Please don't theme our apps - <AUTHOR> https://stopthemingmy.app/ <comment><USER2> The whole letter sounds weird when talking about free software. Software freedom main benefit is that the user can change the software. Theming it is probably the most accessible form of modification and should be celebrated. Asking not to theme is contrary to the free software ethos itself.

The situation is even more tricky as what is being modified is not even the software itself but the system dependencies. Essentially the developers in this letter say: do not run our software on an environment that is not the one we support (in practice fedora or a close clone of it) and if you create a distro make sure its a clone of what we support.

I understand the fact that developers do not want to support bugs due to user modifications and strange environments. Free software doesn't imply free support so they can put any restriction on what they want to do. The letter however would have been much less weird if it said "we cannot ensure quality of software X except on our build running on a supported environment, if you run the software elsewhere or with changes (and theming is a change) please don't call it X to avoid confusion and remember you are on your own".

What Firefox did I think its a smart solution to this problem. " We offer Firefox on platform x,y,z. If you build it on something else, call it something else, if you run it on another platform remember you're on your own".

<comment><USER3> This isn't about the user theming. It's about distros theming.

There currently is a growing conflict between upstream developers and distributions, because some of their interactions and dependencies bare badly managed.

For example, upstream maintainers see an influx of bug reports and angry users due to bugs, where the distributions are at fault. Sources for this can be changes to the code that the distributions make for various reasons like backwards compatibility, themes that break user interfaces or simply outdated packages or missing backports.

The GNOME upstream maintainers all are having their ass hanging out on a public gitlab repo, while some of the distributors, who break stuff, are very hard to find, with sometimes ancient bugtrackers.

I trust that the community will find a way to update their relationships and solve these issues, but it starts with seeing what's going wrong and where we have bad incentive structures.

<comment><USER2> I guess a radical solution would be to require (through trademark law) to force distros to brand the apps differently (name and icon) so that bug reports end up where they belong.

<comment><USER4> Debian used to have to do this with Firefox and Thunderbird.

<comment><USER5> Firefox was branded "IceWeasel" on Debian - an unsubtle dig at Mozilla, which I found hilarious (and a little juvenile). I'm glad they resolved the issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is more of an indictment of the way GTK3+ handles theming (or lack of it). GNOME/GTK devs, as usual, got confused and implemented something no one wants. Either you provide a proper and defined way to theme like KDE does or take the windows/mac route and tell developers to recreate any custom themed control from scratch.

Instead, they go around saying that there is only one GTK theme and then leave a convenient backdoor open for hacks with a nudge and a wink. Either open the front door and roll out a carpet or close all the doors and windows.

<comment><USER7> > _This is more of an indictment of the way GTK3+ handles theming (or lack of > it)._

How do you think GTK+3 handles theming (or lacks handling for it)? It sounds like you're confusing GTK+3 theming for GTK+2 theming (which was based on "engines", which were quite a mess). Now it's very "proper and defined", it's accomplished with a strict subset of CSS which has fairly consistent behaviour.

I personally don't see the point in elaborate theming systems (I'd prefer to just have control over the colours, and maybe one or two of the spacing variables), and it is obvious that they cost a lot of cycles at run time....

but GTK+3's theming system is not braindead, it's just ambitious.

<comment><USER6> Um no, because gtk/gnome devs have explicitly stated that Adwaita is the one true gtk theme. The name "Adwaita" reflects it. In GTK3+, the concept of themes does not exist. This is why you need 3rd party tools to change them. This is why 3rd party themes break stuff that this article complains about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel like an "open letter" is a pretty odd way to ask something of the maintainers of distributions that do not install GNOME with its stock Adwaita theme. Indeed, despite being created some two weeks ago, the (small) notice at the top that this particular open letter is aimed only at distribution maintainers was only added yesterday[1].

How many do so, anyway? I know Ubuntu has the Yaru[2] theme by default.

I'll add that I personally find the stock Adwaita theme to be total garbage. I've been using the Vimix dark themes[3] for as long as I can remember because they don't make the title bar of windows 30 storeys tall and they don't use beige.

1\. [https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not- theme.github.io/commi...](https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not- theme.github.io/commit/72fb77415c5f5dfe8fdee3a183cedf2024d1b21e)

2\. [https://github.com/ubuntu/yaru](https://github.com/ubuntu/yaru)

3\. [https://github.com/vinceliuice/vimix-gtk- themes](https://github.com/vinceliuice/vimix-gtk-themes)

<comment><USER9> You don't write an open letter when you want to ask someone something; you write one when you want to force them to do things your way by creating a public shitstorm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I couldn't disagree more. If the user wants the intended experience, they will not apply a different theme for your app. The whole reason a user has applied a different theme on your app is because they _disagree with your choices_ and that's totally fine. What's next, asking Mozilla to take down user style sheets and extensions that restyle web apps?

This article is antithetical to the whole cultural foundation that GNOME builds on, without which there would probably not be an open source desktop ecosystem to build apps for.

I strongly urge the authors to take in the arguments of the top comments and reevaluate their positions.

And you know what? The more you enable and facilitate customization, the better and richer will the options provided by the community be. I can see how the argument makes sense for _particular distributions_ like Elementary OS and maybe Linux Mint that are aiming at a unified experience for novice users. I really hope other distro maintainers don't pay attention.

<comment><USER11> They're specifically talking to distros in the letter, not end users. If you want to install your own custom theme, fine. But if you're a distro shipping a custom theme, when it breaks a 3rd party app, the app gets the blame, not the distro.

<comment><USER10> > On a platform level, we believe GTK should stop forcing a single stylesheet > on all apps by default. Instead of apps having to opt out of this by > hardcoding a stylesheet, they should use the platform stylesheet unless they > opt in to something else.

This is what I take issue with as a user. A major reason why I prefer GTK is exactly because I can get a homogenous look without having to tweak every single app individually. There are definitely issues with the way this is handled (and I'm TBH still confused about squaring Qt and GTK styles), but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Icon themes - should be more standardized, that's true.

GTK stylesheets - mostly a problem of different GTK versions they're made for, because GTK versioning is a mess.

App Icons - so what? I think most people like consistency - look at Windows 10 and its ~4years of development, it's still a mess and if I had an option I'd switch right away

All in all I think the choice should be left on the user after distro install, use default gnome look by default and have an option to switch to another with a warning. I agree that devs shouldn't have to deal with someones custom stylesheet issues.

<comment><USER4> > Icon themes - should be more standardized, that's true.

Why? There is already a standard. It does not specify what icons look like, but what they mean. Replacing an icon with another that has the same meaning is not a problem. Of course, if you, say, abuse the "system-search" icon to show a looking glass, this will not work with a theme using a different metaphor.

The icon theme displayed in the open letter is just garbage. Using it as an an example is like saying distributions should not change the default font because they might choose Wingdings.

<comment><USER13> > The icon theme displayed in the open letter is just garbage.

A _lot_ of icon themes are pure garbage, or at least incomplete. I don't think the example chosen here is any worse than what I've seen on my own system. Honestly, _most_ icon themes are a failure; visual metaphors are just plain hard, and there's no substitute for literacy.

<comment><USER4> True. But what about the icon themes major distributions pick?

<comment><USER13> That's fair; the major distributions usually choose better themes. There are also minor distributions, however…

<comment><USER4> Minor distributions have a minor impact. And the few people who use them presumably do so because they like the weird choices the distributions make.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I honestly think we just need to have light and dark modes built in. If you want to modify the dark theme a bit, go ahead, but since the original dev knew the background should be dark and the foreground light, it should be OK. The problem is when people implicitly assume a light theme, but then use a dark one. If we could "tag" a theme as light or dark, a lot of this problem would go away.

<comment><USER15> I think you're onto something, but I don't think it's as simple as just having a "light theme" and a "dark theme".

I think that if we're going to have toolkits that support custom, nested widgets, those widgets need to be designed to support the _context_ they are in. There will _always_ arise situations where normally-light widgets need to appear on a dark background, or vice versa. The nested path bar example is exactly this - it's a widget that supports a single context (light background), but is having two contexts forced on it by leaky style cascades (light text, but also light background).

How about we bake the concept of "light" and "dark" into the widgets themselves and take advantage of the cascading nature to switch the theme of a widget depending on the context it is in.

Realistically though, GNOME 3 was rather short-sighted when it came to themes. Windows 95 showed us the way 24 years ago: you can change the colours of anything you want. You can tweak the size of most things. You can change the fonts. You can change the icons. Simple API that gets applied on top of an existing theme. Expand this for 2019 with dark and light variants for each theme, and I bet we'd satisfy almost all users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I could see a very similar article written for "please stop letting users resize the window" or "please stop letting users change font size"

<comment><USER17> Yeah. This has a whiff of that "let me disable the back button!" whining from 1990s webdevs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Don't release your software under a free software license if you don't want redistributors to randomly add bugs. Just go work for Apple, or something.

</comment><comment><USER19> Bullshit. I need dark theme and I don't care about "brands" nor "identity". Stop burning my eyes please.

<comment><USER4> I think a dark theme is the one thing Gnome supports aside from the default.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I agree that changing default icons is sometimes confusing. The user have hard times finding an app. Especially apps like Geany, Firefox and VLC get so weird icons in some themes that you can't visually confirm that this is the correct app.

I also agree that if you make an app screenshot/tutorial it is better to use the default theme unless you are targeting users for specific distro.

However I see some flaws in Adwaita (the default GTK theme) and a lot other themes regarding the titlebars:

1\. They are too tall for no obvious reason.

2\. the most irritating thing is that it is very hard to tell the active window. I mean it is a bit lighter but that's all.

</comment><comment><USER21> Okay, this is maybe more reasonable than I expected. I believe distros shipping non-default stylesheets are the target here? They seem to explicitly acknowledge users can do whatever they want.

> If you like to tinker with your own system, that's fine with us. However, if > you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that > you're in unsupported territory. Any issues you encounter should be reported > to the theme developer, not the app developer.

Which is a sentiment I can get behind. Telling distributors that they need to make it clear the styling might break things is not wholly unreasonable.

</comment><comment><USER22> Color themes seem like a brilliant idea until hit the point where your custom control needs this one extra distinct highlight or background color to convey state. Then you're out of luck. You only have bad options left: opt out of system theming and enforce your own or hardcode a color (or put it into the settings dialog) and accept that it breaks with any non-default theme out there because no user will take time to look at the settings and fiddle with the colors. Either way, any usability benefit from good default themes (e.g. high contrast themes) is pretty much gone.

<comment><USER23> There are two solutions to this:

1) use offset colours, like specifying to move 10% in Hue off the theme colour.

2) specify all foreground + background colours and admit that this is special and won't conform to any user or distro theming

<comment><USER22> Number two is the enforced theme I was tslking about. Offset colors can be problematic for a number of reasons. The main one is that you don't know if the color that is generated that way has the right amount of contrast to each of the other colors it appears with and that the end result is something that is visually pleasing.

<comment><USER23> As an application developer I want for my users a consistent experience, irrelevant of OS or distribution. I understand that.

But, as a user I want for my experience consistent on my os, irrelevant of that different apps are written by different people on different setups. I want consistent icons, I want menus that follow same convention, I want to change text colours and sizes.

The biggest issue is that developers don't want to follow gnome checklist. Instead of that, they hardcode colours and behaviour. They go heavy into 'it works for me'. And then have audacity to complain that world doesn't bend to their will.

Here is a gnome checklist. I wish the open letter stated how their application follows the checklist and was broken by a distribution so that the checklist now includes fails.

[https://developer.gnome.org/accessibility-devel- guide/stable...](https://developer.gnome.org/accessibility-devel- guide/stable/gad-checklist.html.en)

<comment><USER24> I have a strong feeling that if custom themes are breaking apps, then those apps are almost certainly in violation of one or more of tables 2-4, 2-5, or 2-6.

<comment><USER22> Maybe, maybe not. Some apps have no obligation to meet these checklists because they are for tasks that can only be performed by people with no significant visual impairment. I am not claiming that this a common case. But how would e.g. someone with poor eyesight use gimp successfully? Dumb line of business apps that have a simple UI made mostly out of standard widgets have fewer excuses.

<comment><USER15> As strange as it may seem, blind people can be quite good at resizing images.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's weird how theming seems to have never been an issue for decades on KDE and KDE apps. It's almost as though it's a technology issue.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yikes.

I'll stop themeing apps and their icons once I don't see a single piece of software that has an UI and an icon look like as it were made in the 90s, also implement dark theme. Providing a more consistent UI for new users on a distro is also better idea than leaving it up for the developers.

The GNOME back button being wrongly themed is solved by switching GNOME to dark mode (`gnome-tweak-tool`) and a dark theme. The engine isn't the best but devs don't make it easy either.

</comment><comment><USER27> I have a lot of sympathy for the signers of this letter. As Havoc Pennington (team lead of the GNOME 2 project) liked to point out, every option you provide to users has a cost to the developers in terms of testing and maintenance. Maybe a better way for the letter signers to communicate their position would be to simply say "We don't support nonstandard GNOME themes". Certainly, they're within their rights to say this, and you're within your rights to not use their apps if you don't like it.

Another thing Havoc Pennington liked to talk about in developing GNOME 2 was 'crack'. These were things in GNOME 1 that were bad for the community, but that a lot of users were addicted to. Like, for instance, an overabundance of user settings.

By all accounts, it's hard to write a GUI app for the Linux desktop, in part because of the huge variety of distros and desktops, and apparently even themes within a single desktop. And as a user, my biggest complaint about desktop Linux is the relative paucity of high-quality applications. (Yes, I know there are many high-quality desktop Linux applications. But there aren't as many as on Windows or MacOS.) I can't help but wonder if most of the community wouldn't be better off if a single distro, hopefully with a single desktop and a single theme, decisively 'won' and claimed a dominant usage share of the Linux desktop. Then third-party developers would be incentivized to just develop for that distro, which might make the lives of both users and developers better in the long run.

And of course, since it's open source, if 'the one true distro' went off the rails eventually, someone else could fork it and become the new 'one true distro', with relatively little danger of vendor lock-in.

<comment><USER27> This blog post provides rebuttals to some of the points made in this comment thread:

[https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2018/10/15/restyling- apps-a...](https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2018/10/15/restyling-apps-at- scale/)

That blog post was linked to from here:

[https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not- theme.github.io/issue...](https://github.com/do-not-theme/do-not- theme.github.io/issues/7)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It reminds me of how Reddit allows subs to put in their own stylesheets. Each sub can change the look, placement, and existence of just about every UI element. It makes for the most inconsistent interface I've ever seen for a website.

<comment><USER29> The redisign used for new.reddit.com doesn't give moderators as much control, much to the displeasure of many of us who have been on the platform for a long time.

Although I dislike it when people significantly change UI controls.

<comment><USER24> I can't think of any CSS styles that are actually outright _bad_ , though, unless it's intentional (like with /r/crappydesign or /r/ooer).

<comment><USER28> Just the inconsistency makes it very unusable.

<comment><USER15> I respectfully disagree for the large part. My own brain seems to have no issue coupling functionality to visual design. Yes it's probably less optimal for novice-to-expert transition than having colour variants, but conversely it also gives stronger immediate affordance as to what subreddit you're using..

<comment><USER28> It might depend on one's browsing habits. True, I believe the intention was to give subs their own identity, as if they were individual websites. However, I frequently click between subs. The fact is that it's a single website.

I have no question that every study of user interface ever published would indicate that buttons changing visual appearance, position, or availability with no predictability several times in a browsing session is a high friction interface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is insane.

The issue's primarily addressing distros and projects that ship their own GTK themes as default to users, like Ubuntu and Elementary and System76. My wife's desktop runs Ubuntu, and if something doesn't look right, she doesn't even know she's running something called GNOME - she just knows that the problem is with software (OS, desktop environment, kernel, video drivers, GTK style sheet, whatever).

Most people aren't going to blame GNOME for broken style sheets, they'll be blaming the creator of the style sheet, whether they know what GNOME and GTK is or not.

</comment><comment><USER31> Electron app developers arise :). You don't have distro theming issues, do you? :D

And now seriously. If linux developers turn away from native ui libs (like KDE or GNOME), this might be one of the reasons. The other option is specifically ban disrespectful distros in the license terms.

I strongly believe in freedom (but not as GNU - absolute user freedom). Freedom IMO should be on both sides. If app developers doesn't want his/her app to be themed, then we should respect that. Our freedom is too look somewhere else to satisfy our need.

</comment><comment><USER32> It sounds like GTK theming is broken.

</comment><comment><USER33> Leave me my icons.

Meh about the in-app theming. Probably should not be bundled, but sadly most OSS ist lacking in the front-end and can really use some polish.

</comment><comment><USER4> > GTK Stylesheets can make applications look broken, and even unusable.

Bugs are bad, yes.

> Icon Themes can change icon metaphors, leading to interfaces with icons that > don't express what the developer intended.

That is not a problem if you use icons for the purpose they are intended for.

> Changing an app's icon denies the developer the possibility to control their > brand.

Good. My computer is not your billboard. Consistency is more important than your "brand".

> Appstream Screenshots (the screenshots used in GNOME Software or Flathub) > are not very useful if they look nothing like the real app does once you > install it.

> User Help and Documentation are similarly useless if UI elements on your > system are different from the ones described in the documentation.

Nonsense. Theming doesn't affect the layout of a program. If people were that bad at abstraction, then how do they recognize they can sit on a metal chair if they are familiar with wooden ones?

> They are built and tested for the upstream GNOME stylesheet, icons, and > fonts, so that's what they should look like on peoples' systems.

No. They should look like the user chooses them to look. One way for the user to express their choice is to choose a distribution whose theme they like.

> Changing third-party apps without any QA is reckless, and would be > unacceptable on any other platform.

∀x. x without any QA is reckless.

<comment><USER34> Your entire comment feels awfully dismissive and egocentric.

The author presents valid and sensible issues with the state of theming on the GNOME platform. And the overarching topic is essentially User Experience.

Even the slightest change in color can introduce friction between UI elements. Or to be more extreme, if a theme turns your entire app into a white blurry mess, you would get mad at the application, and not the theme. Although many of the same design principles are used in the making of either a chair or a graphical user interface, they are definitely not the same in any regard.

On the topic of icons: just like language, they evolve over time. On top of that, icons can have different meaning depending on your background. Icons can be combined to form a composite icon, and now imagine one of those icons is not displayed as you intended it to be. The entire meaning can change because the design intentions are lost.

On the topic of branding: it's not about your desktop being a billboard. It's about being able to recognize the brand across different operating systems, and it's also - more or less - the only thing about the product that is not designed for the purpose of user experience (but in a sense, they still are). And let's be honest: most apps we use in our day to day life have very tame brands and adhere to certain standards. That is because the apps we use are usually good, and we throw the bad, obnoxious ones away really quickly.

All in all, the author presents valid concerns, especially if you don't project them on how you prefer your UI, but rather, how potential Linux / GNOME users could have additional difficulties because of theming issues.

<comment><USER35> The only egocentrism I see is all in the pompous article requesting that users do not make perfectly reasonable choices on their own computers. Then attempts to justify on some absurdly contrived grounds. Neither reasonable _nor_ sensible.

Imagine if Apple asked users not to apply stickers to their laptop as it denies Apple the possibility to control their brand, or could make the laptop look broken, even unusable - shock I may even apply a sticker that shows a broken circuit board or simulates cracked aluminium. Apple's view is that applying a sticker to the case or keyboard render Appley documentation useless as they don't look like the pictures we screenshotted in moments.

> Even the slightest change in color can introduce friction between UI > elements

Yeah, and? They might be the difference between unusable discomfort and usable, or allow ageing eyes to cope with arrogant and restricted developer choices, or missing sense of aesthetic. You might not like the colour car I buy or the decorating scheme I choose for my house. Mind your own damn business.

> On the topic of branding

Yeah, about that. It's branding that has led computer and phone makers to give _highly_ limited theming capability. Firefox or my desktop is no longer my own to adjust and fiddle to unusability (sic) or perfection - _as I see fit._ Like the paint I use inside my house, mind your own damn business. I might LIKE my phone, Windows box and Linux box to all look highly distinct from each other for my own personal reasons. Mind your own damn business.

It is not another surface on which to stimulate my neurons to be further programmed by the brand. Baa.

Edit: Specifically on icons, I have been changing icons since the days of Workbench 1.3 in about 1986 or 87. I won't stop now. I've chosen _wildly_ different icons for some apps at times - because they worked better for me. Icons as space for a logo is an entirely negative fashion to my mind as I prefer a hint, however vague, of what that a rarely used app does.

<comment><USER36> It _EXPLICITLY_ says that it does not talk about users changing things on their machines, but wants it to be something the user sets instead of a distro applying by default.

<comment><USER35> I may choose a distro that specifically looks a certain way - like the one that tries to look just like MacOS. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do. Just as it's perfectly reasonable to regret consistency on a platform that doesn't have distros - as you may want to vary.

"However, if you change things like stylesheets and icons, you should be aware that you're in unsupported territory."

Unsupported territory, for changing a desktop icon, or adding a higher or lower contrast stylesheet? Wow. That's pompous and absurd for me. Doesn't sound like it's explicitly made a reasonable exception though, just piles on a layer of entitlement for a damn brand.

<comment><USER37> If a distro is committed to modifying the style sheets to look like macOS, then it should be the distro's responsibility to maintain the applications. Precisely because the distro market for Linux is so varied, it is hard for Gnome app developers to support all possible theme configurations.

Read the banner at the top of the page again. It doesn't ask users to stop customizing, and it doesn't say there shouldn't be distros with custom theming. It just asks distros to stop shipping broken apps as a result of theming, and it asserts that if that's the route you want to go, then you are on your own.

<comment><USER4> > it doesn't say there shouldn't be distros with custom theming.

Reading carefully between the lines, I think they actually do hint at that:

> Please don't theme our apps

> This is why we ask respectfully that our applications not be themed.

> On a platform level, we believe GTK should stop forcing a single stylesheet > on all apps by default.

> If you are a distribution who changes the system stylesheet and icons, > please reconsider this decision.

> If you do, we ask that you please stop theming our apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> As an end user I never had any of the mentioned users. On some rare occasions when the state of my distro was probably too unique, I had some problems, but that's why I use linux.

</comment><comment><USER39> Don't theme, well then start to hire/team along with proper designers then (graphical/UI/UX).

</comment><comment><USER40> Please make Linux apps less ugly. The visual design is always a decade behind mainstream OSes.

</comment><comment><USER41> >App Icons are the identity of an app. Changing an app's icon denies the developer the possibility to control their brand.

Yeah so, this is bullshit. Why would anyone have any say what my computer looks like.

</comment><comment><USER42> The gnome/gtk team introduces breaking changes to the styles and themes _all the time_. I think this is misplaced outrage.

One of the things I like most about gtk apps is the ability to theme them to achieve a uniform look across all my apps. I would rather use a slightly less functional gtk app than a qt/kde thing for this reason.

Users who care enough to mess with themes by necessity accept that sometimes things may need some tweaking. Most popular themes are on gh and have responsive maintainers who are invested in their themes looking good/uniform. The burden should be placed on the theme maintainers and the users who choose to use non-default configuration, rather than disabling themes on an ad-hoc basis.

</comment><comment><USER43> On the contrary, I think GNOME allows people too much freedom to theme and it opens the system up to really broken theming. One of the things I love about Serenity OS is that it has one simple theming engine so everything looks the way you'd expect between applications.

<comment><USER4> > On the contrary, I think GNOME allows people too much freedom

Freedom is kind of the point of free software.

<comment><USER43> The ability to run what you want and modify what you want is different from design freedom.

<comment><USER4> Indeed. Keeping people from modifying their software affects only developers, keeping people from choosing a theme affects every user.

The ability to use what software you want, however, isn't much different from the ability to use what theme you want.

And ultimately, freedom is not specifically about running the software you want, or about modifying software, but about _doing what you want_.

<comment><USER43> The ability to use whatever theme you want has created a situation where Linux UI is in complete disarray. If you want a different UI you should obviously have that option, but there isn't a major UI system that takes the opposite approach, instead developer effort is being wasted on a feature that's always broken all the time and restricted to handful of working themes anyway.

<comment><USER4> > there isn't a major UI system that takes the opposite approach

Good thing there is at least one then. Blindly cloning other "major UI systems", now that would be a waste of developer resources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Write the app in Electron. Problem solved. No more OS overriding your look.

<comment><USER10> I can see why the Electron-haters are downvoting you, but you're completely right. Don't build your apps in GTK if you don't want to have overridden GTK configurations affect your UI. I would really like Electron to add an on-by- default standard interface to override CSS rules for Electron apps, though.

(I don't have a horse in the Electron-is-great-or-crap race)

<comment><USER4> This is about free software. If a distribution insists on theming your Electron app, it can do so.

<comment><USER10> Sure. Even if I disagree with the letter, no one has asked for disallowing distros to do anything - it's more of a plea than a demand.

<comment><USER4> True. It even explicitly says that they don't want to use a technical solution like 781 proposed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This guy probably would have gotten an actual discussion if he had worded his argument a little more friendly.</comment>


Tumblr Lands $85 Million in Funding - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/tumblr-lands-85-million-in-funding/ <comment><USER4> This celebration of "businesses" who make no money (and show no interest in making money) has to stop. It's one thing if we call them what they are - <USER2> little side projects.

But if we're to believe these companies are businesses that make money and put food on the table, that's hogwash.

<comment><USER5> Tumblr gets over 10 _billion_ page views a month. It's something bigger than a "neat little side project." The criticism of Tumblr (and Twitter) that they're not "real" businesses or that they're not interested in making money ignores how young these companies are and how early in their lifetimes we're judging them.

<comment><USER4> Can 10 billion page views a month feed my 13 month old?

<comment><USER6> You give me 10 billion page views like Tumblr's a month, I'll feed your 13 month old myself, out of pocket.

<comment><USER7> How?

<comment><USER8> False accounts propping up trend setters fueled by entertainment / fashion industry needing to promote..

(Just thinking out loud)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What percentage of Tumblr traffic is pornography?

<comment><USER9> It's interesting that this question keeps getting mod'd up and then mod'd back down again. Elephant in the room? For as successful as Tumblr's growth has been, my guess that it's in large part due to the platform distributing a bazillion free porn images and videos. I would be curious to know how much of their traffic is actually porn. My sense is it could be > 80%.

Fwiw, I have nothing against porn. I think it is part of what powers the internet. But I think it's disingenuous to tout the success of a site when you're giving away something for free (much like free music or videos) virtually everybody wants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a long-time Tumblr user I've always wondered, do they have income?

There are no ads on the site, and no premium plans or pricing (other than the paid themes, but I assume that most of that goes to the theme's author) that I can see. How can it last?

</comment><comment><USER11> They have some impressive numbers:

 _Mr. Karp said that Tumblr's growth has exploded in the past year. It's attracted popular musicians such as Lady Gaga and traffic leapt to 13 billion page views per month from 2 billion page views per month. Since the site was first introduced, 30 million blogs have been created using the tool. Those 30 million blogs now generate more than 40 million posts each day._

 _A recent report from Nielsen said that the audience for the site tripled in the past year and has drawn more female teens to the site than any other social network. Although Facebook still dominates the majority of the time Americans spend on the Web, occupying more than 53 billion minutes each month, Tumblr manages to capture a reasonable share of screen time as well, with more than 623 million minutes per month._

So the avg. American spends ~3hrs a month on Facebook and 2mins on Tumblr.

<comment><USER12> Not really a useful calculation to make.

Obviously Facebook is a lot more popular, and if you can't see that from reading "53 billion" vs "623 million" then...

What is interesting is some other statistics that show Tubmlr to be impressive, such as:

\- 10% more "minutes spent" by US visitors than Twitter

\- Tumblr generated the second most UK pageviews of any social network, after Facebook (again, obviously, a long way behind Facebook)

\- With 11 million unique US viewers, Tumblr has less than Twitter (23m), Wordpress (22m), MySpace (19m), LinkedIn (17m), yet has more minutes spent on it than any of those. Blogger has 50m uniques (321% more than Tumblr) and only 700m minutes (16% more than Tumblr). All this shows that while it isn't huge in how many people use it, the audience it does have is much more engaged that other sites.

<comment><USER11> It's useful because 3 hours and 2 minutes are figures that I can easily remember, 53B and 600M not so much.

<comment><USER12> But unless 100% of Americans use both these services, that is irrelevant, so essentially all you are doing is finding the lowest common denominator - <USER3> if you're wanting to do that, why wouldn't you go with defining facebook as "90x more", i.e. 90 / 1 rather than 180 / 2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Has Posterous lost the race against Tumblr yet?

<comment><USER14> There's also soup.io. Does anybody use that outside of Europe? Apparently they've got 800k monthly unique visitors vs. 13.4 million for Tumblr.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Like the other guy said: "Show me the money!"...

</comment><comment><USER16> Has anyone figured out how to use tumblr in some "meaningful" way e.g. not just reposting the same old memes over and over again? I still struggle to get the point of using it.

<comment><USER17> There are tumblr subcultures that are more like a sequel to LiveJournal, which makes it more meaningful (at least to those users) than just a meme delivery device.

It also gets some use as sort of an improved Twitter. If you like a post you can, um, Like a post, reblog it as is, or reblog it with a comment of your own. You also get much better options for embedding media easily.

Of course, if you don't have any interest in having a LiveJournal and don't want an improved Twitter (with a lower user count), there may still not be any point to _you_ using it.

<comment><USER16> thank you wanorris. actually a helpful reply. appreciate that!

</comment></comment></comment><comment> johnx123-up Congrats!

<comment> johnx123-up Why downvoting? (answers will help me to fix myself)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cool! Congrats.

</comment><comment><USER19> The game is still going! It's great to see that bad news on the IPO market and broader economy is not killing upstream entrepreneurs.</comment>


Building a company is fucking hard - <AUTHOR> https://nvdk.co/2018/11/28/entrepreneurship/building-a-company-is-fucking-hard/ <comment><USER3> Not dissing the general message. Startups can be brutal, but still. Dude is 22 and claims having seen more hardship than others. Try dealing with raising kids, health issues, sick family members, dying friends, mid life (all of which will probably happen as you near the age 40) and a startup will look like a pleasant distraction from the actual hard stuff in life.

I,d say enjoy being 22, don't take yourself to seriously and reflection will come with age.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if the median age of HackerNews readers has shifted through the years? I started reading HN probably around my early 20s, if not sooner, and now I'm in my thirties with children. Life doesn't get easier or less complex as time goes on, that's for sure.

<comment><USER5> HN readership is definitely skewing mid 30s at this point.

<comment><USER6> do you have any data to back this up?

<comment><USER7> I am 37 and judging by the comments here, I feel like average user age is above around 40.

<comment><USER8> I'm 21 but don't comment a lot as it's a bit intimidating. As far as I perceive top commenters are older than me as they usually have a lot of experience in the topic they're discussing. I bet many people my age feel the same

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some very good points, though the tone slightly reminds me of the the Mark Twain quote: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years."

It's certainly very difficult to start a business from scratch, and to grow it.

A trick is if you can spin off a job into a contract, into a larger contract, etc, with the same customer(s), ideally people who may move to larger companies, and carry the relationship with them.

<comment><USER10> As a sidenote: I looked it up because I was curious and apparently that quote is a misattribute: [https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain- father/](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/10/10/twain-father/)

<comment><USER11> lol. famously, most Mark Twain quotes are misattributed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > _I have yet experienced more in these four years than most people do in all > of their lives._

Lol, hearing that from a 22 year old.

<comment><USER13> A lot of old people have been comfortable their entire adult lives.

<comment><USER14> I'm not sure what you mean by 'comfortable'. But let's assume you mean 'figured out life'. I used to think that people knew what they were doing as they were getting older.

I'm still 'young', my wife and I are late 20s, early 30s. And I have given up the idea on 'figuring it out'.

<comment><USER15> This. Right here. Currently in my late 20's. I have nothing figured out, and I stopped trying to figure things out a while ago.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's an old adage that successful people surround themselves with success. It's all about cohort - if you don't have other friends who are pushing themselves the way you are, it will be very, very, hard. It doesn't matter if you're in tech and your friend is in gardening, what matters is the shared struggle, and dreams. It helps knowing you're in a boat others have been in before.

Spouses/partners can understand and support - but (most) haven't been through it, and there's just a different conversation that can be had with others who have. That's not a negative, it's a reminder that it really does take all types.

<comment><USER17> This is why it's important to grow up in the right zip code, do well in school, score high enough on standardized tests, get into the best universities. If you want to maximize your chances of getting to the top, the best way to do that is to know the right people.

<comment><USER18> Great advice! That's like saying that it's super easy to become rich. It just takes 2 easy steps: Step 1. Be born into a rich family. Step 2: Get inheritance cash.

<comment><USER19> Don't be so morbid. If you have a rich family, you can get plenty of capital without anyone dying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Two important points in that essay:

 _You will need friends_

 _You will need mentors_

This is 100% true, so I have a question. How do you find those when you're already spending all of your time on your startup and new to town without a support network in place?

<comment><USER21> I moved to a new city in Jan where I know one person, am starting a new company, and have a young family (e.g. limited time). In the last month I've:

1\. Spoken to a group of CEOs about how to solve their product management issues

2\. Organized a group of 6 product managers for drinks (I had met two of them once)

3\. Demonstrated credibility and a willingness to help enough that I've gotten a bunch of inbound intros to help people with their Product problems

Here's what I did:

1\. Connected with people at the local startup hub. There's only one here as it's a small city (< 500k people). I've been working in tech since 2001 and have cultivated a fairly broad network. I was thus able to get an intro to the CEO of the hub here which helped immensely.

2\. Share my knowledge. I've been doing Product Management for 16+ years. That's a skill that's needed here. So doing talks through the hub has enabled me to meet people and establish credibility. I put the word out that I'll meet with anybody in the local community to see if I can help with their product issues, and now people are sending me intros to others.

3\. Organize people. It takes so little to organize a small group of like- minded folks. Last night I got 6 other Product Managers together here at a bar to talk shop. It was a matter of putting the word out amongst people I'd met via steps 1 and 2 with a time, date, and location.

If you lather, rinse, and repeat steps 2 and 3 you'll establish a good community because you're helping others level up.

Think about this time as an investment in your long term success. Work doesn't always look like writing code or talking to customers - having a peer group and mentors you can learn from will help with strategy, tactics, accountability, and - most importantly - your mental health.

<comment><USER20> This is very solid, actionable advice that I can follow. Great point about "work doesn't always look like work." Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> _If I set out to tell you the story of my life, there isn't much – and yet, a whole lot! I've only been up and around for about 4 years, a happy ignorant high school teenager before that. I have yet experienced more in these four years than most people do in all of their lives._

Ah, the folly of youth. Of course you are more special than everyone else. Of course you are smarter than everyone else. Of course you have experienced more than everyone else.

I certainly was as well at 22.

 _"When I was seventeen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-five, I was astonished at how much he had learned in eight years."_

</comment><comment><USER23> > I have yet experienced more in these four years than most people do in all > of their lives.

oh please. how embarrassing

</comment><comment><USER24> I've already ranted against blog posts titled 'X is Hard'. Yet another hits the top post on HN. Yes, most things are hard, especially when you can describe it in detail as an 'expert'. To a layman, anything can be hard.

These always come off as ego pieces to me justifying why they're worth money or why they should be hired. How about you just let your work represent you?

<comment><USER25> I agree the title is a poor one, but I think there is some useful advice in the article, e.g. taking it easy when the week is hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Most start ups will die because of mistakes made from the one bucket of common errors – about 90% of them. These include bad financial management, hiring errors, product errors, marketing errors, etc. I believe they can be easily avoided, but can also be easily forgotten about when you're busy hustling."

As far as I remember the reason most companies were dying (from a YC survey, I believe?) was product-market fit. This is not something that can be "easily avoided", and certainly not by simply having a mentor.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think Mark Cuban on Shark Tank used to tell founders this. Don't start a company because you have a world-altering idea. Start a company because you love starting companies.

<comment><USER28> What would he have you do if you have a world-altering idea? A company is still the best vehicle for seeing it actually change the world.

<comment><USER19> If you have a world-altering idea, and you want to alter the world, but you don't actually like to _do the work_ (which is what Cuban was warning about), then don't build a company -- tell people your idea (try to sell it if you want, but if you don't like doing the work of selling, just give it away) and let someone who wants to the work do the work.

This is how academics and think-tanks and pundits operate.

Of course, what you'll find is that ideas are a dime a dozen and yours likely aren't novel. Execution is the best vehicle does changing the world, and it doesn't matter whose ideas you execute on; what matters is that you like executing.

<comment><USER28> The quote was that you should only start a company if you "love starting companies." It's not about being willing to do the work or not. I can do work I don't love. In fact, that's most of the work I do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I mean, if you're experienced, plan ahead (mentally and economically), and have a good idea and product market fit, it doesn't have to be torture, or even that hard. It's like trying to prove a really hard theorem. For Goedel proving the incompleteness theorem was probably incredibly hard, but he did achieve it in the end (thanks to previous experience and training and because he tackled a good problem with respect to his skills), but for most mathematicians that'd be impossible or torture. I know what I'm saying sounds mean or cruel, but I mean it's the truth.

<comment><USER29> Business is hard when you get emotionally invested. Otherwise it's just work. As I've gotten older I feel like the latter perspective has helped me handle the challenges better and make better decisions.

The more I look at my business as "just work" and not some egotistical search for meaning the better I am at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I applaud the kid for taking the jump into entrepreneurship at a young age. The one thing I think young entrepreneurs like him make is never working in industry/corporate/working for multiple startups before they start their own. You need to walk before you run. Its like apprenticeship, you go to a company/companies and learn how processes work, learn what efficiency means, learn how decisions get made, learn different ways of management or how different CEO's run a company, etc. I wish the OP best of luck, dont get to down in the dumps, you are only 22 and have already had an acquisition, and employed 15 people!

</comment><comment><USER31> Yes it is. Finding a community has helped me greatly. Two years ago it was literally just me.

Now I have a therapist, a coach, a private freelancer community, three mastermind groups, an in-person entrepreneur meetup, three Slack groups, and a mailing list I write to and get feedback from.

The difference between now and two years ago is massive.

Something else that helps is not having a runway. After taking a year off and spending all of my money without much to show for it, I'm all in on the strategy of spending 50% of my time on freelance and 50% on building a business. Infinite runway and way less stress. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't find the problem of creating a company to be an interesting benchmark of discussion.

Why aren't we talking about creating ethical companies and how to make it easier for companies to not seek to be corrupt, or set up barriers to corruption that are more verifiably not manipulable by those already with wealth or power?

I can't see how any other angle of discussion about creating companies can be worth anyone's time until that is better sorted.

<comment><USER33> > I can't see how any other angle of discussion about creating companies can > be worth anyone's time until that is better sorted.

People differ regarding their personal ethics, ambitions, interests, and abilities.

If you make a compelling argument that your concerns are objectively the highest priority for discussion, even then only a fraction of the community will care to engage on the topic.

<comment><USER32> I think that standard sort of reasoning is inadequate given the degree of corruption that is deeply evident in corporate behavior and the impact it has on basic lives.

For your explanation to be adequate, there would have to be such extreme indiosyncratic variation in the most common of human ethical standards relating to murder, sexual assault, gross scale bribery, child exploitation and many other issues that, from a cultural anthropology point of view, seem to yield a very highly correlated set of ethical norms across almost all of the developed world.

It just seems implausible compared with alternative explanations, like intentional large scale paychological manipulation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I can remember feeling similarly at his age and expressing myself similarly. I think others here shouldn't fault him for behaving in a manner commensurate with his age and experience level. This guy will mature over time. He will some day be 40 and if he keeps learning like this he might be pretty successful. You could use this opportunity to get to know him.

</comment><comment><USER34> Building is hard in general. I don't like if people say I need to hustle - <USER2> like to build in peace in my mind.

</comment><comment><USER35> I like the fact that quotes keep you going for long period of time. I am exactly the same, different quotes have kept me going at different point of my life. This is such a simple trick that many would be quick to dismiss it or to forget about it.

One reason to subscribre to /r/getmotivated I guess :)

</comment><comment><USER5> To complicate matters, you really have to decide ahead of time whether the licensing route a la Stephen Key isn't a better or more efficient option if what you are looking to do is just get a product out there and help people. Not a company, yet potentially more impact.

</comment><comment><USER36> This article would have been way more interesting if you filled it with actual business lessons and examples. Instead, it's filled with vague self help messages...

</comment><comment><USER37> Yes, yes it is.

Source: started a company and learned many things the hard way.

</comment><comment><USER38> If running a company as a young white male from the west is hard then i dont know what is easy. Smh

</comment><comment><USER39> I would pay to see a video of this person reading this again when he's 44.

</comment><comment><USER40> Building a company is not hard. (Look around, we are surrounded by businesses).

Building financially and ethically sustainable business that employs people that are truly happy to work there IS hard.

<comment><USER41> I don't understand why you are downvoted, because you are right.

Conducting a successful career is also very hard. Let alone a successful marriage! Or getting fit, loosing weight.

You want to build a company? Just do it. It's not harder than other things in life.

Edit: some words.

<comment><USER42> Building a successful startup is infinitely harder than having a successful career as an employee.

<comment><USER40> Because building a successful company = building many successful careers. The point that many companies still do not get!!!

You absolutely have to invest in your people in a best possible way if you are interested at all in building a GREAT company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can we alter the title somehow? I know for a fact that kids age 13 and 15 are reading HN daily...

<comment><USER33> Same for me. The language adds approximately nothing to the discussion.

<comment><USER44> I would argue that complaining about the language adds nothing to the discussion. Whether it's in the title or in the comments, you can't reasonably expect to censor bad language across the entire site, let alone the entire Internet. Far more offensive content gets posted here than a single swear word in the title of an article.</comment></comment></comment>


Using camcorder tapes to back up files (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://archive09.linux.com/feature/123169 <comment><AUTHOR> I've been wanting tape backup for home use for a couple of years now but haven't been able to afford any yet. I recently bought a new battery and some new casette tapes for my old digital camcorder. Just now I came to think, perhaps I can put backups on these tapes? I did an internet search and found this. I have not yet had a chance to test the tools mentioned in this article since my current desktop computer is lacking any firewire ports.

It is not advisible to have this as the primary method of backup but I found it interesting still and will personally be doing this in the future just for the fun of it.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you remember a C coding style guide posted here recently? - <AUTHOR> I can't for the life of me find a coding style guide that was on HN sometime in December or November last year, it was from a company writing C or C++ software I think, and it had a great section on defensive programming. Anyone remember? <comment><USER2> Not sure which one you are looking for, but MISRA is posted here often when speaking of C/C++ and safe practices. That is kinda focused in the embedded space however, so may not be the same thing you are thinking of. Another common one is JPL C coding standard that has been referenced here before:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MISRA_C](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MISRA_C)

[https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf](https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf)</comment>


Ask HN: With Finance/Economics Degree into Software Engineering? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I am soon finishing my PhD in Finance and want to transition (back) into the industry, however into a more technical role.
Preferably from first or second-hand experience,
(0) how would you assess the chances of getting into a Software Engineering (for example Automated Trading) or Data Science role in the financial sector (investment banks, market-makers, funds etc.) without a formal Computer Science/Mathematics/Physics education?
(1) are you aware of roles in the financial sector for which it is valuable having experience in software engineering above the regular Finance/Economics education?
In my experience, employers value specialized expertise only in one domain. For example, I have read from one company that they seek outstanding graduates in CS and promise to take care of the basic finance education on the job. Would you agree with my interpretation?
To put the question into context: I will graduate from a European University with a background in Economics (both are, say, in the top quartile in Europe) and have some work experience as a Consultant. I have specialized in Econometrics and worked almost exclusively on empirical projects. In terms of programming, I have worked for 3 years almost full-time with/on the following: Matlab/Python/SQL Server/High Performance Computing, scientific/statistical programming (Numba and bits of C++ for speed, parallel computing for simulations with MPI). I started programming with 14.
Thanks for your input! <comment><USER2> Your profile pretty much fits the typical "Quantitative Researcher" that proprietary trading firms are looking for.</comment>


Why it's time to accept the fact that Brexit may never actually happen - <AUTHOR> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html <comment><USER3> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

<comment><USER4> Can we stop claiming 52% is any sort of clear majority? 52% doesn't mean "most people want this", it means "the country is evenly split, so we flipped a coin, and it came up Leave". You need much more than 52% of the population behind you to have a revolution (of any sort).

There's a reason that most functional democracies have a constitution can only by changed by meeting a higher bar than simple majority: it's too important, too sensitive, and too irreversible to be decided without something closer to consensus. I would argue that that logic applies here.

<comment><USER5> It was not decided that if there would be <60%, there would be another referendum or the other side will win.

Staying in EU is a horrible idea as far as Britian is concerned. If they don't have to pay to corrupt government officials of poorer countries in the EU, it is already a win (for citizens of those countries and for Britain)... but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them (or anyone else for that matter) to leave.

<comment><USER6> > but I can see why the corrupt unelected EU officials don't want them

Can you give any proof of those corruptions?

And, by the way, calling them unelected is a good way of showing a lack of knowledge about the EU

<comment><USER7> He probably means, not directly voted for. You only directly vote for MEP.

<comment><USER8> Of course, right now Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister who we didn't vote for either, so...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's certainly not a given. May is not _very_ remain though. It would take political bravery to go against the referendum result.

It would be easier for a new non Conservative party government to avoid Brexit as remaining can be part of the manifesto, which somewhat explains the urgency with which Labour MPs are trying to eject Corbyn, who can not be relied on to make remain a manifesto pledge.

Interesting times.

<comment><USER10> Labour MPs are trying to eject Corbyn because they were never happy he was elected leader of the party in the first place. They wish they could take a page from the Conservatives and select a new leader without the people's voice.

<comment><USER11> Can somebody in the UK explain to me what happened to the Liberal Democrats? Did they implode after tying their hitch to the Cameron wagon in the last parliament?

Because it seems to me like a bulk of these supposed Blair-ite 'Labour' supporters who want Corbyn out so they don't have to be sullied with ugly old words like "socialism" and "wealth redistribution" more properly belong in a party closer to Canada's Liberal Party, and it is Corbyn who is inheriting the mantle of the more traditional Labour constituency? Why have the Liberal Democrats not done better out of the cataclysm in British party politics over the last few months?

<comment><USER12> Yes. They got burned badly for 'breaking their promises' after being elected into the coalition.

What nobody seems to have realised is that they didn't have anything close to a majority, so of course they weren't able to completely prevent the Tories from doing everything.

It's a shame IMO because what we clearly need right now is a Centralist party, especially with Labour going further and further to the Left under Corbyn.

<comment><USER13> > They got burned badly for 'breaking their promises' after being elected into > the coalition.

Particularly university tuition fees, which was an important issue for much of the base.

(It's pretty sad what happened, and I think even now they get very little of the credit they deserve for their work in the previous parliament)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not leaving will create a moral danger. Wouldn't it?

It will make it too easy for people to vote according with their guts knowing that they will be saved.

It will also empower anti-EU parties in other countries in EU.

<comment><USER15> It would be a disaster for British Democracy. Imagine if the reverse happened.

I would also regard the morning after regrets with a grain of salt. The political establishment (Labour & Tories) were against leaving. The politically influential corporate sectors (especially banking) were against leaving. The media was generally against leaving. The leavers are pretty underrepresented, it would seem. It's not surprising that leave voters seem to have vanished, or changed their minds.

Some may have, but even if there was a massive swing (say from 52% to 45%), the un-regretful leave voters are half the country. They won the vote. How can they trust democracy if they are "robbed" of their democratic right.

Not leaving will create a mockery of democratic process. It would delegitimize the EU, & even the British polity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am pro-Remain, but democracy is democracy; ignoring the popular vote would create much more dangerous precedent than any bad things that may happen from Brexit.

<comment><USER17> Majority rule without checks and balances is mob rule.

And a simple majority can take away something that 49% of the population thinks is important. This is where your democratic utopia goes to die.

Open voting is a blame shedding trick. If 'everybody' agreed with your bad idea then it's not your fault when the consequences happen. Even if you were the one who put it in people's heads in the first place.

As a citizen of a country in crisis, who to blame might be of some importance, and organized media will certainly get you fixated on that aspect. But maybe the fact that there's a crisis is a little more important, and you should try to avoid then in the first place instead of just having an audit trail.

<comment><USER16> Here in Switzerland, we have direct democracy, with referendums every two months. Some bad decisions were taken, but most of them are easily reversed when proved wrong.

<comment><USER17> In the case of the U.K., it's news to absolutely no one that there are some fundamental and ancient grudges between regions. Voting on things for spite isn't entirely out of the realm of possibilities.

It is a common complaint that Europeans have no grasp of how goddamned big the US is, and make "helpful" suggestions to fix our problems with solutions that simply don't scale with geography. It's a big place full of people who either came here to be left alone, or were kicked out of Europe because they wouldn't leave other people alone. People sort themselves and there's plenty of physical and emotional space for echo chambers if you want them.

Neighboring states are not as different as neighboring countries, but we have 50 of them and among those you can find two that completely disagree with each other on nearly every topic you can imagine. If Europe voted that Switzerland should pay off the Spanish national debt, I bet you'd be pretty pissed. If they tried to take your guns, you'd probably start loading.

Hell, even Roman politicians had things to say about the ways a straight democracy can go bad. Bread and circuses.

<comment><USER16> Switzerland is not a part of European Union. And Germans were paying for Greek debts more than once.

(US is no exception; banks bailouts were paying for someone else's debts. The difference is most banks returned bailout money when things got better, though; good luck with that in the case of Greece).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What most people are missing is the third option, how Britain can both avoid leaving the EU and staying in the EU: Namely that the EU in it's current form stops existing before the Brexit can be completed.

There are compelling (or at least popular) arguments both from the left and the right against the EU in it's current form, but for some kind of international European organization. It's not too far fetched that (due to various crises like in Greece, the Brexit, etc.) the EU would break apart at some point. In that case, due to necessity and realpolitik, I don't believe it would leave a void, but would be replaced by a leaner organization, more individual multilateral treaties etc., and hopefully something more democratic. And as I said this idea is popular with the left and the right - <USER2> believe this restructuring could be positive and utopian, or regressive and apocalyptic (you choose which side is which).

<comment><USER19> What you claim such a high risk and costly endeavour that it's ridiculous to contemplate it happening in the span of 10 years. Organizations collapse long before they have such large reforms, and we're talking about a union of a couple dozen countries that given the opportunity for reform, would pull a dozen different ways with no consensus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As much as I'm opposed to Brexit, we can't simply un-ring this bell and pretend it never happened. The issues which lead to the Leave result aren't going to disappear, and ignoring the result will just add further to the (already scary) rise in far-right sentiment in the UK.

<comment><USER21> I think it is already spawning change. It's waking up the complacent establishment who thinks they can keep shitting on the working class. The right wing is already capitalizing on this by blaming the problems on immigrants. Hopefully, the left wing wakes up too and brings forth some candidates who can address the real root causes instead of blaming it on immigration.

<comment><USER20> > It's waking up the complacent establishment who thinks they can keep > shitting on the working class.

How so? Theresa May has just formed the most right-wing, anti-working-class Cabinet in living memory, while Labour are busy tearing themselves apart. It doesn't seem the establishment is waking up in any meaningful way.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, no argument there. I guess my point is that the rise of Trump and the passing of the Brexit has made a lot of people actually realize there is a problem. They still don't want to face it, and you can see with Labour they have no effing clue how to handle it, but at least they see that they can't just continue with business as usual and expect the people to stay happy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That is my assumption too. It will never happen.

The UK cannot afford to not have free trade with the EU, and a stipulation of free trade is to allow open immigration and travel. The main reason that many people even voted for leaving was to stop the EU immigration! So, just based on this 1 thing, it doesn't seem like it has a chance of happening.

Additionally, there is the whole thing about sending money to the NHS instead of the EU that turned out to be false.

And, many Leave voters actually didn't even want it to pass, they were just doing it as a protest vote.

So, half the stuff the Leave campaign said has turned out to be a lie and some portion (not really sure how big) of the voters didn't even want it to pass. Expecting the Brexit to happen just seems completely crazy.

<comment><USER22> I assume "free trade" is possible without allowing open immigration...

<comment><USER21> It's not, the EU has said so multiple times.

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/21/may-gets- hol...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/21/may-gets-hollande- ultimatum-free-trade-depends-on-free-movement)

[https://infacts.org/mythbusts/uk-wont-single-market- without-...](https://infacts.org/mythbusts/uk-wont-single-market-without-free- movement/)

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may- wa...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-warned-free- trade-brexit-deal-without-cutting-immigration-is-pie-in-the-sky-a7150351.html)

The EU does not allow member countries to negotiate trade deals privately. All trade deals must go through the EU, which means any trade deals applies to all EU countries. It's an all or nothing thing. So even though Poland might want to allow free trade with the UK, they simply cannot do it. It must go through the EU, and the EU has said very strongly that they will not allow it. Free trade means free movement. No exceptions.

Once you understand that, the Brexit is just even stupid to consider.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> There are legitimate ways to be critical of the UK's EU membership as a long- term economic strategy. Reasoning through these criticisms carefully and cogently might be possible. And afterward, it's not out of the question that someone could come up with a plan for how the UK could leave the EU in order to bring real growth and prosperity to the UK (and maybe the EU also?).

But that's not what happened, and it's not what's going to happen. The Brexit vote happened with _no plan_ for how the follow-through would work. It's as if my family were to vote _against_ the current foundation of my house, and then start ripping it up without first voting _for_ a new foundation.

</comment><comment><USER24> Many people felt that the EU was too undemocratic. Too often it decided what to do, without letting people vote on it. And when people _did_ vote against the EU's plan, the EU found ways to ignore or bypass the vote.

This was a big part of the reason for the Brexit vote. If _that_ vote gets ignored, there's going to be trouble. I don't know what form it will take, but there _will_ be trouble.

<comment><USER25> That's how democracy works. You elect people so they decide things for the people. Sometimes they can in turn elect other people. It's impossible to put everything up for vote (and the results would be disastrous unless the majority of the population would be highly educated).

<comment><USER24> Well, that's how _representative_ democracy works. It's not how _democracy_ works.

But even in a representative democracy, there's still this line out of history: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". If the EU (or the US Congress) makes decisions that alienate too large a chunk of their citizens, then you wind up with a government in power that does not have the consent of the governed, and which therefore is viewed as illegitimate by a large chunk of the people. And then comes trouble, in one form or another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If Brexit gets brushed under the carpet, and the EU continues its legacy of greed, stupidity and incompetence in every area it involves itself in, then I imagine the next referendum will be a lot more bitter and painful, if not outright violent.

<comment><USER6> > and the EU continues its legacy of greed, stupidity and incompetence in > every area it involves itself i

Citation needed

<comment><USER26> I can't think of anything the EU has been involved in over the last couple of decades that isn't accurately described as such: the Euro? the Lisbon treaty debacle? the immigration catastrope? Greece? Unemployment? Agricultural policy? God forbid they ever get an army: they would probably attack their own citizenry, declare a great victory, and people like yourself would start cheering

<comment><USER6> So, no citation and just a bunch of opinion.

Thanks

<comment><USER26> You could disprove it by coting a single area where they are a widely acknowledge success, but that is of course impossible: even the Remain campaign was unable to come up with anything beyond vague threats of doom, which have now proven false

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Sure, what a better move from an organization that is more and more compared to the USSR than completely ignore the result of a direct consultation of the citizens. Especially when anti-EU parties are gaining traction is a lot of other countries.

If the UK does not leave the EU despite the will of the people, it will be the clearest message ever sent to everybody in Europe that they have basically lost the right to decide for themselves. That would probably not be without consequences.

<comment><USER28> Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. That means if you want to decide for yourself you have to actually educate yourself on the ramifications of the decisions.

Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not democracy that's just a tantrum.

<comment><USER29> Ah yes, the classic "My side lost, so the other side must be uneducated" argument.

Democracy is great up until the point people dont vote the way you want them to vote.

<comment><USER30> Can the majority not be wrong?

It seems like they are in a number of states, on a number of issues, should we not desire a correct government over a popular one? Whether it's a majority that is wrong, or a representative class that is wrong, or a despot that is wrong, should we not have a voice to point out what we see as errors?

<comment><USER31> Poliyics is not math. There's no right or wrong. There are just priorities.

<comment><USER8> The Brexit referendum didn't offer people a choice of priorities. It offered them a binary in vs out decision where the differences between different ways of implementing each choice were arguably wider than the difference between the choices. Then voters had to try and map their actual priorities onto this decision based on dubious information from media and politicians who had their own interests at heart.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


HP Pavilion 14 Chromebook Officially Announced, Priced at $329.99 - <AUTHOR> http://browserfame.com/1116/hp-pavilion-chromebook-price-announced

<comment><USER2> This is actually a bad sign for Chromebooks. Up untill now they have been market differentiators due to either their low cost or focus on unique features. This is just a HP laptop running chrome. I think Google needs to force manufactures to hold a different standard to get ChromeOS officially licensed on their hardware. Where is the High resolution display or exceptional battery life, or super low cost. At the end of the day this laptop and not the 199 ARM chromebook is what can tank ChromeOS. This is what people pick up and have bad experiences with and then never touch again.

<comment><USER3> So, Google should adopt ARM policies more like Microsoft's?

<comment><USER2> They already have stricter ones. No one can put Chrome on a device without Google's direct intervention. So that means Google and company decided this device was a good fit for chrome. MS doesn't even do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If anyone has ever owned an HP laptop of any description recently, they will know not to go near this, not even with a 20 foot long stick.

Absolutely shoddy machines from end to end.

<comment><USER5> I have had or maintained at some point:

* An almost 2 year old dm1z netbook

* A 13" Pavilion laptop from late 2010

* An EliteBook 8540p

* Two older Pavilion notebook, late 2006 and late 2007

And I am very happy with the quality of their machines. The EliteBook is a tank that can compare with ThinkPads in reliability. The Pavilions are sturdy and decent for consumer notebooks. The netbook is brilliant for a $400 device, and has survived multiple drops without any serious marks.

One of the Pavilion's screen broke down in warranty, and HP's support and repair service have been a painful and infuriating experience. I can say the same about any warranty claim I have tried to make as a consumer rather than a professional client (having dealt with Lenovo, Sony and HP).

I wouldn't go near this thing (shitty screen and battery life and subpar compontents for this price level), but I wouldn't say bad things about HP's products in general. Except for their printers, those are just evil.

<comment><USER6> I have had no problem with the quality of HP machines. But, their support is horrible. I purchased a computer in late 2010 and in 2012 when Windows 8 came out, I could not upgrade it because they did not offer drivers for it. Their official policy (<http://www8.hp.com/us/en/ad/windows-8/about-upgrading.html>) is to only provide drivers for computers purchased after October 2011. A one year support window for products is completely unacceptable in my eyes.

<comment><USER7> Heres a tip if you want to buy hp - buy their enterprise class hardware (probook / elitebook). The support on those is very good.

<comment><USER4> Bollocks - they are just as shit with respect to support.

<comment><USER7> Not in my experience - I have had spare parts overnighted to me on two occasions. Theres a 24/7 online chat which has had surprisingly good people that have been able to fix issues.

<comment><USER4> What country are you in? I'm talking about UK support, so you might have better luck in another country.

<comment><USER7> I am in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've compared it with the already on the market Acer C7 11" Chromebook, and the biggest differences are: \- SSD instead of HDD, but 16GB instead of 320. \- form factor: 14" vs 11", but same screen resolution! \- heavier, 1.8 kg vs 1.28 kg.

The 11" Acer is also cheaper, starting around $220.

So my conclusion is: really HP ? I'd like to hear from others if the SSD makes up the difference.

<comment><USER9> That was a bad call from Acer to use an HDD, regardless of how much storage it really has. It's a Chromebook. Another bad call for both is that they used a crippled Intel Celeron with terrible GPU graphics (remember you need the GPU for video acceleration, as well as other stuff), and it made the machine more expensive and with poorer battery life, instead of a brand new ARM CPU and GPU, like Samsung did.

<comment><USER10> That's a ludicrous statement. Let's remember that this machine is $50 cheaper than the vaporware Samsung ARM ChromeBook. And they clearly did everything possible to hit $200. It seems pretty hard to argue that they could have made it cheaper by using another CPU.

There was no plausible ARM SOC that Acer could have used 3 months ago (Exynos 5 is clearly not available in any kind of quantities, no other A15s are shipping even on paper, and anything else would be too slow).

Now, as for the HDD, they were clearly optimizing for a $200 pricepoint. If doing a HDD instead of an SSD was what it takes to get there, clearly that's what they had to do. Or are you suggesting that trying to make a $200 ChromeBook at all was a bad call? Because I have to strongly disagree there -- the main original complaints about ChromeBooks were that they were expensive and had incredibly crappy CPUs. This device took care of both those things. That seems totally worthwhile, even if there were other compromises in there.

(Now, this HP on the other hand looks like a completely unjustifiable device.)

<comment><USER11> >Let's remember that this machine is $50 cheaper than the vaporware Samsung ARM ChromeBook.

In what way is the Samsung ARM ChromeBook "vaporware"? It seems to be available: [http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE303C12-A01US-Chromebook- Wi-F...](http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-XE303C12-A01US-Chromebook-Wi- Fi-11-6-Inch/dp/B009LL9VDG)

<comment><USER2> More importantly it's owned by millions including me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So it's just another 14" plastic boat. Uninspiring.

</comment><comment><USER13> * low cost? not really

* long battery life? nope

* high res? nope

I don't know what to expect from this machine. To me, it's just a big netbook running Chrome OS

</comment><comment><USER14> 250...

$250 is where these things will take off. Not $350, not $329, $250.

For the performance and quality of these things, as well as the supposed near- disposability, this is the price that will start getting people to buy them in large numbers.

</comment><comment><USER15> What is up with that resolution?!

<comment><USER5> Or that battery life. Who wants a Chromebook that lasts 4 hours on a charge according to the manufacturer!

My two year old HP dm1z has comparable performance, twice the memory, the same resolution in an 11" display, 9 hours of real world battery life, and runs a full OS. Is this progress?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> If this is their backup plan to sell units when Windows 8 laptops sells dismally, I think they'll end up disappointed.

This is pretty horrible all over. And that resolution is a spit in the face.

</comment><comment><USER17> i feel like HP is missing the point of chromebooks.</comment>


The Depressing Gender Gap at the Nation's Top 71 Venture Capital Firms - <AUTHOR> http://betabeat.com/2012/05/female-partners-venture-capital-firms-fem-kleiner-perkins/

<comment><USER2> Why is a gender gap considered "depressing" ?

Women have a bellcurve of capabilities, inclinations and skills.

So do men.

So do people born inside Route 128.

So do left-handed people.

Ideally any given person with skill set X should be allowed and encouraged by society to participate in career field Y.

...but the average height of people born in New York is not the same as the average height as is found in Tokyo. The average amount of fast twitch muscle fiber in Kenya is different than that in Chicago. The average enjoyment of sales calls is different among introverts than extroverts. The average enthusiasm for long hours is different for men and for women.

If a woman has the skills and desire to be a VC, great.

...but why should I be depressed if this is not the case?

There's an implicit unspoken axiom behind all of these sorts of arguments, that all demographics are identical in the distribution of traits.

That's false.

<comment><USER3> Speaking of implicit assumptions, your "not the case" is contrasted with your statement of "skills and desire", so you're basically implying that you wouldn't be depressed since this is just a normal occurrence, some women just don't measure up. That's cool.

But that's not what gender gaps talk about. No one is fighting for a female domination over any particular industry. What is being claimed, at least in the suit, has more to do with claims of sexual harassment, and a continuation of sexism and oppression that really was around and quite common until recently. It's less common now, but that doesn't make it any less important to be aware and cognizant of, so you don't fall into the easy trap of assuming that women aren't in positions of power just because they don't want to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What about the depressing Gender Gap in the Olympic Boxing competitions?!?

Some people just don't get it, that men and women have different interests (some of which are most definitely caused by nature, not society, e.g. different hormonal levels in our bodies), and therefore choose different options in life.

</comment><comment><USER5> > If you think gender diversity is important, a low FEM is bad and a high FEM > is good.

This is just plain wrong. If you think gender diversity is a good thing then a FEM of around 50 would be good.

<comment><USER3> Which compared to the highest percentage cited at 24%, is quite high.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a poor article.

That there exists an unequal amount of men and women in a certain profession means nothing on its own.

That there exists a systematic bias against a group of people in an industry, wherein the defining quality of that group has no relevance to success within the said industry, is something worth discussing.

</comment><comment><USER7> Flagged because nothing good will come of this discussion and it won't help anybody launch anything today.</comment>


Ask HN: F*ck HostGator. Can anyone suggest a better managed VPS alternative? - <AUTHOR>

I'm sick of HostGator's constant outages, including today's. Can anyone recommend a solid managed VPS service not related to BlueHost/HostGator?
I'm currently paying $51.95/mo for the following and would like to stay in the same price range for similar specs:
2.3Ghz (1 core) 1024MB RAM 60GB Disk Space 1000 GB Bandwidth
I'd gratefully appreciate any input. <comment><USER2> DigitalOcean!!! You can't get a better VPS for their price. Super fast SSD (you feel the difference), almost no outages, extremely easy to setup and you build the stack you want. Stellar customer service. [https://www.digitalocean.com/](https://www.digitalocean.com/)

<comment><USER3> DO is unmanaged though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've had good experiences with Webfaction - they've been quick to respond to tickets and communicate issues/outages well.

Roughly looking, your setup would be about $20/mth with them, I think.

Direct link: [https://www.webfaction.com/features](https://www.webfaction.com/features)

Shameless affiliate link, even though I'd recommend them anyway: [https://www.webfaction.com/features?affiliate=stevejalim](https://www.webfaction.com/features?affiliate=stevejalim)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've heard decent things about WiredTree for managed servers. Decent, not awesome.

Bytemark are awesome, and do offer managed servers, but I don't know how much they charge for them.

<comment><USER6> Bytemark start from £85 for an hour a month of hands-on work, along with the automation, monitoring & etc:

[http://www.bytemark.co.uk/managed_hosting/transparent_pricin...](http://www.bytemark.co.uk/managed_hosting/transparent_pricing/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Go for dedicated server for the same price:

[http://c.gg/ovh](http://c.gg/ovh)

That's what I use after I ran away from crappying hostgator.

</comment><comment><USER8> You should definitely check out WiredTree or Future Hosting. They are both fantastic for managed VPS. [http://www.futurehosting.com](http://www.futurehosting.com) [http://www.wiredtree.com](http://www.wiredtree.com)

</comment><comment><USER9> I think LiquidWeb is certainly worth considering for a managed VPS in this price range: [http://www.liquidweb.com/StormServers/vps.html](http://www.liquidweb.com/StormServers/vps.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> LiquidWeb looks very promising and fits right in my price range. Great find. LW is the top contender so far.

Great suggestions guys, keep em coming!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://www.strikingly.com/s/pricing](https://www.strikingly.com/s/pricing)

</comment><comment><USER11> How strongly do you feel about it being managed? What are you hosting?

<comment><AUTHOR> I strongly prefer it being managed so I don't really have to worry about server maintenance and such.

I don't host anything too crazy. I'm a web designer and currently have about 15 sites I'm hosting for clients, with a handful of them being WordPress sites, and the rest, simple HTML informational sites.

<comment><USER6> Generally "managed" means you share the login details to your host with somebody, they apply updates, they help work with you to tune your server, and they let you know of upcoming problems.

Although there are providers who both offer hosts and offer the management you might find a decent compromise is to pay for them separately.

I remotely manage a lot of servers (40-80) in exchange for an ongoing minimal fee, and I'm not alone in that I expect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> maybe these guys? [http://www.unixy.net/vps- hosting/](http://www.unixy.net/vps-hosting/)

<comment><USER13> A team I worked with totally ditched these guys due to their managed services quality

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I use dotblock.com and they rock.</comment>


Re-implementing the XMonad window manager core in Coq: PDF - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.ru.nl/~wouters/Talks/BrouwerExtraction.pdf

<comment><USER2> This is a cool effort. Since agda : haskell :: coq : ocaml, I'm curious why agda wasn't used. Does it not not support extraction in the same way?

I would liked to have seen the talk itself since there are a few places in the slides where more detail would be nice. For example, I saw no reason why focusLeft on slide 40 wouldn't be total---it's not recursive, so why wouldn't it terminate? (given that reverse is total)

I also wonder whether most functions in functional programs can be rewritten so that termination is evident due to structural recursion (like the transformation described on slide 41).

<comment><USER3> Never heard of Agda, thanks for the pointer. From what I read, it seems that Agda proofs are written declaratively, rather than interactively using tactics as in Coq. From experience, Coq's tactic-based proof system is very nice as it "unravels" the proof term in a way that makes it more manageable than balancing lambda terms in one's head.

Regarding the question of totality on slide 40, a naïve analysis would say that the deconstruction "let (y : ys) =" could fail (if the list returned from reverse were empty), and thus the function would not be total. Of course this is not the case, since reversing a non-empty list returns a non-empty list, but this requires that reverse be dependently typed.

(Slightly off-topic: the Mercury logic programming language supports just the right amount of dependency to allow this specification of reverse, and would deduce totality for this function.)

Back on topic, yes, most _practical_ functions can be rewritten to be structurally recursive. The most brain-dead easy way is add a "time-to-live" argument to the recursive function. This argument is a Peano number initially set to a value higher than the expected number of recurrences. (In the example from the slides, one could choose the total number of windows on the screen.) The function is then modified to decrement the time-to-live argument on each recurrence, and to return a dummy value should the time-to-live reach zero. It's then trivial to prove that the function terminates, and usually easy to prove that it does what it's supposed to do before the time-to-live zeros out.

<comment><USER2> > Regarding the question of totality on slide 40, a naïve analysis would say > that the deconstruction "let (y : ys) =" could fail (if the list returned > from reverse were empty), and thus the function would not be total. Of > course this is not the case, since reversing a non-empty list returns a non- > empty list, but this requires that reverse be dependently typed.

You are right, I missed the deconstruction. Thanks!</comment></comment></comment>


A Better Way of Organizing Your Kubernetes Manifest Files - <AUTHOR> https://boxunix.com/2020/05/15/a-better-way-of-organizing-your-kubernetes-manifest-files/ <comment><USER2> I would not recommend to organize this way (group all manifests by type, rather than logical app or component of your arch)

Instead, follow the helm model, or just use helm until we replace it with something not Yaml based</comment>