Vivaldi is probably the most ethical company making a for-profit browser now. But note that because it is a for-profit it tracks your installation, with an anonymous but unique id, and phones home every time you use the browser. There were complains about this in the forum, but Vivaldi said they had to do that to know how many unique users they have, to make browser deals with other companies. They refused to change that and instead suggested that interested parties could use an application firewall to block those connections from Vivaldi.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it still an issue that due to Chromium not supporting the V2 manifest, adblockers like Ublock Origin won't function in Vivaldi?
Our eyes definitely do not see "pretty much without the color". Born and raised in Norway I've watched more aurora borealis than I care to count. On many occassions you could see all kinds of colors and dancing lights with the naked eye, very strong and vivid, too. Important to be in a dark environment without light pollution. At the arctic circle during polar night you will see northern lights that almost match the most stunning photos you have seen.
I don't get the "git has horrible user interface" crowd. Never had a problem understanding git or its commands. It's probably the least complicated tool in my box, and the one that has given me least trouble.
What exactly is so bad about the ux?
Are the ones having trouble people that's never used another CVS? Is it CLI aversion?
> Are the ones having trouble people that's never used another CVS?
I constantly struggle with git. It's the single tool I use daily that I actively hate.
I think my trouble is the opposite of your speculation here: I think that I'm tripped up because I'm very familiar with a number of other version control systems, and git works nothing like them while at the same time trying to use the same terminology as them. I suspect I need to "unlearn" all other VCSes to understand git, but that's hard to do when I also need to use other VCSes.
But I'm not sure. This is something I've put a lot of time into understanding, because I have a serious "git block" and keep trying to work through it. This explanation is as close as I can get, but feels incomplete.
CLI aversion certainly doesn't enter into it, as I prefer command line tools, and slapping a GUI in front of git doesn't make using it any easier for me.
In any case, I find git to be baffling, opaque, confusing, and extremely nervous-making. The two things that strike terror in my heart are the possibility of messing everything up, and having to do merges.
Saying this is not bashing git. My difficulties here are personal issues. I just have yet to be successful overcoming them.
Hi @Fizzadar and congrats on making this and getting it out the door; kudos!
As you craft your "Why this and not Ansible" content, you might actually state clearly what you already noted on the Performance page, namely: "One of the reasons pyinfra was started was performance of agent-less tools at the time." If I read that, it'd instantly make me want to stick around and read some more, play with pyinfra, etc. BTW, i will be playing with it anyway, but just wanted to point out that you likely won;t need to start from scratch for copy (on a comparison or answering "Why this and not Ansible" content). Cheers!
I found the article to be terrible, and his school building analogy falls flat on its ass. Both junior and senior developers can and should contribute to open source, for a variety of good reasons and there are good ways to go on about it.
I don’t think the article is terrible, but it does lean on that analogy a little bit too much IMO. It is worth inspecting where schools and programs differ.
If you could clone a school essentially for free, and also a poorly constructed school was not at risk of killing a bunch of kids, I guess we’d be much less skeptical of amateurs building schools.
I do think people write programs best when they are the primary audience, so the idea of just, like, going around with the explicit intent of finding open source projects to contribute to seems a bit misguided. But the stakes are not very high. If nothing else I imagine most open source projects must be able to ignore non-useful contributions, right?
I think you missed the point, and didn't actually read (or, more charitably, understand) what the author said. Your last sentence is actually a good summary of the article!
The problem is when someone wants to contribute primarily because they think it will be good for their resume, or even just for a more amorphous "I feel like I should give back" type reason. These sorts of motivations often result in contributions that end up being a drag on a maintainer's time, with little upside. People coming at it from this angle usually don't become dedicated contributors who grow and improve over time. They become a time and energy sink.
I've unfortunately witnessed this firsthand many times in my 20+ years of open source involvement.
It's more that I don't agree with what he considers the four or so proper ways to contribute. I also know of longstanding and highly valued contributors who started out in ways the author disapproves of.
why are we inspecting the intentions of the contributor so much? Why do we need to show this piousness in our reasons to get a PR merged? Don't you see the unnecessary barrier here?
Edit: Changed author to contributor as it can be confused as the author of the article.
Vivaldi respects your privacy, supports Chrome extensions, and all the customizations you'd ever need.