They are clearly progressing now as a project and the world definitely needs what they are building - it's literally something you can download and run right now.
Rust was started in 2006 (20 years ago) and is now one of the most powerful programming languages, while the Servo project was started in 2012. If they reach parity and beyond of current browsers this could clearly become one of the most important browser engines in the future. Effort very well spent in my opinion.
Was this recent? Because Firefox were the browser that worked better than all the rest, for quite many years, maybe 2005-2010, and Firefox had no competition basically until Chrome arrived on the scene.
Just the fact that Firefox got browser tabs before anyone else, and Firebug, just took it to another level compared to all the other browsers available at the time.
Your history is off. Opera was the first mainstream browser to implement tabs and boy was Opera also much faster than Firefox at its peak (both UI, resource usage, and rendering) which overlaps that “peak” Firefox period by a lot.
Firefox was great because it was open source but it wasn’t ever really the “best” browser - it was the best open source browser.
When the original Phoenix browser was released, Explorer was in the middle of its slumber with the dreadful v6. Phoenix might not have been as feature-full as IE6, but it was very much the superior experience. It made browsers fun again.
not sure what you’re quoting but the last sentence of the post I replied to is:
> Just the fact that Firefox got browser tabs before anyone else, and Firebug, just took it to another level compared to all the other browsers available at the time.
> Hardware accelerated video decoding (for video playback or for WebRTC) is available via VA-API for both X11 and Wayland. Since firefox-101.0.1-4 package it's enabled by default for Intel/AMD users.
Google still tries to sabotage Firefox experience on Google Apps, especially Meet but also YouTube and sometimes Google Sheets/Docs as well.
They want to degrade the experience just enough to get you fed up with FF and go (back) to Chrome, without making it absolutely obvious that's what they're doing.
They often label these things as "regressions" because they don't test on Firefox and take forever to fix them. But I can't help but believe it's intentional.
Yes, exactly. Google products working worse on Firefox is a problem with Google, not Firefox. I'm not sure why the conflict of interest isn't more obvious.
Firefox was bad on linux for a long time. Even running the windows ff build via wine/proton got you better performance than the "native" build (I think that was around 10 years ago).
IE5 and then IE6 were head-and-shoulders better than Mozilla around the 1999-2002 era. They were significantly faster and lighter, and not just because of the deep OS integration but because Mozilla's browser was actually a full Web suite, with a built-in page editor and a mail client.
Then Microsoft stopped developing IE, and it became essentially frozen.
Mozilla moved ahead with refactoring the browser parts into a lightweight Phoenix (Firebird, Firefox - anyone remembers the FireSomething extension?). But it took _years_ for it to get into a usable state.
At least originally, servo was just an experimental browser with the intention to carve up useful parts and send them back into Firefox. I believe firefox's current css parser came from servo.
It’s not “reasonably unbiased” or whatever we want to call it. Even if we want to believe it’s possible, the very existence of SEO invalidates it. You push yourself to the top by using techniques that have little (often nothing if we’re honest) to do with the merits of the information. Rankings literally do not correlate with quality or lack of bias. It’s about the specific words you use, the way your site is formatted, engagement, etc. None of that is reflective of the quality of information.
As I said in another comment, just look at “Google bombing.” There was a time when people would mount public campaigns to artificially drive pages to be associated with certain words, like I remember when people made it so if you search “failure” you got “George W. Bush.”
To use a different example: it would be like saying we know the quality of a car because of how many units sold. The driving force could be many unrelated factors, like the visual aesthetics, the feel, etc. which don’t tell you anything about the MPG, the upkeep, and other info most of us would consider key indicators of quality.
For a long time there was a decent correlation with the quality of the information and how far up the Google search it sat. But you are putting way too much stock in the quality of that information. It has always required heavy scrutiny.
and even if it was, when a search engine takes you to another website, that site is also not bias free.
just becuase somebody publishes something on a website, does not make it a fact. google has always been good at finding things that look like facts, and their AI iteration is also good at that.
> There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code.
Can you expand on this? Who "expects" their code editor to lie about using Copilot?
The supposedly expected functionality is very obviously that it marks copilot co-authored code as copilot co-authored, not the bug that is being reverted.
Seems interesting. With a file limit as high as 300 gigabytes, I assume the only way they’re able to afford hosting it is because they don't have many users, so I wouldn’t expect this site to stay around for very long. I’ve seen many similar websites come and go over the years.
AnonFiles was very sketchy. They had extremely generous file size limits and were apparently funded completely through donations. On their footer they linked to other file sharing sites, which linked to even more file sharing sites. All of them had the exact same layout and generous file size limits. They also shared the exact same IPs. There were around 15 of them. A lot of them impersonated other defunct file sharing websites which shut down such as MegaUpload. All of these sites are now offline. Make of this what you will, but to me it sounds like a honeypot.
Considering the plausibility of people downloading CP from government run sites over a government run anonymity network from a government run file host is interesting.
Supposedly, one of the biggest distributors of CSAM is US military networks. If you have access to them, you're not supposed to go trawling around just looking being curious because there's officially "need to know" stuff out there (and you don't need to know). Which makes it a great place to hide that sort of stuff.
I can’t speak to that generally, but in my anecdotal experience in 22 years in the US Military (in IT for most of that):
I dealt with one case that was completely horrific, and two minor. The horrific case involves the PRODUCTION of CP using other service members children via the spouses daycare, then distribution from our network. The other two were relatively simple storage/redistribution via workstations.
It happens, but from my viewpoint if it’s that rare it must be extremely rare elsewhere if your statement is true.
That's a pretty routine thing. Remember how the government sold arms to Iran, or facilitated drug trade in Central America, or trafficked firearms for Mexican cartels? It's different when they do it, because they are the good guys.
Agreed. The moment i saw AnonFiles i was out of there, even considered uploading the declaration of indepence in pdf form to get my social credits up.
I dont know where the servers were, but i feel like it was used for less lovely purposes by the owners and a lack of identifiers & internet curated mess would obfuscate law enforcement's efforts
Edit: my theory however falls flat if there were multiple websites, since having a one large database would be in their best interest. You could argue that there were multiple entities self-hosting the same thing, but why would they link to eachother? Coupled with the VPN ad, sounds like data harvesting all around (honeypot or not)
It looks like from June 24th 2022 through August 10th 2023 (or 16th, likely whenever they changed their index to announce the shutdown) they only listed filechan.org and letsupload.cc.
All of the file sharing sites listed do appear to be parodies of other popular websites, some of them file sharing. They also appear to all be identical except for the site name and styling. All of the file sharing sites except for anonfiles.com now return NXDOMAIN. (ovpn.com appears to still exist.)
The obvious parodies of file sharing websites does call into question their assertion that they didn't want abuse.
It does sound fishy, but why a honeypot? Why not a place to hide traffic? With populair large up/downloads, it's practically impossible to trace all of it. Or perhaps it was a communication board for some shady, rich organization.
reply