Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | F3nd0's comments login

I have English as my second language and can't think of a single reason why foreign words should frustrate me. On the contrary, I feel like I have an advantage; since English spelling/pronunciation is very messy, coming from a language with more regularity (and just being multilingual in general) probably just makes non-English words feel more natural to me.

One anecdotal example is the name of ‘GNU’. Somewhat often, I see English speakers on the internet mock the name for being difficult or odd to pronounce, and they usually end up explaining it by writing ‘guh-noo’, which somehow clarifies the matter. To me, ‘GNU’ reads naturally, I find the official explanation ‘like “grew” but with an “n”’ very clear, and I can’t fathom how ‘guh-noo’ can feel more clear or comfortable to anyone, because to me it just looks utterly ridiculous. So for deviating from English, I have a hard time seeing a background in other languages as anything but an advantage.


> Realistically usable and proven to be more "future proof" than the MNT Reform Devices.

How is Framework 'proven' to be more 'future proof' than the MNT Reform devices?

> You know, with actual notebooks you might use them, this MNT Reform will be in your "theoretically cool but practically useless open source projects that I will never use and my children will throw into the landfill when i'm gone"-Drawer we all have.

Why should it? I can understand if it doesn't cover your needs, but to me it seems like a decent, functional laptop that might do just fine for a lot of people.


> How is Framework 'proven' to be more 'future proof' than the MNT Reform devices?

Framework has shipped multiple generations of hardware with upgrade SOCs/Mainboards in the same form factor. MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.

> Why should it? I can understand if it doesn't cover your needs, but to me it seems like a decent, functional laptop that might do just fine for a lot of people.

I challenge you to do any real work for a week on an RK3588. When your done, you will understand why.


> Framework has shipped multiple generations of hardware with upgrade SOCs/Mainboards in the same form factor. MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.

If you're referring to 'MNT Reform' as 'first generation' and 'MNT Reform Next' as 'second generation', I think you might be mistaken. Several processor module upgrades have already been made available for MNT Reform, and you can order one with RK3588 right now. (Can't think of other parts that would really need an upgrade at the moment, but maybe you have an idea?)

I recall them saying the 'Next' is supposed to be more of a 'normal' alternative to the bulky classic Reform, rather than some successor they'll be abandoning the old Reform for.

One could say the Framework is 'more proven to be future-proof', but I don't think calling it 'proven to be more future-proof' is fair on this basis, if I understood your point correctly.

> I challenge you to do any real work for a week on an RK3588. When your done, you will understand why.

Quite the bold assertion! I'm game. I'll let you know once I've had the chance to try and do any real work on an RK3588 for a week at minimum. I feel like my processing needs might be vastly inferior to yours, though, so it'll probably be fine. :-)


I've been doing "real work" on the much slower IMX8 module since the Reform came out. I did an entire Masters degree on this laptop in addition to work.

Anyway, the RK3588 module works in the original Reform; the SoM form factor is shared among all three devices. I don't think you have all the facts here.


> MNT Reform is already on their second generation case and mainboard form factor with no reasonable upgrade for their first gen in sight.

What do you mean? I've upgraded from the i.mx8mq module it shipped with to the a311d module, and the rk3588 module will be compatible with my first-gen Reform as well.


Daily drive the a311d and it's solid. Nothing I wish I could do compute wise with it at the moment that I can't. The RK3588 will be a nice bump in performance though :)


I spend hours on a ThinkPad X230 i5-3320m every day, on OpenBSD, with multithreading disabled (so it's lowered down to 2 cores). Take your gatekeeping elsewhere.


For the DDR, yes, but as for the GPU, is this still the case with Collabora's ongoing work on Panthor?

https://www.collabora.com/news-and-blog/news-and-events/tami...


While the Panthor kernel driver itself is open source, it seems to require this firmware [0] which doesn't look very open source to me.

[0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin...


Discord chat, Expat licence, GitHub repository... perhaps we also need a good UI library that manifests a greater desire to cultivate user rights. I'd say that's just as important as technological advancement, if not more.


Can we stop with these drive-by comments on every project that uses a permissive open source license? You are certainly welcome to create your own UI framework under the GPL if you want. The contributors have chosen MIT and that is a perfectly valid decision.


Why should the choice of licence not be a fair concern to express in the comments? I'm not questioning the validity of the authors' decision per se, but the considerations and priorities behind it, and whether they ought to be different for a project of this type. I don't see how this side is less important or interesting to consider than the technical one (on which comments seem quite commonplace, and rightly so, in my view).

If my actual opinion interests you, I might lean towards the LGPL, rather than the GPL. I find both of them more beneficial than any of the MIT licences for a UI framework, but strong copyleft might do more to hamper widespread adoption and interest in the project, which seem an important factor as well.


> Why should the choice of licence not be a fair concern to express in the comments?

It's a valid concern, but consider that some persons put a lot of effort into making open source software and then share it to be nice, or for the public good.

So to people chime in and complain that it's not good enough can seem obnoxious and/or ungrateful.


Are their discord channels indexed by search engines?


Great idea, let us know when you release!


In the time it takes to downvote this comment, you could duplicate the repository on your preferred hosting service and change the license! Be the change you wish to see in the world!


What "user rights"? Free software is a gift, not a right.


Free Software is the idea that users should have a right to the code of the products they purchase.


Only for free as in freedom, not as in beer.


sad reality when such HN comments get downvoted


I think this is a very shallow take. I'm a GPL proponent and have worked on/released GPLed software for a good 20 years, now, and I think it's distasteful to judge how people choose to license the work that they do for free, and effectively "donate" to society.

I do wish more things were covered under licenses with strong "copyleft", but I don't begrudge anyone the ability to license their hard work however they please.


Why should that be distasteful?

Google gives us Chrome for free. Does that make it distasteful to question their decisions around using our data because they’ve made it free?


Individuals donating their time and effort to the public, whether that excludes for-profit use or not, is better than them not doing it.

At least I think that's what the person you replied to is trying to get at.


What should they have been using instead?


From what I can see, he's neither an ass nor adamant that it's impossible. He claims it's impossible to universally support the jump within certain technical constraints (which VLC supposedly limits itself to).

The only time I saw him being unpleasant in the thread is when people ignored his explanations and acted very entitled. Correct me if I'm wrong on anything here, but VLC is an independent free software project developed in no small part by volunteers; they have every right to choose their technical direction and compromises, and it seemed the people insulting them were in no position to demand anything from them.


I don't think either of the comments you replied to has stated the opposite. They both spoke of GNU, not the overall GPL licensed software ecosystem.


And of course, they've gone with a pushover licence. Or two of them, it looks like.


MIT/Expat, to be precise.


Isn't that how it usually works with any given platform? Developing most of it with a given toolset which is then regarded as 'natural' or 'official', while developing for it with other tools becomes less viable or desirable due to lack of work and official support?


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

Search: