We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the …
We’ve been anticipating it for years,1 and it’s finally happening. Google is finally killing uBlock Origin – with a note on their web store stating that the …
You don’t think a tarball dump is harder to investigate than a CVS repository? I never claimed it was impossible to investigate further, just that it was harder to.
Where is the misinformation?
But that’s not what you claimed. Direct quote from the article (bold emphasis is mine):
You clearly implied that the reason Vivaldi’s source code regarding ad-blocking is harder for users to investigate is because it’s closed source. This is not true.
But it is, because making users download a 2GB repo and looking through the code, or crafting custom filter rules to investigate how rules work is harder than looking at a hosted source code repository (like what Brave has).
Where is the misinformation?
Please show me where you explained that Vivaldi’s source code is harder to investigate because “users need to download a 2 GB repo” or a “tarball dump”.
Is English your first language? Do you understand the definition of “so” in the sentence you typed?
I can see why you think this is not entirely implied. But I also don’t think that it’s incumbent on them to have laid it out with such specificity. You can read this reference to closed source in the most charitable way as alluding to the whole motley of things that render closed source projects less accessible.
It takes a little squinting, sure, but the internet is a better place when we read things charitably, and I don’t think such fine grain differences rise to the level of straight up misinformation.
I mean, there are some real whoppers around here on Lemmy. There’s no shortage of crazy people saying crazy things, I just don’t think this rises to that level.
Not when they use the conjunction “so”. If they’d used “and”, then sure - there could be any number of reasons. Using “so” as a conjunction like that in the sentence gives it an equivalent definition of “therefore”, so it’s like saying “Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate”, which is clearly an inaccurate statement.
In any case, OP has attempted to shift the goalposts many times in some kind of weird gotcha attempt instead of just admitting they were wrong or worded their argument poorly. If people want charitable interpretations of their misleading or inaccurate statements then they should behave in a manner that deserves them. Going full redditor ain’t it.
You’re technically correct in your narrow focus on the conjunction “so,” but you are missing the bigger picture. Yes, “so” generally functions as a logical connector like “therefore,” meaning that the first statement is directly causing the second. Their sentence could be read as “Vivaldi is closed source, therefore it’s harder for users to investigate,” which isn’t a comprehensive or precise statement on its own.
But that’s a pretty pedantic take. The point that they were making doesn’t rely on an exacting technical breakdown of the closed-source nature of Vivaldi. Rather, they’re making a general observation that closed-source projects tend to be harder to investigate. With that in mind, the use of “so” is informal and reflects a broad conclusion that aligns with general knowledge about open vs. closed-source software. Closed source inherently implies limitations on access, which, while not exhaustive in this single sentence, still holds weight in the general sense.
Why is it an inaccurate statement?
What user are you thinking of?
I’m asking you what the misinformation is. Is this harder to investigate because the software is closed source? In my mind undoubtedly yes. I know it was harder for ME to investigate because it wasn’t open source - no open issue trackers, SCM repository, whatever.
So please tell me why what I said was misinformation - I’m really curious.
I’m not the person who you’re replying to (just another reader) but I felt misled after reading the clarification here in the forums that the source IS available for the adblock portion. I was under the impression (from your article) that the users could not inspect the code at all because of the same wording the person calls out. If they (and obviously others like myself) were misled by the writing, would it not be better just to fix it instead of arguing?
You really felt misled that it was harder to inspect? What makes you think I have the expertise to inspect this? I’m not even a user and I wouldn’t know where to start to find the ad blocker within that tarball. Would you?
In any case, I clarified why it was harder to inspect - to me it felt obvious that being closed source made it harder to investigate. The fact that it is also shared source really has no bearing to the general observation, especially since we’re talking about a 2GB tarball where I don’t even know where to start. And I’m a pretty technical person.
How would a user easily investigate this vs. an open source browser?
You’re deliberately ignoring our complaints- I was misled by your writing implying that the browser itself is completely closed source and that it’s impossible to inspect the inner workings of its adblock, which as pointed out to you is FALSE (because only the UI is closed source) and thus misleading. I am not going to talk to you about your strawman. I’m also not making any implications about required technical expertise to assess these adblocks, but if we are to go by your assumption, perhaps you are not qualified to make this article if you cannot get the data required to make a proper assessment? Either way, I’m not sure why you’re so against adding your article clearer- a few words would’ve done the job.