Gentil

Rust foundation has not been very community friendly. That's cos corporates run it. There was a fork of the language called crab or something cos of this at one point. Take Linus out of the scenario, it's the same thing that's probable about Linux Foundation.

> Mozilla CEO

Laura Chambers is just an interim CEO. I am not sure how Mozill Foundation/Corporation is exactly linked in the decision making. But the key people are still Mark Surman and Mitchell Baker who is the Chairwomen of Mozilla Corporation.

If Laura is getting paid lots like Mitchell Baker, it is still an issue. But, wouldn't she be just a scapegoat? I am pretty sure as Chairwomen, Mitchell Baker still has more power than Laura the CEO when it comes to Mozilla Corporation. I have felt this is just to chill the uproar against Mitchell Baker. Now everyone will blame the next CEO. But I wonder how much power she has. I could be wrong of course.

Did I say anything is run poorly? Or good for that matter? The difference is intent. Run for community and run for corporate are both different. Currenlty Linus is the only thing standing in the way of LF pulling another Rust Foundation. Cos it's run by corporates as well. Time will tell.

Linux is a trademark of Linus. Which is why Linux Foundation which is run by corporates like Microsoft, Google etc is staying aside. After Linus, it would like corporate board memebers changing CEOs at their wish.

Let us donate directly to Firefox development. That is the solution. You don't have to look anywhere else. Thunderbird is a good example of what can be done when the donations reach the project. I just hope they don't screw it up as well. I have zero belief in Mitchell Baker and the Mozilla leadership. And every decision they did to screw MDN and Rust among other things puts their competition in a better position.

Unfortunately, I am done pretending otherwise. I haven't seen anything that is indicative of otherwise. Especially after acquiring a behavioural ads company. I will believe when they make decisions that aligns with it. Not with marketing materials saying otherwise or cos of whatever Firefox fans are left is saying. I stuck through the Firefox abandoned phase until Quantum release even for work. It's not cool that Mozilla is doing this.

It's interesting to note that Linux Foundation is not even mentioned anywhere in the discussions. It is all Linus Torvalds for people apparently. Linux Foundation and their corporate lawyers should be the ones who recommended this right?

Moreover, I am interested if this effects FreeBSD which is not run by corporates like Linux Foundation but is still US. And what about OpenBSD which is Canadian?

> That being said, it always irks me when people worship "philantropic" billionaires.

I hate that people are using philanthropic to describe Tatas. The western description about it is some random guy who made a lot of money and then later in life decides to do some charity BS for good PR.

66% of everything of revenues from Tata Group of companies goes to Tata Sons - which is a charity trust. Not to the boardroom. This is not some random billionaire paid some money for PR.

This is also why you are wrong. He was never a billionaire because the majority of the money didn't come to him. But to the different charities which opens high class cancer treatment hospitals and other charitable endeavours.

You should read up more about Tata. How they operate. Then you will understand Tata - the brand and the Tatas the people behind it.

The default expectation here means "doing the right thing while no one is looking". Ambanis is far far away from it.

I am sorry. Ambanis are not everyone's favourite. Definitely not even comparable to the Tatas. I can see why the hustle culture folks and fast money folks like ambanis. But that is not Shri Ratan Tata or Tatas at all.

I will quote Shri Ratan Tata himself: "They are business men(Referring to Ambanis). We are industrialists."

That quote properly differentiates the differences between them IMO. Not just the perception about them. But also how they think.

Probably. I don't think it's possible to please everybody. Also, under Rata Tata, Tata went truly global. I can only presume that it means increased responsibilities & increased issues. JRD Tata didn't go through the same problems as Ratan Tata did. And I don't mean that JRD Tata struggled less. Or more for the matter. The problems were simply different.

There is also the fact that we humans are connected 24/7 unlike previous generations. This also means you don't hear the negativity or problems like we do today about someone. This is the norm these days. If you need to find the same for older generations, you really need to dig through it.

I say this cos everyone I admire from yester generations come out with a lot more mistakes and issues as I learn more about them. I find it humane. It just makes them human. What I admire about Ratan Tata is that he tried to be better person. As much as he can. And he was one of the nicest human as well. That is enough. :)

I don't think people outside India understand what Tata means. Who Ratan Tata was. He was not some random rich person who did some philanthropy. ~66% of everything that Tata companies make goes back to philanthropy and the people of India. And these days to people where Tata companies operates (I presume). To the TATAs, people are of primary importance. They are a behemoth of a group comparable to Samsung or other big companies/conglomorates.

They don't deceive, they don't put money over people. Because their mission IS to the people. You can buy a Tata product with a level of trust that no other brand can provide. Seeing TATA along with a product is more than enough. They are the best definition of capitalism I have ever come across.

This is why you don't see Ratan Tatas in billionaire's list or rich people's list.

Everything India is because of the Tatas. They single handledly is responsible for building India's foundations. Whether it is in Health, Nuclear, Tech or anywhere. You will see Tata's presence everywhere.

I genuinely shed a tear today morning because of his passing. And I am not sure I would do the same for any other business man.

Today is indeed a sad day. May he rest in peace.

Yeah. But I guess that might change. They maybe trying to implement end-to-end encryption with the new talent pool.

Not OP. But why should I? It's a hassle to do migration. So if there is a non-vc funded choice, why would I bother with all the trouble?

OK. Now where do I learn all these functional aspect of UI/UX? I was thinking of following Human Interface Guidelines. But reading from people here, it just means the UI will look more uniform and fancy. The functionality aspect is not guaranteed.

Any resources someone can point me towards?

All services have permissible use clause in their terms & conditions. And if this is about cryptocurrencies and blockchain. It's absolutely a valid choice for a small service provider to block them. They are resource hungry and resource abusive. A small provider like SourceHut can't afford to take that unnecessary stress. VC funded or big players can. And they do that for easy, quick & short boost in money or marketing PR.

Also, I always have observed this. This reminds me. Not targeted at gray_-_wolf but a general observation which I just remembered...

There is a trend where people attack small actors/entities for smaller mistakes or opinions. But give free card to big players you cannot touch for atrocious BS. Because they are monopolies or filty rich.

Especially in tech, you don't talk shit about google or ms a lot publicly. Cos that makes you less hirable.

> but who is paying that for a blog or hobby site (or even some small businesses)?

I was trying to. I highly recommend you to bring back the paid plans. Just leave it as it was. Opt-in for personal and for small commercial websites, paid plan. Like someone else mentioned, for a business, invoices helps a lot to bill as expense if they want to pay you.