Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | antisol's commentslogin

  > you can’t complain the code isn’t open source
(unless, of course, the code isn't licensed under an OSI-approved license. Parent didn't actually specify which license the hypothetical not-windows-11 was being "open sourced" under, so we can't actually say for sure whether this hypothetical release is open source or not)

</pedantry>


Yes that’s correct. I’m imagining it’s the Apache license like the X code, which is indeed an open source license.

> I feel like we need more awareness on what is open-source and how does it work. This is NOT open source.

well said!

  > - Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers
  > How doable is it with vanilla css? 
It's not doable with your fancy frontend framework and your 20 imports and your ten thousand lines of typescript.

"Make sure it looks the exact same across all browsers" is, and always has been, fundamentally at odds with how the web is intended to work.

How well does this shadcn crap render in arachne? ladybird? netsurf? links? dillo? netscape 3? The latest version of chrome with user styles applied?

When you say "exactly the same", I assume you mean that the design only uses black and white, because some people might have black and white monitors, right? But you're also going to use amber-on-black because some people might have amber screen monitors, right? How do you plan on ensuring it looks exactly the same on a braille terminal?

Maybe you think I'm being silly. Because nobody uses monochrome monitors in 2026, right? So it's safe to ignore that and put an asterisk next to "exactly the same" (And also just forget that e-ink is a thing that exists).

(Just like how it was safe in 2006 to assume people would always have 800x600 or bigger displays, and nobody would ever come along using a screen with, say, 480×320 resolution)

What measures have you taken to ensure that your colours appear exactly the same across a bunch of different types/brands of monitors that render colours differently? Or, perhaps we should just add another asterisk next to "exactly the same"?

I could go on.

How many asterisks is acceptable before "exactly the same" isn't a thing anymore?

If "exactly the same on all browsers" is one of your goals, you are wrong. If your designer tells you that's what they want, they are wrong. If you ever tell a client that's what you're providing, you are wrong.


Particularly given that on a screen reader -- which yes is an example of a browser -- it doesn't "look like" anything at all

I think accessibility is one area where some of these components libraries can be helpful as they automatically include a11y features that might otherwise be ignored.

Displaying the same thing on every monitor to the degree that monitor allows is well-defined. The browser may not be able to show some colors and the browser may decide to display things differently on purpose, but it's perfectly reasonable to want to unambiguously express what you _want_ the browser to display.

> Displaying the same thing on every monitor to the degree that monitor allows is well-defined.

In this case the website will not appear the same on every browser. Most browsers have a zoom function that the user controls which is an accessability feature. This changes how the website renders on the page.


That falls under displaying things differently on purpose

you misspelled "asterisk"

Exactly the same when rendered by the evergreen mainstream browsers. That's perfectly doable.

and we have a winner for the coveted "best comment I'm going to read all week" award!

  If all of the enforcement bodies and normal legal peaceful channels available to you don’t agree with your assessment there is probably a “why”
Yeah, like maybe you didn't have $50,000 to appeal a bad decision made because a magistrate couldn't be bothered actually reading the evidence in front of them.

If the case was truly just I suspect you could find pro bono or contingency legal services to handle your appeal much easier than people sympathetic to the violence.

ok, I happen to be looking for exactly that right now. Why don't you find me one.

Well you know…If you are having trouble, you might consider that as a referendum on just how strong your case actually is.

Good luck


This response is offensive in its ignorance

You know, it was you that decided to drag your personal situation into the conversation, not me. Be offended, or not—I’m indifferent.

You know, I look forward to the day this unjust system that you blindly and stupidly trust bites you, too.

And if that day comes I still won’t resort to violence…or even consider it.

Good luck.


When exactly did I say that I would resort to violence, or considered violence, or advocate for it, or suggest it?

  > if you are disabling all signals from your mobile device, what’s the point of even carrying it?
1. Solitaire when I'm bored

2. Being able to switch it back on if I need to access a network for some reason.

(not that you're wrong about leaving it at home being a good option)



    > You know that moment when you’re chatting with a friend about needing new sneakers and then like magic, every app you open is suddenly plastered with shoe ads?
Sure don't.

     It’s like having a guest room in your house. The app can visit, but it doesn’t get to rearrange your furniture or go through your mail.

Yep. I came here to say "Well hi there chatgpt, I recognise your writing style anywhere &emdash; it's like a bad metaphor that hasn't been thought out. The LLM can predict likely text but that's not the same as making sense."

    Having tested dozens of privacy focused devices over the years, from GrapheneOS phones to Purism’s Librem 5. I can tell you that hardware based privacy switches are the gold standard.
You've tested "dozens" of privacy-focused phones, but you're writing about Jolla as if they're brand new and haven't been around for a decade? How did you miss Jolla until 2026?

https://youtu.be/CPRvc2UMeMI

It's really really not a new sentiment.

From the description on this 14-year-old video:

  An older song, from back in the days of XP and OS X.3.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: