As a Kagi long time user, and a Linux die-hard, I don't get the obsession with having everything being open source.
This will sound overly critic (sorry before hand), but what do you want the source code for?
Do you read the source code of every open source applications you use? Do you compile all of them to make sure there are no shenanigans? If you do, congratulations, you are a member of a very niche group of people, that I'm not sure companies will be targeting.
I pay Kagi because I don't want to be the product (via no-privacy ad businesses). Not because I hate ads per-se (although I really dislike them), but because ads-funding incentives are contrary to make their products better. I like to know that Kagi's only incentive is to make their products better, so that I will keep paying for them.
I more than welcome that now expanding to browsers. I would get absolutely 0 value from it being open source, and so would most users I would guess, including probably you, even if you are fundamentally against closed source software, which you have the right to be of course.
Meanwhile Europe still doesn't have a cloud hyperscaler, so most of these €200B will end up in the coffers of Amazon, Google and Microsoft, the real winners.
I've been thinking recently this is where the EU should start. I don't know if it could be achieved with some top-down initiative, but it would definitely need investment to become one day competitive against the US providers.
Error handling is really not an issue that needs fixing in Golang. That being said, I wish Golang had an assert key word as a shortcut to "if cond { panic }". A lot of those "if err != nil" in the wild should really just be assertions.
You answered your own question. I don't want my great-grand-children to be the first to have a great Linux Desktop. Ideally, I would like to have it now. Unfortunately, as things go in capitalism, the easiest way to accelerate development of something is with money.
Where's the incentive in any of that? Pour money in linux desktop development for what? (So we can have linux desktop... sooner?)
If there were any money to be made in linux desktop, it would have already happened imo, or otherwise the cost-opportunity is still to high.
If anything, more than a gold mine, looks like a gold sink to me
And don't get me wrong, been on arch for 7 years and i've long since ditched win. But I still don't think there's any meaningful incentives for companies to push for linux desktop.
It's one of a billion of "Here's my proposal for improving Linux: Make it like Windows!" articles that keep getting written, and have been written for 20+ years now.
> All a company needs to do is provide a homogenous/coherent user experience, smooth the rough edges, and not be as scummy as Google, Apple, or Microsoft and they will win.
and not be as scummy as Google, Apple, or Microsoft
What's funny about this is that Google used to be supposedly the new, friendly company that wasn't as scummy as Microsoft and Apple, and look where we are now.
Imagine you did have an idea, put a lot of effort building it, just so that some random person takes a dump on your work. It wouldn't be nice, would it?
Unnecessarily harsh and misses the point that this is a new VCS that brings valid new ideas to table. As with any new thing, if it's not for you, it's not for you.
SBArbeit, ignore this kind of comment. Not because it's not valid feedback, but because it isn't worth it.
There's no way to build something with an intention as big as "replace Git" that won't invite knee-jerk reactions.
I know I'm building the thing that aligns with my creative and technical vision. That's all I can do. It will succeed or it won't, and the reactions from people who are already super-comfortable with the existing technology matter less than the reactions from people who only understand the basics of Git and are afraid of it. I'm building it for them (which includes me).
The proposed ToC looks amazing, and I can't wait to get my hands in this book. One thing that seems omitted though, which can have significant impact in performance, is I/O. That would have been a nice add-on.
Critically missing from the text are the definitions of "external" vs "internal" bootstrapping. The author left us all guessing, and by the look of the comments here, no one has figured it out yet, me included.
For a moment, let's assume they do abandon the monorepo. What solution would you recommend for managing code dependencies and coordinating releases between thousands of teams (at a modest 5 repos per team) - git tags?
This coordinating releases across teams is not a unique a problem. In fact, every large software organization solves this problem. They don’t usually do it in a assbackwards way due to institutional blindness.
You're deflecting. What solution would you recommend, since you disapprove of monorepo as a solution to this problem we both agree exists.
If you're not simultaneously updating the code and all it's references (i.e. a monorepo), you will need a version dependency graph system (with integrated with your build system). I'm yet to encounter one such tool that isn't awful to use[1]: monorepos are an improvement when you grow beyond a couple dozen repos. Git submodules aren't a good solution either. If you familiar with a decent tool/workflow that is not "institutionally blind", I'd love to learn more about it.
Nice product. It's always good to see more choices in the authz space.
I think Ory (Kratos) is a critical omission in the comparissons page, given the Ory suite seems to be one of the top alternatives currently for OSS authz/authn.
This will sound overly critic (sorry before hand), but what do you want the source code for?
Do you read the source code of every open source applications you use? Do you compile all of them to make sure there are no shenanigans? If you do, congratulations, you are a member of a very niche group of people, that I'm not sure companies will be targeting.
I pay Kagi because I don't want to be the product (via no-privacy ad businesses). Not because I hate ads per-se (although I really dislike them), but because ads-funding incentives are contrary to make their products better. I like to know that Kagi's only incentive is to make their products better, so that I will keep paying for them.
I more than welcome that now expanding to browsers. I would get absolutely 0 value from it being open source, and so would most users I would guess, including probably you, even if you are fundamentally against closed source software, which you have the right to be of course.