“it's just a lookalike phishing link”

In a way, yes, but embedded in a thick thick layer of social engineering

Rust was pretty much created to help solve security issues in browsers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_(programming_language)#20...

Servo has a distinct design goal that sets it apart from its predecessor within Mozilla and has already had offsprings that has made its way directly into Firefox.

Its purpose is not to reinvent everything. It’s not a hype project.

Servo's original purpose was to reinvent everything for Firefox to modernize the codebase, and make it secure and more performant (e.g. CSS styling engine, HTML parser, etc.) So it actually fits that purpose pretty well.

Servo makes a whole lot more sense: https://servo.org/

Can you send a Gmail in Servo? No?

Ladybird is much further ahead in terms of actually rendering web pages that people use.

The biggest advantage to Servo was that it is written in Rust. This move begins to nullify that advantage as well.

Why exactly does Servo make more sense?

I hope they both succeed. But Ladybird is more likely to become a usable browser first.

This move was only to port a part of their JS runtime pieces to Rust, that's it.

Not only is Firefox using it for their CSS engine but Mozilla created Rust to build Servo and sadly only the CSS engine and maybe some other parts is what they kept around when they offloaded Rust.

“the Rust ecosystem around browsers is growing” – in the beginning pretty much 100% of the ecosystem around Rust was browser oriented

Thankfully Servo is picking up speed again and is a great project to help support with some donations etc: https://servo.org/

Firefox was special in that Mozilla created Rust to build Servo and then backported parts of Servo to Firefox and ultimately stopped building Servo.

Thankfully Servo has picked up speed again and if one wants a Rust based browser engine what better choice than the one the language was built to enable?

https://servo.org/

As a Servo contributor, I am aware of Servo :)

But I'm also cheering along Ladybird's progress. There's definitely room for more than one project in the space. And IMO the more browsers being built in Rust in the better.

Main positive with bunny.net:

Its European rather than from USA so its less dependent on that orange guy in that white/golden house

Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here?

I remember when I was part of procuring an analytics tool for a previous employer and they had a similar clause that would essentially have banned us from building any in-house analytics while we were bound by that contract.

We didn't sign.

> Sounds like standard terms from lawyers – not very friendly to customers, very friendly to company – but is it particularly bad here?

Compilers don't come with terms that prevent you from building competing compilers. IDEs don't prevent you from writing competing IDEs. If coding agents are supposed to be how we do software engineering from now on, yeah, it's pretty bad.

> Sounds like standard terms from lawyers

If they were "standard" terms, then how come no other AI provider imposes them?

Because they approach creating such terms in a different way? e.g. some competitors may consider the chances of it to be enforceable to be 0 and not bother with it at all, while others just didn't bother tweaking the standard boilerplate they got from their lawyers unless needed.

Literally the first 4 SaaS companies that came to my mind to check (Atlassian/Jira, Linear, Pipedrive, Stackblitz/Bolt.new) have a similar clause in their TOS.

This goes for publicly traded companies much more than privately owned ones.

GOG is now becoming private like Valve rather than publicly traded.

If the implementation gets it wrong that can also be a sign of ambiguity in the protocol / standard and as such result in clarifications and an overall more well specified protocol