidity for its investors, which in practical terms means acquisition.

Not that I feel this necessarily invalidates his advice (a lot of it had nothing to do with this). He never claims to be talking about startups. Web applications that are not startups can still make money.

It's just that I hear this often enough it's hard not to feel like I'm drinking the kool-aid on this one. What gives? Is there and unspoken "you can go for acquisition, but we need to to pretend it's really profitability you're after" thing going on? Certainly VCs would rather the former. Am I just bat- shit-crazy? Not that that's going to dissuade me from shooting for acquisition...</comment>


App store sales for Android to overtake Apple's iOS, report says - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/App-store-sales-for-Android-to-overtake-Apple-s-11036706.php <comment><USER2> I think this should be pointed out but this includes all Android App Stores in one category. Meaning Google Play, Amazon, and several of china's are all lumped together.</comment>


Rethinking iOS App Store Reviews - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hliriani/rethinking-ios-app-store-reviews-262a30ea4f69

<comment><USER2> The writer mixes two things: \- the app review experience as provided by Apple, which is completely separated from the app itself. \- the prompt and incentive added by the developer to guide the user to the right place on iTunes to leave a review.

That said, yes, Apple need to provide an API for integrating app review process into the app.</comment>


Why testing self-driving cars in SF is challenging but necessary - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/kylevogt/why-testing-self-driving-cars-in-sf-is-challenging-but-necessary-1f3f7ccd08db <comment><USER2>
      Pass using opposing lane: 422

This disturbs me, given that this is _illegal_ everywhere but Residence Districts (except in the rare cases where the lane divider specifically allows it, like the #2 image... but they proceeded to drive _over the hashed markings_ indicating a solid barrier _anyway_ , which is seriously illegal), and I can't imagine that a very high percentage of meaningful test driving would be in Residence Districts (given that there isn't much difference between driving in SF RDs vs. RDs elsewhere in the Bay Area.

<comment><USER3> Not sure why this disturbs you; people regularly violate traffic laws when they decide it isn't risky. Our laws are not written with enough precision to deal with all scenarios, so we let people applying the law to decide if what you did was reasonable even if it was illegal.

<comment><USER2>
      people regularly violate traffic laws when they decide it isn't risky

_People_ doing so take on the responsibility for their actions and can take situational assessment of risk to drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. They also _accept the risk_ of a traffic stop, citation, summons, search, fine, and effects on insurance rates. What can a traffic officer even _do_ to an algorithm or its company? There isn't even statute law (in CA, anyway) empowering them to hold the "driver" accountable on any level.

When you program an _algorithm_ to disregard law in non-emergency situations, there are _so many edge conditions_ that come into play that go untested in advance.

I'm afraid these issues will go ignored until there is a body count to throw into the media narrative.</comment></comment></comment>


Choose Firefox Now, or Later You Won't Get a Choice (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://robert.ocallahan.org/2014/08/choose-firefox-now-or-later-you-wont.html <comment><USER2> Just so we can avoid rehashing the discussion whenever a post encouraging the use of Firefox is posted.

\- Yes, Mozilla is still the better browser when it comes to privacy.

\- Yes, Mozilla has made missteps with Pocket and Mr. Robot.

\- Yes, it is slow/resource heavy on certain Macs with non-default resolutions. Yes, Mozilla is working on a fix.

\- Yes, it has become really fast for most users after Quantum improvements landed, and likely will continue to get better.

\- No, you can't just "fork Chromium" if you don't like the way Google is running the project. Web developers will still make their website work well with whatever Google releases, regardless of standards.

\- Yes, Firefox doesn't feel native on your platform of choice.

\- Yes, neither does Chrome (doesn't support dark mode on macOS)

\- Yes, Chrome has better security against malware.

\- Yes, Firefox removed the feature that was essential to _your_ workflow, even though most users don't care.

edit, thought of one more

\- No, the argument "Chrome will be the new IE if you don't use Firefox" doesn't matter to most users.

<comment><USER3> \- Yes, Firefox does support Containers, which are a very innovative privacy feature allowing you to maintain separate browser sessions (cookies, site preferences, ...) towards different websites inside a single browser instance.[1][2]

[1] [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_what- are-c...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers#w_what-are- containers) [2] [https://www.thechiefmeat.com/guides/containers.html](https://www.thechiefmeat.com/guides/containers.html)

<comment><USER4> Interesting. I guess it may be possible to use it to be logged into and use different email accounts, e.g. firstname.lastname@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.com from the same browser instance. That would be helpful.

<comment><USER5> this is what I am doing now.

Plus, opening facebook? BAM instant new container automagically open for me, to keep facebook in its own walled garden :D

<comment><USER4> Ha. Reminds of a quote, vaguely:

In a world without Windows, something something doors (or Gates, or some other permutations of those).

Though I don't remember the quote, I remember it being a good one.

<comment><USER4> Maybe: In a world without doors, we won't need Windows or Gates?

:)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And it didn't work. Some people were aware of this. A few took the time to read/discuss/think about it. A minuscule fraction of passionate people acted on it.

And the rest of the world took the path of least resistance, as usual.

People don't shape society willingly. They mostly let life happen to them. Even when you see them protesting, it's the consequence of an emotional reaction and a group effect, not the reflect of their deep personnal vision of life. They have none.

It's why people keep gaining weight, comming back to a violent spouse or voting again for the politicians that just lied in their face.

I have no idea what to do about that. Education works a bit, but it's so slow and easy to destroy. And meanwhile, it's very unfair for the minority trying hard to make things better. They pay a high price, with no thanks, and little benefits except the hope the others won't screw up things more.

<comment> shaki-dora That's hard to prove or disprove without having an alternate universe ready for A/B testing.

Although, frankly, I can't shake the feeling I've been living in the B-branch for, say, the last two years. If so, let me just say: if your results are not yet conclusive, please ask your statisticians for what "multi-armed bandit" means to them, then shoot them if the quizzically look at you. You may even skip the question.

Back on point: I know many people who use Firefox for "ideological" reasons. In fact, anybody who still used FF as of 6 months ago arguably fell in that group, save some extreme cases of inertia.

But, even more tittilating: Firefox seems to be once again be competitive wrt performance. That may just be its salvation, and not a moment too early to make it dramatic.

<comment><USER7> What are you even talking about? You're making it sound like Firefox has ever been a lot worse than Chrome, but that's far from the truth.

I've used both quite a lot and I've always preferred Firefox, even _without_ considering the privacy aspects. I still use Chrome on my laptop as Firefox doesn't support decent pinch zooming (that's more or less my only complaint), but for desktop usage I definitely choose Firefox over Chrome.

<comment><USER8> Not the OP, but when Chrome came out, it was leaps and bounds ahead of Firefox in terms of performance, and it took Firefox many years (until just recently, with Quantum) to catch up. I personally endured it, but it was definitely hard after having used Chrome for a short while, and I don't blame anyone for making the switch back then.

Most users don't care about features; they just want a browser that works well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Taking users away from Google is still a big ask. Google has been thoroughly anti-competitive in this space - they deliberately downgrade the experience in non-Chrome browsers across many properties. For example, typing "GOOG stock" in Chrome/Android brings up a whole lot of details not found with Firefox/Android. There's no technical reason to do this, and they should be pulled up for abuse of monopoly power. Google search itself was better on Chrome till recently, though it's caught up now on Firefox/Android.

Add: I've been a Firefox/Android user for a while now - and with ad-blocking the UX experience and battery life is much better than with Chrome. I encourage everyone to try it (with ad-blocking) for at least a week. Personally for me, Firefox on Android is a bigger deal than on the desktop.

<comment><USER10> Just downloaded Firefox on Android following your advice. I'm a heavy firefox user on the destkop, but I rarely think about installing firefox on my cellphones since 1. Firefox in Firefox OS was slow and it gave me a feeling that firefox was not for mobile (but I guess it's not true anymore) 2. The fact that Chrome is the default browser and I generally don't install many apps.

The fact that it is the default on Android makes the game very unfair.

<comment><USER11> > Firefox in Firefox OS was slow and it gave me a feeling that firefox was not > for mobile (but I guess it's not true anymore)

I genuinely don't understand how Firefox on mobile is slow. I hear this complaint often (along with the complaint of Firefox on desktop not being able to run certain websites, which also never occurs to me), but for how much I try, I never managed to make Firefox on mobile (android) slow. There were a couple of days not long ago (we are talking weeks) were after an update the browser did get indeed a little slow, but it was still usable, and it got fixed very quickly.

I use the hell out of my Firefox, both on desktop and mobile. I abuse it in all sorts of ways, and I am extremely demanding of it, yet it never breaks a sweat. Right now I have more than 100 tabs open in my Firefox on android - can't tell the exact number because when the 100th tab is opened, the number just becomes an infinity symbol - which is nothing more than average for me, I can easily get to 350, and it still opens and loads up instantly (at the time of the performance problem mentioned above I had ~260 tabs open).

Am I just lucky? Do the performances/usability change so vastly from phone to phone and person to person?

<comment><USER12> Firefox on Android has a notable scrolling delay which drives me nuts. iOS guarantees that the point where your finger first makes contact remains under that finger as you scroll. Most good Android apps can deliver on this promise 99%, but for some reason, Firefox on Android does not.

<comment><USER10> Firefox on Android here; Can't reproduce the delay, everything seems fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jf- I think I'm now at the point of jumping aboard this movement away from google. Not because their services are bad (they objectively are excellent) nor even because of privacy concerns (though they are legitimate), but because of the argument put forward in the OP: google are taking over everything. There is far too much power concentrated into the hands of a single company.

As an individual there is not much that I can do about this, but what I can do is to use google products and services as little as possible, and to support smaller, independent alternatives.

I think this has been posted on hn in the recent past, seems like a reasonable jumping-off point: [https://medium.com/@ricst/de-google-your-life- now-82fad3ec0f...](https://medium.com/@ricst/de-google-your-life- now-82fad3ec0f35)

</comment><comment><USER13> Note this advice is true for email services as well. Pay for and use an alternative now, or later you won't get the choice.

Google is hellbent on locking people into their ecosystem. One such move is the promotion of AMP: [https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/13/amp-for-email-is-a- terribl...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/13/amp-for-email-is-a-terrible- idea/)

Speaking of email and browsers, the Gmail app on top of iOS presents the user with a choice between two browsers:

1\. Safari

2\. Chrome, which on iOS is a reskinned Safari, but with Sync and controlled by Google obviously

But when Safari is selected they actually open links in an app Web View. Which does not share sessions and cookies with Safari. And their reskinned Chrome doesn't do Safari's content blocking either. Firefox on iOS doesn't do that either, but at least Firefox has its own tracking protection.

Speaking of Chrome on iOS, they give the user the choice to switch search engines, supposedly, however they only list Yahoo and Bing as alternatives. No DuckDuckGo or Qwant or the ability to add your own.

Android still allows users to switch their web browser or to use an alternative app store, but I wonder for how long. I mean they disallow users to uninstall their apps. My guess is that they are afraid of locking Android down more due to fines from the EU.

Sadly what made Google great several years back was openness. But times are changing.

<comment><USER14> > Firefox on iOS doesn't do that either, but at least Firefox has its own > tracking protection.

Firefox on iOS _can 't_ do this, unfortunately :(

<comment><USER15> I'm curious about this. I get that firefox for ios has to use a webview, but why can't it allow extensions that can manipulate what's in the webview? The main reason I'm currently sticking with Android is that I can install firefox and use ublock origin and https everywhere.

<comment><USER14> You can run your own JavaScript in WKWebView, which is what Firefox uses, so you _can_ run "extensions" to the extent of what the App Store will allow you to do. What you cannot do in this case is load content blockers, which a newer API that uses a list of selectors to block elements without JavaScript at all. Currently this API is limited to Safari itself and SFSafariViewController, which is untenable for Firefox because it is essentially "Safari in a box" in that the component provides its own UI and you essentially cannot interact with it at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Easy path to success for Firefox is to continue to beef up security and privacy tooling for their users and have sane defaults. They've been winning a lot of users who feel abandoned by the big companies in this space.

A problem and conflict of interest for them regarding this is that they are funded mainly by Google. Firefox has a conflict of interest here because they are not doing all they can here because that would cut off their main source of revenue.

So, for example, they have sort of a mute option for sound (just like other browsers) but they don't allow you to mute video by default (without blanket turning it off for all websites). I don't know anyone who loves being bombarded with video content when they want to read an article. I find the moving stuff to be distracting; even if the sound is off. Also the bandwidth is kind of not nice, especially on mobile. The BBC has started putting multiple video previews in their articles. This kind of attention whoring is highly annoying. This is not news to anyone of course.

The obvious fix allow people to whitelist sites to allow autoplaying video (youtube, netflix, and other websites where people go specifically to enjoy video content) and switch that off for everything else. All the extenions for that claim to do this are basically a combination of broken or simply setting the config property that blanket bans all autoplay video for every website (just preempting the inevitable comment to try extension X here).

Similarly, the containers extension is great. This should be baked into the browser and improved to the point where the default container is a private container unless you whitelist the domain. Right now private browsing happens in a separate window. It's an obvious thing to do: every site by default is private until you say otherwise.

Both kind of are in direct conflict with how Google, and by extension, how Mozilla monetizes. This is the main reason this is made hard to do. I'm sure if this was easier, there'd be countless extensions doing exactly that. Instead people sort of emulate private browsing with stuff like noscript and other extensions that throw away cookies. Also nice but not user friendly.

Doing all this in fool proof, user friendly way would be a great way for Firefox to differentiate. It would unfortunately cut them off from Google funding probably.

<comment><USER17> Most people don't care.

Firefox became popular by being fast and offering tabbed browsing when IE didn't. I think being fast and offering radical quality of life feature is a good strategy to follow even now.

<comment><USER18> > tabbed browsing

And popup blocking. I remember how much of the Internet was utterly _infested_ with popups in the early-to-mid-00s. Firefox was the only way to not get inundated, unless you were a _really_ hardcore geek and ran a proxy server like Junkbuster (the ancestor of Privoxy), and most of the population wasn't going to do that.

Popup blocking changed how the Internet works, and you can thank Firefox and Opera for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Back in 2014 I was using g Firefox, for precisely this reason. I am still using it today, for the same reason.

Please stop creating web applications that only work with Chrome (or Chrome and Safari).

<comment><USER20> not only that but stop testing your frontend code only on chrome. i'm the only one on my team that uses a non-chrome browser and every once in a while i find a bug or a css issue that is non-chrome only because nobody tests outside chrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Unfortunately the choice isn't as easy now, personally. I'm stuck having to use an older, non-Quantum version for my daily browsing following Mozilla's decision to obsolete their previous addons as of v57 (and having since deleted them from their servers).

Previously Firefox was a no-brainer choice for its deep customizibility and functionality it afforded addons, which primarily distinguished it from Chromium, however since the move to Quantum I have too many addons without an equivalent to switch, with a couple favorites that did migrate to WebExtensions offering an inferior experience.

Vivaldi would be my second choice should I be forced to switch since its integrated features more closely match Opera's original features, albeit less extensive.

Mozilla felt the need to do what they did in that regard and I understand the various reasoning for the decision however the way it panned out didn't make for a browser I'm currently interested in upgrading to, sadly.

</comment><comment><USER22> Okay, I'll switch to Firefox now and give this a try.

<comment><USER23> Just fyi this article is from 2014 and it was mentioned here in HN several times. But yes you are not too late :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The future is here for at least one K-12 school district that I work with. The majority of the organizations computing devices are iPad, Chromebook or Windows S. None of those devices can run Firefox.

<comment><USER25> Recentish Chromebooks can trivially run Firefox Mobile.

I actually spent last night getting a full-blown desktop FF running on my chromebook (by way of Crostini, their Linux virtualization). It's not something my mom or even my wife would ever be able to do, but it is possible. And if Mozilla really cared, they could package it in a way that would make it a whole lot easier to install.

<comment><USER24> I hadn't considered the android version of Firefox on a CB, good point

</comment></comment></comment><comment> Engineering-MD It's great to see people swapping to Firefox from chrome, but if you really want to support them, consider donating to Mozilla. As others have said, there is a conflict of interest as they getting funding from google. I donate £30/$40 a year to Mozilla for this reason, and put my money where my mouth is.

</comment><comment><USER26> How will avid Apple users on this website choose Firefox as a browser on their iPhones and iPad computers?

EDIT: To clarify, mean the rendering engine (so we keep the ecosystem diversity), not the reskinned Safari. Reskinning Safari with Firefox branding does nothing for WebKit web monoculture.

<comment><USER27> We can, just not the Firefox rendering engine. As frustrating as that is, perhaps if more iOS users picked firefox as their "browser" then maybe Apple would take a hint and open up allowing other rendering engines. Although I'm not holding my breath.

I'm an Apple user in as far as I have an iPad Pro and a Macbook Pro, I certainly don't hold Apple in as high regard as I used to do but those two products are superb even with the limitations of the iPad/iOS.

<comment><USER26> Not using the Firefox rendering engine means you're effectively using Safari for rendering sites and not helping ecosystem diversity. The renderer is still WebKit controlled by Apple, not a Firefox browser controlled and built by Mozilla.

<comment><USER28> I don't have an iOS device, but presumably Firefox on iOS still integrates with Firefox Sync, so it may reinforce using 'real' Firefox on a laptop or desktop.

<comment><USER27> It does, although doesn't support Firefox extensions as the Android version does. Again due to browser engine restrictions.

Damn you, Apple.

<comment><USER14> Actually, since Firefox uses WKWebView, it should be able to support extensions to some extent. Whether this would fly on the App Store, with the rules against alternative marketplaces for software and all, is indeterminate, but I don't think there is a technical reason why this couldn't work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Honestly, the only thing the use of FUD like this headline has done is to continue to put me off of the FOSS community.

Back in the '90s, it used to be big companies like MS that used FUD against FOSS. Now the FOSS community uses FUD against everyone else. FUD is bad no matter who spreads it.

Hint: If your argument is "don't use our competitor, or else", you are engaging in abusive monopolistic behavior, and it gives me reason to believe that if you actually manage to destroy your competition, you will not hesitate to abuse your newfound monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER29> What if I chose Opera? Personally, I've never liked Firefox; it has always felt clunky.

<comment><USER30> Opera Software is acquired by a group of Chinese companies,[1] and one of them is Qihoo 360, which has a lot of negative history.[2]

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Software](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Software)

2\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qihoo_360#Controversies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qihoo_360#Controversies)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Well, maybe if Mozilla hadn't alienated their early Freedom/Open web oriented users with their web hostile actions (or inaction). You know, the kind of users that would stick with "inferior" software because of values.

That mountain ahead, Mozilla, is the accumulation of all the "hills not to die on". You got the clout you wanted by selling out, but now those users are flocking to technically better solutions as you're doomed to eternally play catch-up. Who would have thought?

EDIT: Apparently people still believe in the "steward of the Open Web" image they present, and I have no right to be disenfranchised. We'll see. They made their bed...

<comment><USER32> Okay. So they sold out and the alternative is a browser from an advert company.

How do you think Mozilla should fund the development of Firefox?

<comment><USER31> An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent maintainers.

As much as I dislike that, from the advert company I know they're on the side of the advertisers. They're not presenting a "we're on the side of you, the users" face, whilst behaving more or less the same.

A better alternative would be a fork of Firefox, kept up to date by a handful of overworked but dedicated-to-their-users volunteers. These exist, and maybe they would get some more recognition and funding if Mozilla were to cease to exist.

I don't think Mozilla can change. They're too comfortably corporate. Having lost sight of their mission, I think it would be better if it disappeared and was replaced by something else.

<comment><USER33> > An alternative is an open source version of a browser from an advert > company, with anti-features hopefully being kept in check by diligent > maintainers.

To which nobody will listen and who'd have zero power in the standards committees, as unfortunate as it may be.

<comment><USER31> What's the difference between having zero power and having some power but always caving when it's important for the open web with the excuse that if you hadn't you would lose users and have no say the standards committees?

<comment><USER33> I get your frustration, I felt the same particularly after the DRM fiasco, but at least in Firefox it's not enabled by default. I'd say that is an important difference.

More importantly, I think what's important is that there exist multiple browser engines because that forces Google to at least compromise somewhat, (agree to WebAssembly instead of just DartVM for example), not run completely unchecked, even if I agree with your core premise and I think Mozilla should fight a lot harder than it often does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Firefox is awesome. As a dev, switched from Chrome a few months ago and never looked back

</comment><comment><USER17> Some reasons I like using Firefox over Chrome right now:

\- Tags for bookmarks.

\- Bult-in reader view that makes pages readable again and has hassle-free test-to-speech.

\- I can customize toolbars to much higher extent.

What I would really like to see is more tools for managing large numbers of tabs.

</comment><comment><USER35> I've seen the comment here on HN and a few other sites in the past few days - are there sites out there that _don 't_ work in Firefox, but do work in Chrome?

Like, I'm aware of a few CSS properties that work in Chrome but not FF, but I don't think I've ever come across a site that doesn't look or work completely fine in FF.

The only exception to this that I can think of is Google Earth, which I'm pretty sure you can open inside of Chrome. I've always used the desktop app for that though so I'm not sure.

<comment><USER36> I was looking at this page yesterday in Firefox: [https://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Collections/TitleInfo/512](https://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Collections/TitleInfo/512)

When I enter a name and click "search" I get a page with some JSON ({"Result":true,"Status":"success","Redirect":1}) rather than the results page. Worked in chrome, however.

<comment><USER37> I just tried this in Firefox, and it seems to be working ok for me. Are you still seeing the problem? If so, and if you have some time to help diagnose what's going on here, I would really appreciate it...

<comment><USER36> When I tried it yesterday from my work computer, I got the incorrect behavior.

I tried it on mobile Firefox this morning when I typed this comment and it did the same (just displayed json text). Mobile chrome was fine.

I put in only a last name and clicked search.

Just tried it on Firefox from my work computer and it's working now!!!

I didn't make it up, that json above is copied/pasted!

<comment><USER37> I totally believe you that you saw what you saw! Just trying to pin it down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wasn't a huge fan of the first Firefox Quantum release, but the latest one is amazing. I switched over on my Windows computer at work, and it runs amazingly.

</comment><comment> Const-me I never started to use Chrome.

If/when MS Edge will switch to Blink, I'll indeed switch to FF. Until then I prefer MS Edge: performance, font rendering, OS integration (e.g. video codecs) are IMO better in MS Edge.

Couple months ago I had to downgrade one of my PCs to Win7 (a client wanted me to develop for it), I used Firefox on that PC. Worked great.

</comment><comment><USER39> What are HN's thoughts on ungoogled-chrome? It's still a Chromium browser but without the Google spying.

<comment><USER40> It's not just spying. It's also unilateral actions like the recent 'trivial subdomains' example:

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=881410)

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=883038](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=883038)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Imagine someone from 2006, or even 2012 seeing the headline: "Microsoft kills closed-source IE successor, switches to open source codebase" and hearing that people are mad that IE('s successor) is dead and an open source browser has too much market share. :)

</comment><comment><USER42> > I know it's not the greatest marketing pitch, but it's the truth.

It's about the worst marketing pitch I can think of.

Tell us reasons to choose Firefox over Chrome. If there are no reasons to prefer Firefox, it doesn't matter whether we lose the ability to choose it.

</comment><comment><USER43> I was very afraid about syncing my data with other devices on Firefox. But today I switched to Firefox and passed all my chrome data (even stored passwords) to Firefox. It can sync with all devices such as mobile. I hope I will not get trouble about web apps :P

</comment><comment><USER44> As a non-web-dev, I'm still looking for a reason to not use Safari on my macbook. Perhaps I'm too dumb to see the difference, but I've never found chrome/firefox to be better than safari.

<comment><USER45> As an exercise in trying to install the minimum amount of software on my Machine, I'm using Safari as my default browser. However, there are cases I have found where a website simply doesn't work with Safari but has been developed and tested against Chrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I really wanted to keep using Firefox, but it is just too slow on my Mac. It makes itself and all other things I do very slow. Until this is resolved there is no way I can use it. Instead I use Brave now.

</comment><comment><USER47> I used to donate to Mozilla, but ever since they fired Brendan I haven't been able to look at them the same way.

I use Firefox daily, but actually don't really care if they die because it's their own fault.

<comment><USER48> Brendan Eich wasn't fired, he stepped down.

<comment><USER47> Yeah right, Mozilla didn't even fight for him one second.

> "We didn't act like you'd expect Mozilla to act," wrote Mozilla Executive > Chairwoman Mitchell Baker in a blog post. "We didn't move fast enough to > engage with people once the controversy started. We're sorry."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Genuinely curious - how is it that people don't trust the website they have an account/email/bank with, but still trust plug-ins that now have access to all your browser activity

<comment><USER50> This is my only usecase for Chrome, just for incognito mode. Installed it for that. No add-ons nothing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Firefox ceased to be a best browser the day it released Quantum.. That day sealed it's fate into irrelevancy.

I use Vivaldi.com now (chromium based backend, with alot more effort put in than those who work at google or mozilla or any of the fking companies with huge amounts of money doing fuck to improve the user experience with a web browser).. all the other browsers pale in comparison to the features and customization that is built into it. Sorry Mozilla not sorry you are are fking idiots for the direction you took with Firefox, you killed it. You let everyone done, you didn't care about the very user and developers who made your browser popular in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER52> Is there any way to make Firefox use the passwords I have saved with Google (available at passwords.google.com and loaded into gnome-keyring)?

<comment><USER53> When you first install Firefox, it asks if you want to import that data from other browsers that are installed.

[https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-bookmarks- data-a...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/import-bookmarks-data-another- browser)

Additionally, you can install a 3rd party password manager temporarily that can sync between Firefox and Chrome (e.g. LastPass, etc)

[https://smallbusiness.chron.com/export-settings-chrome- firef...](https://smallbusiness.chron.com/export-settings-chrome- firefox-49457.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I really want to use firefox but always getting weird js problems and freezes on solus project os. No problems with chrome

</comment><comment><USER55> Ever since Firefox adopted its PulseAudio or gtfo policy for Linux builds, I've been a pretty happy Pale Moon user.

</comment><comment><USER56> Used to use Firefox, primarily for the dev tools. Switched to Brave. Easily the best browser out here right now.

<comment><USER17> What features Brave has that are missing in Firefox?

Brave is based on Chromium. It doesn't seem to have any radical UI features that would put it ahead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Anyone have any thoughts on Firefox vs Brave?

</comment><comment><USER58> Just use both. End of comments.

</comment><comment><USER59> I think HN new should change its name to mozilla news or Wallstreet News for IT.

</comment><comment><USER60> Well, this is embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER61> I chose Firefox then it made the CPU fan go nuts whilst it chewed all the available power.

<comment><USER62> Even if Firefox were an objectively worse browser than Chrome(which I don't think it is these days) there is still an argument to be made to use it anyways to ensure the freedom of the web.

<comment><USER63> > there is still an argument to be made to use [firefox] anyways to ensure the > freedom of the web.

Definitely. Remember when Google wanted to buy Wikipedia but promised to keep it a free resource? So happy that didn't happen, it would have been the end of Wikipedia. Services like Firefox and Wikipedia are the last vestiges we have of the original intent of the internet, an place to congregate with the user in mind.

Most of everything else is walled gardens with the hope to create a monopoly via network effects.

<comment><USER64> Or fenced yards, which only acts as echo chamber with an extra chorus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Mozilla made their choice to become Chrome in spirit if not engine. I don't see how picking Firefox is going to help. Maybe pick a browser that doesn't target tech ignorants that need to be protected from themselves by violating software freedoms. No browser that has a walled garden should be used.

</comment><comment><USER66> I don't fully get the cult-like altitude with Mozilla. Just pick the best web browser. If it happens to be Firefox, great, if not pick, Chrome, Chromium, Brave, Opera, Safari, or whatever you feel is best for you. Mozilla has been losing marked shares since then and a moralist message is not the way to go.

<comment><USER8> Unless you actually care about the moral issues, like privacy?

<comment><USER66> What's wrong with privacy with unGoogled Chromium, Brave, Safari or Opera?

Mozilla has been careless with your privacy at least a couple of times: Mr Robot injected ad, Google Analytics in extension panel, and Pocket aggressive integration to name a few.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> Brendan Eich has moved out to make BAT. Lets support that instead. Firefox can die and new things can take its place

<comment><USER68> "Brave" is a morally bankrupt hustle gnawing at the foundations of civil society; it is a bro-wser spawned by a disgruntled has-been consumed by his ego's unwillingness to accept that his bank account does not reflect his former social standing. It is the rare "creative" endeavour motivated solely by a drive to destroy, and to get rich & even in the process.

Also it's just another Chromium skin, so it wouldn't change anything.

<comment><USER69> At least brave works, Firefox has been completely useless for me on anything but Windows and Android since the quantum update. It drains battery like nobody's business or screws with UI elements when no one asked it to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Frankly, I don't want to choose firefox. Their priorities are utterly misplaced.

I can't believe people don't talk about the dark gtk theming bug more often. It's one of the most common firefox questions on stackoverflow: If you have a dark gtk theme, like Arc-dark or Adwaita-dark, then Firefox randomly colors certain web page elements (usually text boxes) dark to match your desktop theme.

Almost always resulting in black text on a black background. There are examples of this misbehavior _on mozilla.org_

THIS BUG HAS BEEN OPEN FOR 18 YEARS [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315)

If something so obvious and so easy (why not make white the default background color, like _every other browser_ ) has gone unfixed for so long, despite its manifestation on their own home page, then why wouldn't I expect that there are tons of other common sense things that Mozilla has totally ignored, waiting for me to stumble upon them like so many land mines?

<comment><USER37> There were lots of requests to have form controls "look native", which is why they were changed to use the desktop theme...

One problem with that, as you note, is web pages that are setting a color but not a background color on elements, which is a web development 101 mistake.

But there's just no way to win here: either you can use the OS theme for widgets and things fail when sites make this mistake, or the widgets don't look "native".

<comment><USER70> > One problem with that, as you note, is web pages that are setting a color > but not a background color on elements, which is a web development 101 > mistake.

If it works correctly for 99.9% of users (those who aren't running linux, with firefox, with a dark GTK theme), than it isn't a mistake on the part of the website, it's a bug on the part of the browser.

User theming is not about to sweep over the web. It didn't happen in 2000 when this bug was first opened. The web has changed a lot since then, we've seen web 2.0 and the dawn of the social internet. But there are zero signs of a user-defined theme revolution. AFAIK themes still don't exist in Windows and OSX. It is absurd to continue to insist that the issue is about to fix itself, as maintainers have done on the bug report I linked.

<comment><USER37> > AFAIK themes still don't exist in Windows and OSX.

They exist just fine on Windows. See [https://support.microsoft.com/en- us/help/13768/desktop-theme...](https://support.microsoft.com/en- us/help/13768/desktop-themes-featured) for example, and there's a number of themes that ship with Windows by default, including several "dark" themes.

On Mac I am not aware of themes per se, but there are accessibility options that have similar effects.

Again, what is your specific proposed solution? Stop using the current theme entirely when painting controls? You can sort of test what that looks like by putting "-moz-appearance: none" on some controls; then tell me whether that's what people using a non-dark GTK theme actually want. Or do you have some other concrete proposal?

<comment><USER70> > Again, what is your specific proposed solution?

Why do you need a proposal from me? What's wrong with this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c8](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c8)

Or this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c12](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c12)

Or this one? [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/22026...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/220263/comments/8)

Or this one? [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/22026...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/220263/comments/44)

Or this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c36](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c36)

Or this one? [https://github.com/lightradius/firefox-dark-theme- fix](https://github.com/lightradius/firefox-dark-theme-fix)

Or this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c45](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c45)

Or this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c46](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c46)

Or this one? [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1461538#c9](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1461538#c9)

And those are only the proposals that are linked from the original 18-year old bug, there are probably dozens of others that were opened independently.

Granted, some of them are dumb (the patch that hard-codes "Adwaita-dark" as a trigger seems particularly bad) but there is _no_ excuse for this to still be around, 18 years later, despite all of the proposals and patches that have been sent to fix it. There are multiple firefox extensions out there that fix the bug, and they are very popular, with thousands of users each. In what crazy world is it considered good design practice to force thousands of your users to install 3rd party extensions to be able to read text on the internet?

<comment><USER37> > What's wrong with this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c8](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c8)

Like the comment says: it makes things better with some themes but worse with others. Incidentally, the author of that patch is a senior engineer at Mozilla now; if he actually thought this patch made things better, it would be in the tree.

Note, by the way, that this bug report is about the Firefox UI itself, not about web pages.

> Or this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c12](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c12)

That comment comes down to "stop doing native theming", no?

> Or this one? > [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/22026...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/220263/comments/8)

That's the same as your first link.

> Or this one? > [https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/22026...](https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/220263/comments/44)

Amusingly enough, that comment was written by me. There's nothing wrong with it. It's from [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=437366](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=437366) which was a superficially similar, but not at all the same issue, and which I fixed back in 2009. (And yes, I have thought about this problem space quite a bit in the past, though not necessarily the Linux-specific bits.)

> Or this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c36](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c36)

That says "stop doing native theming".

> Or this one? [https://github.com/lightradius/firefox-dark-theme- > fix](https://github.com/lightradius/firefox-dark-theme-fix)

That's a set of CSS rules that disables native theming.

> Or this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c45](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c45)

This comment is about the Firefox UI, not web pages.

> Or this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c46](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70315#c46)

This one is actually useful, thank you. Following the links from there lands me at [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283086#c13](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1283086#c13) from one of the RedHat folks who have been active in this stuff. Note that this comment says that Firefox tries to avoid using dark themes for form controls, but some dark themes fail to properly flag themselves as dark themes. Which makes it hard to avoid them.

Also, can you stop pretending like no one has worked on this? Given [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353147](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1353147) and [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158076](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1158076) it sure looks like people have been active here.

> Or this one? > [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1461538#c9](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1461538#c9)

Karl is an engineer on Firefox, working on GTK integration. If he felt that his comment were the right fix, it would be in the tree.

> In what crazy world is it considered good design practice to force thousands > of your users to install 3rd party extensions to be able to read text on the > internet?

In a world where all the proposals for fixing that so far make millions of users unhappy?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Dark.fail: Is a darknet site online? - <AUTHOR> https://dark.fail/ <comment><USER2> Tor admins and cyber researchers rely heavily on this site to disseminate links in the wake of DeepDotWeb's takedown. DDoS attackers seem to love it too as some sites change their .onion URLs ~hourly. Interesting how all sides of a battle can find a simple verified link so useful.

<comment><USER3> Does anyone know if there's any progress on finding a solution to the DDOS attacks that can run on tor?

<comment><USER4> The v3 onion protocol [0] is supposed to provide better DDoS resistance than v2 [1] - haven't read up on the specifics though.

[0] [https://www.jamieweb.net/blog/onionv3-hidden- service/](https://www.jamieweb.net/blog/onionv3-hidden-service/)

[1] [https://darknetlive.com/post/cryptonia-market-countering- ddo...](https://darknetlive.com/post/cryptonia-market-countering-ddos-with- new-v3-onions/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Whomever runs this site is doing a great service to the public. There's got to be a non-trivial amount of effort involved in manually verifying links and preventing the list itself from being compromised/DDoS'd. Kudos to you, dark.fail admin!

</comment><comment><USER5> Lost 100$ to phishing site back in the day when testing blockchain analysis on my AlphaBay deposits, I deposited into a phisher's wallet and ended up watching that on the blockchain instead with no withdraw ability. I should have PGP verified link. This DarkDotFail guy is honest for now but time will tell. Tor is wild west with PGP the only way to really know anyone is who they claim.

<comment><USER6> I don't disagree but isn't this always the case with PGP?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This has probably already been proposed, but I'm going to do it as a joke anyway. DNS for .onion domains when?

<comment><USER8> [https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/279...](https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/proposals/279-naming- layer-api.txt)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Accurate URLs verified by PGP.

What does it mean? I'm not seeing any PGP clearsigned text in there...

<comment><USER10> He verifies before adding & has good track record doing so honestly, but yeah it would be better if he posted all of them openly.

Most .onion sites host their public key at /pgp.txt, some host mirrors at /mirrors.txt . Empire Market for example has a /safe URL which signs the current URL to prove it is official. Most users don't do it though and trust this site to do it for them instead :/

<comment><USER11> Sounds like something a plugin for the Tor browser could easily do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is an illegal* site online?

If I built this service I'd just log all the IPs from the requests and just hand them to the FBI.

<comment><USER13> Why would you violate your users' privacy just because of the network they are using? Many activists use sites listed here, including ProtonMail, Keybase, DuckDuckGo.

If you're so happy to help USA law enforcement without a subpoena it's a very good thing you didn't build Facebook or Twitter.

<comment><USER12> Because the people who built Facebook or Twitter don't do that, right? Let's be serious.

<comment><USER14> I'm not trying to be a dick and you're obviously free to do what you wish (in case you wonder, I have not downvoted you). But this attitude has absolutely ruined the web. Despite all the improvements in web technologies, browsers and even bandwidth, I have noticeably more difficulty consuming good information today. This is 100% because of lax attitudes to user privacy.

Please stop. :)

<comment><USER15> A few months ago, I had someone tell me on the programming subreddit that, while they were very concerned about privacy and Google Chrome, they tried Firefox but went back to Chrome because (and I am not making this up) the font kerning in Firefox was slightly suboptimal in certain situations.

That's what we're fighting against. This was someone on a technical forum who understood the privacy issues at play. But they valued their own privacy _so little_ that they were willing to trade it for slightly improved font kerning. In short, I worry that we're well and truly fucked.

<comment><USER16> I think what you're really seeing is how much people value a good user experience, not how little they value privacy. Killing it on the UX end has always been a thing that OSS projects and software has struggled with and lack of growth there is, IMO, part of what has gotten us to where we are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I dunno know yet. Would someone enlighten me on this?

</comment><comment><USER18> "Tor is the uncensored internet."

The connection is uncensored? Or the content you discover is uncensored?

<comment><USER19> Yes</comment></comment>


Mozilla's Gay-Marriage Litmus Test Violates Liberal Values - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/ <comment><USER2> You know, the flagging here on HN is starting to get annoying. 30 min ago this was on the front page, now it's at position #91:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7533055)

Probably because there are 22 comments for 26 points, which is triggering something (or people are flagging it). Everyone clearly wants to talk about this -- it's getting really annoying that it has to keep jumping threads because of whatever HN's algorithms are doing.

Edit: And, now THIS thread has been censored too, currently with 50 points and suddenly banished from front-page to #94. C'mon guys... the anti-Eich articles were upvoted all over the place, but now articles critical of it shouldn't be seen? I'm sorry, but that's just wrong.

<comment><USER3> I came here to convey this same sentiment, well done. I agree that it's getting tiresome. This is a topic relevant to HN. Why can't it be discussed civilly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Between the way our industry has handled this latest thing with Mozilla and the way that related issues like gender inequality is handled at various conferences, I am finding myself less and less wanting to be involved with the community at large. It feels more and more like if you disagree with what a very vocal minority believes, you are going to be ostracized to the point that you could lose your job.

I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal. I don't doubt that many of the other people that get caught up in these incidents are in a similar situation.

So, every time I consider speaking my mind publicly or even being involved in a public tech conference as an attendee, I think twice and am starting to just avoid them altogether.

It's sort of a shame because even local conferences are getting besieged by self-righteous people who are hell bent on righting some unintentional "mistake" by the people who work very hard to put them on in the first place. I find what our industry's community is starting to be something I don't much want to be associated with.

<comment><USER5> > I have a family to take care of so losing my job would be a pretty big deal.

I wonder how you'd feel if your company hired a CEO who would want to take away your spouse's benefits because [insert arbitrary reason here]. There is a reason why people are vocal: they get hurt otherwise.

<comment><USER6> You're getting downvoted for spreading disinformation. Be honest or be gone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Does anyone doubt that had a business fired a CEO six years ago for making a political donation against Prop 8, liberals silent during this controversy (or supportive of the resignation) would've argued that contributions have nothing to do with a CEO's ability to do his job?"

I also suspect many of the outspoken opponents against devout Christian viewpoints (or exercising those viewpoints - various people have insisted they're fine with people having such viewpoints as long as they're never exercised) would not protest against other religions which hold similar viewpoints.

As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone. And also a shitty way to advocate gay rights.

<comment><USER8> _As a supporter of gay marriage, and somebody who believes spirituality isn 't real, this still strikes me as picking on someone_

Same here. To think that you can't even participate in the political process now without the thought police coming in years later to hold you accountable.

And some people wonder why various forms of political groups work so hard to keep their donor lists secret?

You can't have an open society when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your privately held beliefs.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it's fair to say "privately held belief." He supported a campaign to change public laws. What society can we have when there are no reasonable limits on how people can judge and prosecute you for your attempts to change public law?

<comment><USER8> He supported a campaign that was supported by over half the voters in CA.

By definition, if over half the people supported the position, it's "reasonable".

<comment><USER9> Oh, certainly... What does that have to do with my comment?

In my comment, I say nothing about whether or not the campaign was reasonable. I don't think that's a good argument to make. I did say that it's reasonable to judge someone based on their (reasonable or not) attempt to change public law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _> Would American society be better off if stakeholders in various corporations began to investigate leadership's political activities on abortion and to lobby for the termination of anyone who took what they regard to be the immoral, damaging position?_

I don't think it's useful to try to find some blanket rule that works for this case and all other cases somewhat similar to it.

There's a lot of variables in play. The likeliness of affecting change. Eich's worth as CEO. What Mozilla stands for. How his political beliefs and political actions relate to people. The list goes on. Each individual with an opinion on the matter made a call, factoring in the variables that are important to them, and acted accordingly.

If you find Eich's specific beliefs regarding gay marriage to be disgusting enough to suggest he not take the specific position of CEO of Mozilla, go for it. Does that mean that you should protest against _every_ CEO of _every_ company you have stake in, if you disagree with them on some political level? No, of course not. You should make the call on a case by case basis.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's one thing I've been unable to understand throughout this whole controversy:

What are we supposed to _do_ about it?

As far as I can tell, this was a completely grassroots thing with no organization, no central control, nothing. It just spontaneously _happened_.

Now, I don't know how important this whole thing is. To me, it looks like an awful lot of fuss over a very little thing. But let's say that it is, in fact, the worst thing ever to happen in the history of the universe. Even then, what should we _do?_ Writing long articles about how terrible it is doesn't help at all unless we have something we could actually do to change things.

What actual concrete proposal is being made? Is there one? Or are people just wringing their hands?

<comment><USER12> The main thing that needs to be done, is the public needs to learn & adjust its behavior. This is a sociopolitical problem, and I think it needs to be fixed by those means. Either through adjusting norms of socially accepted behavior (i.e. don't crucify someone for what they did 10 years ago) or through strong leadership from political figures/groups.

<comment><USER11> OK, and how do you do that exactly?

Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed. What's the proper approach for changing the public's behavior?

<comment><USER13> >> Clearly calling people out publicly is not allowed.

I have a possibly weird/complex take on this whole thing.

I think it was absolutely fine for the public/customers/partners to call out Eich to resign based on his Prop 8 vote.

On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about Mozilla employees calling for his resignation publicly.

Where I live, I think Eich would have a case for _workplace_ harassment against those employees. I don't know what workplace harassment laws are like in the US, but publicly shaming a coworker for something legal they did that you don't morally agree with is usually grounds for some sort of action, regardless of that person's position of power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've watched this from the sidelines, and I read the mozillazine blog site at least daily. There was plenty of support for Eich within Mozilla, and many gay employees blogged their support for him too.

I read mozilla's statement of "we let you down and should have been better" as referring not to promoting Eich, but that they let the internet infection fester and didn't attempt to lance it immediately.

If my read is correct, then the entire basis of Friedersdorf's article is wrong.

<comment><USER15> I agree. Though you could argue that the internal support for him also wasn't strong enough that he stayed on. Silent majority?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The strangest omission from articles like these is the effect that it had on people _inside_ Mozilla, many of whom spoke out. You can exclude every reaction given by people on Twitter, HN, and personal blogs—and Eich stepping down as CEO still seems like the likely outcome.

<comment><USER13> >> many of whom spoke out

Curious -- Does anyone know how many Mozilla employees spoke out?

I only saw the first few articles referring to tweets by a small number of Mozilla's 600+ employees, but I haven't been following this story as closely as others.

<comment><USER15> planet.mozilla.org has a blogroll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's sort of a dystopian fantasy that I don't really believe will actually happen, but you can easily picture the natural endgame for this sort of behavior. Much like union & non-union shops, you wind up with conservative & liberal companies. Not just companies that _tend_ one way; companies that say "You want to work here? I'm sorry, I see you voted for Reagan, goodbye," Signs that read, "Liberals need not apply".

(Again, I know this is wild & somewhat exaggerated)

</comment><comment><USER17> Brendan Eich has the freedom to support what he wants to support. The public (and Mozilla employees) have the freedom to respond how they wish to respond. It is up to Mozilla to choose what to do with that public response and now they've chosen.

Too often this "what about freedom of speech?" argument fails to apply the same logic to both parties. People were unhappy that someone with this controversial belief was elevated to a leadership role – why should Mozilla employees have stayed quiet?

</comment><comment><USER18> Utter bullocks. Would we entertain this idea that the tolerant must tolerate intolerance if Prop 8 was about race, rather than gender? Of course not. Nobody pretends that we must not speak ill of racists; _certainly_ nobody pretends that speaking ill of racists makes you just as bad as racists.

It is apparent to me that we as a society still have a _lot_ of ground to cover when it comes to the appreciation of the importance of gender and sexuality equality.

<comment><USER19> That was 6 years ago. The majority of Californians supported Prop 8 at that time. Even Barack Obama opposed gay marriage back then. Why aren't we raising the pitchforks against Obama?

People change.

This is a witch hunt from an action that someone did a long time ago. He didn't even do anything wrong. He just supported a mainstream proposition. He is on the wrong side of history, at that time, sure. But it doesn't deserve such a reaction. This mob justice is scary.

\---

Edit: Censoring me with downvotes only proves how extreme things have become. My reasoning is rational.

<comment><USER20> >People change.

What did Eich do which made you think he reconsidered his position that same sex marriages should be annulled and banned?

<comment><USER19> [https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at- mozilla/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/03/inclusiveness-at-mozilla/)

He put forth a good-faith effort to promote a position of equality within Mozilla.

<comment><USER18> That post is neither an apology nor a recant. He does not acknowledge that what he did was wrong. It is nothing more than a tone-deaf defense of himself.

<comment><USER19> He also apologized for causing pain. He also stepped down. And since when is an agenda of equality a bad thing?

He probably doesn't think his support of the proposition was wrong. I don't either. I'm for Gay Marriage. I'm also for rational public discourse that respects different points of view.

\---

Thanks for the downvote. I know it's an emotional subject. Maybe you have a good counterpoint to express? Expression via downvotes it hardly a good point. It's immature, to be honest.

<comment><USER18> _" I'm sorry for the way you took that."_ is the _classic_ non-apology. He has done absolutely nothing but defend himself.

> _" Thanks for the downvote."_

I didn't downvote you. I _cannot_ downvote you because you _cannot_ downvote responses that you receive on HN. Such a persecution complex you've got going on there...

<comment><USER19> At this point we are mincing words. He said sorry he caused pain. That is hardly a nonpology. It does not justify the reaction and pain caused to him.

He has promoted equality within Mozilla. The sad thing is people also started to protest Mozilla, an organization with LGBT workers. It's free software with an independent agenda. Now it's malaigned as being homophobic.

The debate is being dumbed down with namecalling and blowing things out of proportion. It's become black and white with no room for nuance.

It's sad and scary.

-

I'm commenting on the downvotes and flagging as an act of suppressing a rational discussion. Its similar to the shaming and cyber bullying. The whole "you disagree with me, I'll punish you" mentality that this movement has taken is not good for our culture. Surely we are more mature than that.

I don't have a complex and its not for you to judge.

<comment><USER18> You think that downvoting is cyberbullying, and leaped to the assumption that I was the one that was doing it to you only because you disagree with me.

You _plainly_ do have a persecution complex. The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

<comment><USER19> I never said you were downvoting me. Your assumption is false. Re: your so called "persecution complex" diagnosis, read my points above and below...

I never once attacked you & I don't think I attacked anyone else. If you disagree, please let me know. I always want to improve. :-)

The only truth I can find in your statement is that I'm contrarian at times, have a high resolution of perception, & I'm suspicious of group coercion. Especially when members of the group say people are wrong, or diseased, to think differently; and they have "persecution complexes" when calling out something ridiculous like being punished for voicing an opinion in a respectful & rational way.

I don't know if you realize that you are labeling me as being diseased for the way I think. Homosexuals were once labeled as diseased. How is that different? Sadly, many people are "different" are incorrectly labeled as diseased; and subsequently mistreated. I believe labeling someone as diseased is bad behavior and should be discouraged.

These power dynamics are algorithms of intolerance & injustice. They are the "dark side". It doesn't matter if it's on a small or large scale. I believe humans should resist such urges and should become more enlightened.

There's been studies done about human behavior & power dynamics. Perfectly "normal" people behaving badly in certain contexts. I hope we have more studies.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)

The tactic of public shaming and (to a lesser extend) downvoting rational, respectful, & well articulated points is borderline (& in the spirit of) persecution.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution)

No, it's not killing people, but it's group coercion & punishment for holding an opinion. I believe that is wrong and something that we need to address in this age of transparency (no privacy) if we are to successfully evolve. Otherwise, we all need to start thinking the same. That would really suck for people like me.

The threshold of persecution should be revisited. It's about cause & effect. Saying something bad about another is not in itself persecution. However, if that statement causes one to be fired, psychological harm, unhealthy behavioral modification, etc., then I believe it is persecution.

> The first step to correcting that is admitting it.

Maoist China also "corrected" people's "divergent & diseased" thinking. The first step that the "diseased" Chinese person had to take was admitting their "disease".

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation)

So no, I'm not going to admit to some "disease" that you made up in your head because I disagree with your position & can articulate why. That's like me saying you are a "psychopath" because you are lacking empathy in this situation. It's all rubbish. I choose not to play that game.

If you can have rational counterpoints, then let's discuss. Please refrain from name calling. It's disrespectful & childish. I see you participating on other threads with me, so you should have a good understand of what I am about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm still not sure where I fall on this issue, but one thing people sometimes leave out of the discussion is the fact that a CEO is the public face of the company. Part of your job is to "embody" or communicate the brand, mission, what have you, of the company you represent, and I don't think Eich had the ability to do that. His interview with the Guardian was bizarre, and not what I'd expect from a CEO dealing with controversy.

[http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla- ce...](http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/01/mozilla-ceo-brendan- eich-refuses-to-quit)

</comment><comment><USER22> Here is a topic I am tired of hearing about. Being liberal, apparently, means tolerating bigoted and backwards-looking values - rly?

<comment><USER23> If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

<comment><USER24> People are more than free to express any opinion they have, including the opinion that bigoted discriminating opinions are wrong, and don't really fit the ideals of an organization such as Mozilla.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "In other words, no one had any reason to worry that Eich, a longtime executive at the company, would do anything that would negatively affect gay Mozilla employees."

You know, except for contribute to Prop-8?

</comment><comment><USER26> I wonder what people will use instead of javascript now?

</comment><comment><USER27> Conservatarian disagrees with progressives and concern trolls. News at 11.

<comment><USER12> He's a self-proclaimed progressive, if I read that article right.

<comment><USER28> He can proclaim himself to be whatever he likes, but money speaks and a thousand bucks to prop 8 is a pretty regressive act.

<comment><USER12> Maybe I misunderstood; I thought my parent was saying the author of this piece is conservative

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I wonder if he had denied the holocaust or was an active KKK member if this author would be singing the same tune.

<comment><USER13> Side note: Where I live, holocaust denial is a crime (considered to be hate speech). I was a little surprised to read that it's actually legal in the US.

<comment><USER30> It's constitutionally-protected in the U.S -- a ban would require a constitutional amendment, which is very, very hard. Many of us on both sides of the political spectrum consider America's robust free speech protections to be the keystone of our society and government.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> One of these articles has to survive the flagging brigade (likely made up of the same McCarthyites that brought us to this position) and stick to the front page. Maybe this will be it? It's certainly fair and well-composed.

Edit: Nope.

</comment><comment><USER32> Brendan Eich was not fired because he made a political donation. He was fired because the particular political donation he made is _evidence_ that he is a bigot, that he has a _broken moral code_. There is not, and never has been, any justification for denying gays the right to marry except prejudice and bigotry. Every single non-religious argument against gay marriage has been definitively debunked. Therefore, discrimination against opponents of gay marriage is _morally justified_ , just as discrimination against other kinds of bigotry is.

In fact, even if discrimination against opponents of gay marriage were not morally justified on its own merits, it would be _at least_ as morally justified as the discrimination against gays that Brendan Eich once wanted to see enshrined into law.

<comment><USER33> > He was fired because the particular political donation he made is evidence > that he is a bigot

On what basis is the claim justified that "he was fired" at all?

And, if he was fired (or, at least, given the choice to resign or be fired), what evidence is that that it was because of the donation (whatever it might provide "evidence" of), and not because of Mozilla board's concerns about the way he responded to the controversy over the donation? Managing corporate image is, after all, part of the CEO's responsibility.

<comment><USER32> I simply used "fired" as shorthand for "pressured to resign." And I think it _was_ because of his inadequate response, not the initial donation. If he had fully repented, apologized, admitted he was wrong, I think he might have been forgiven. But that's not what he did. But my point is simply that however you reckon it, his ouster was justified.</comment></comment></comment>


Taste graphs will transform fashion - <AUTHOR> https://blog.chicisimo.com/2019/04/10/taste-graphs-fashion/ <comment><USER2> I have something on the order of 20m^3 worth of clothes. I'm seriously weirded out by how none of the "fashion tech" companies do anything regarding appropriate outfits for the weather conditions. 50% of my outfit choosing time is spent figuring out whether fleece works for 0C-but-windy, what the right number of layers is for stuffy public transit, breezy outside, and chilly office AC, and whether something is at risk of majorly embarrassing malfunction if I run. I don't need an AI to have taste for me (thanks but I have it we can't all be clueless-and-nerdy...), I need it to have fast, appropriate decision-making in case my original plan falls through because of surprise snowfall.

You're welcome to make a startup based on that idea ;) up here in Canada where we have real seasons I'll find you some great test users!

(Although I've been to the Bay Area and it's not without weather challenges)

</comment><comment><USER3> Fashion isn't based on personal taste. It's based on emulating other people and fitting in crowds.

It would be better to train a classifier to learn what clothes fit the current trend.

</comment><comment><USER4> Pinterest has been doing this for years:

[https://medium.com/@Pinterest_Engineering/taste-graph- part-1...](https://medium.com/@Pinterest_Engineering/taste-graph- part-1-assigning-interests-to-pins-9158b4c25906)

How is this different/better than what they are doing?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Andrew, we started building it in 2012. The concept is similar as you say. The most relevant difference is the ontology: our ontology is very specific to what-to-wear needs, theirs isn't. Thanks

<comment><USER4> I wouldn't be so sure about them not having the "what-to-wear" ontology. I worked with them a few years ago and they had a pretty long and comprehensive list of these categorical webs. It's a core area of focus for them.

Just a heads up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Andrew. They are an amazing team with a great ontology, I agree. Thanks for the heads up!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Wow. Got to be the worst fluff article I read in a while. Its just a repeat of the words taste graph every other sentence.

<comment><USER6> I agree it's pretty badly written, but I believe the idea is sound since I worked on something similar in my past startup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's a funny company. They patented an implementation of a Bayesian Network and call it something new and amazing.

Not that it matters, as I'm certain other companies use more modern techniques (deep learning) for "outfit advice".

<comment><USER8> Please don't be a jerk in response to other people's work. If you see a weakness or something missing, point it out in a way people can learn from. Just spraying bile on things makes this place meaner.

<comment><USER7> I appreciate your desire for a better hackernews community, but I disagree with your assessment of my comment. The article is clearly for marketing, not quality content. The original poster is indeed a member of the company. That's not to say company articles are all bad, but the merit of this article is what I based my comment on. But to be fair, what I consider "bile spewing" is based on reddit quality comments, so perhaps I should rethink my commenting style.

<comment><USER9> You're getting the right idea by the end of that comment :)

Bear in mind that HN began as a community of startup founders and enthusiasts, and even though the audience has broadened, it's still part of the culture to be charitable and supportive to people who are just starting out and trying to get something off the ground.

Not everyone entering the startup world has an MIT PhD (we hope!) and the ability to write content that has both technical depth and literary polish.

We all have to start somewhere, and the only way to start getting better at something is to put something out there and see what comes back.

Critique is fine, but we can be constructive and encouraging to help people improve - just as we'd hope people would to for us if we're taking a risk on trying something new.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That seems incredibly tedious. For once I find myself agreeing with Zuckerberg about clothing choice.</comment>


Quantum Cosmology, M-theory and the Anthropic Principle  - <AUTHOR> http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/physicscolloquiums/68

<comment><USER2> Lee Smolin argues pretty concretely and convincingly that the anthropic principle cannot be science because it cannot yield falsifiable predictions:

<http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0407213>

On a side note, his book "The Trouble with Physics" is a great (though very pop-physicsy) read on the history and philosophy of physics.

</comment><comment><USER3> A paper that argues against any "fine tuning" of the universe to support life: [http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1101.2444&qid=n...](http://search.arxiv.org:8081/paper.jsp?r=1101.2444&qid=null&qs=anthropic+principle&byDate=1)

I'm not sure how arxiv.org work, but the paper is arXiv:1101.2444 just in case.

</comment><comment><USER4> On a side note, the banner for his site is interesting. One would guess that a person his notoriety does not need to explain who he is; Britney Spears does not describe herself as "performer Britney Spears", just the name is enough. I think that shows a string level of humbleness.</comment>


How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android - <AUTHOR> http://osnews.com/story/26229/How_Apple_and_Microsoft_intend_to_destroy_Android

<comment><USER2> The issue here is that Samsung's patents are deemed essential to cell phone networking standards, so the law mandates that they be licensed under standard terms to prevent extortion (FRAND). However, slide-to-unlock and design language aren't interop. standards nor essential features of a phone (or, at least, they have not been declared to be, though I suspect they don't meet the bar) so the patent holders are free to set licensing fees as they wish. I suspect that Samsung would not hesitate to raise their licensing fees if the law allowed them to.

More biased propaganda from Groklaw. Hello, Slashdotters--welcome to HN!

<comment><USER3> It does seem kind of perverse that the essential, fundamental technologies on which the entire industry depends have to be licensed to all comers at bargain basement rates while at the same time latecomers can use fairly trivial UI and design patents to drive competitors' products out of the market.

Maybe this is the letter of the law but the reason so many of us are disappointed in Apple is that they're exploiting a broken system using tactics that for a long time have been precluded by gentlemen's agreement and common sense.

<comment><USER4> What infuriates me is the lack of outrage by all the hipsters who hold everyone else to such a high standard. The same people who are still trying to drag Bill Gates through the mud for his business tactics in the 90's are dead silent about their favorite company employing methods that are at least as outrageous.

Whether you're an Apple guru or not, everyone loses when there's no competition in the market. It seems like the ultimate irony for the "Think Different" company to be acting like this. Still, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

<comment><USER5> It could be argued that Apple is acting within the legal system, whereas Bill Gates and Microsoft were convicted and settled numerous lawsuits.

And while I disagree with the patent suits, I'd have preferred that the competition found ways to make smartphones that _didn't_ infringe of any of those patents, and made an even better product because of it. (For instance, a phone with facial recognition doesn't need slide to unlock).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> I think one reason that this legal brouhaha generates so much invective is because of a few fallacies about patents. At least, I think they're fallacies:

1) If a patent is easy to copy, it must have been easy to create. Samsung's 3G technology sounds hard to copy, so it must have been hard to create. Slide to unlock is easy to copy, so it must have been easy to create, right? The classic counter example is Viagra: formula is C22H30N6O4S. Easy to copy. But hard to create; clinical trials alone provably cost $100M, and billions of dollars were lost exploring other drugs which were failures. Similarly, I think slide-to-unlock is but the tip of the iceberg of Apple's expensive R&D machine; without the entire machine, it's hard to create, but easy to copy.

2) The value of the patent system is in the disclosures. People assume that because they didn't need to read a patent to recreate an invention, the patent is useless. But I would argue that the de facto value of the patent system is not the disclosures, it's the legal protections that allow the damn thing to be invented in the first place. If SmallCo is pondering whether to invest $100M to develop an innovation, and they know that DominantCo can quickly copy it for $1M, they won't proceed; they'll gave spent $100M for no benefit in the marketplace. Innovation suffers. Patents allow SmallCo to proceed with expensive investment by documenting the protected result. Similarly, if Apple couldn't protect their investments, we might all still be using BlackBerries.

Personally, I think the patent system should be modified so that the amount of protection is proportional to the monetary investment in the innovation--but that is hard to make game-proof.

</comment><comment><USER6> the whole situation is a counter-example to first mover advantage

</comment><comment><USER7> I thought Groklaw was for information about legal proceedings, not speculation about companies' ability to compete in the market. MS isn't doing so hot, but it's pretty ridiculous to claim that Apple is doing this because they'd otherwise have some sort of trouble selling their devices.

<comment><USER8> The claim is that if Apple had to pay the sorts of royalties on Samsung's (and others') technology patents that Apple is asking Samsung to pay on Apple's patent on curved lines, Apple phones would be so expensive that they wouldn't sell like they currently do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wish them luck. No, really.</comment>


How TikTok Became the Future of the Music Industry - <AUTHOR> https://www.theringer.com/tech/2019/6/27/18760004/tiktok-old-town-road-memes-music-industry <comment><USER2> music industry?, more like hip hop music industry.</comment>


Ask HN: Algorithm behind  Googles Similar search feature - <AUTHOR>

Google recently mentioned the "similar" feature in search on its blog. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/discovering-pages-similar-to-ones-that.html
Any one knows what kind of algorithm Google might have used in this feature or any public papers/ patents by Google related to this feature?
My interest in this feature is due to a paper which i wrote (and working on) in International Semantic Web Conference this year [ http://data.semanticweb.org/conference/iswc/2009/paper/poster_demo/130 ] and which is based on a paper by Common Sense Computing group at MIT Media Lab [ http://xnet.media.mit.edu/analogyspace ] .
Akshay Bhat <comment><AUTHOR> Any comments?</comment>