I am afraid that a lot depends on cultural context of the whole society. I don’t think the context is fertile for men’s activism for rights. The groups that exist are almost exclusively misogynist and conservative. I believe that a movement, even if really focused on men’s issues from a general perspective (I.e. not misogynistic) would be received very poorly, will fail to develop solidarity with other groups and would be accused of stealing space to them.

Frankly, I am not convinced at all that each demographic should fight their own battles, I believe in better analyzed demands that will merge under the same front gay rights, women’s rights, men’s rights and so on.

That quote is from D’Azeglio, not Garibaldi.

But in a new window i don’t have the 10-20 pinned tabs that I jump to very often, having tab groups helps in this regard.

Well, I did not mean replacement (in fact, most orgs run in clouds which uses VMs) but I meant that a lot of orgs moved from VMs as the way to slice their compute to containers/kubernetes. Often the technologies are combined, so you are right.

but that also shows that most modern software is poorly written

Does it? I mean, this is especially annoying with old software, maybe dynamically linked or PHP, or stuff like that. Modern tools (go, rust) don’t actually even have this problem. Dependencies are annoying in general, I don’t think it’s a property of modern software.

Yes, that’s exactly point point. There are many options, yet people stick with Docker and DockerHub (that is everything but open).

Who are these people? There are tons of registries that people use, github has its own, quay.io, etc. You also can simply publish Dockerfiles and people can build themselves. Ofc Docker has the edge because it was the first mainstream tool, and it’s still a great choice for single machine deployments, but it’s far from the only used. Kubernetes abandoned Docker as default runtime for years, for example… who are you referring to?

Yes… maybe we just need some automation/orchestration tool for that. This is like saying that it’s way too hard to download the rootfs of some distro, unpack it and then use unshare to launch a shell on a isolated namespace… Docker as you said provides a convenient API but it doesn’t mean we can’t do the same for systemd.

But Systemd also uses unshare, chroot, etc. They are at the same level of abstraction. Docker (and container runtimes) are simply specialized tools, while systemd is not. Why wouldn’t I use a tool that is meant for this when it’s available. I suppose bubblewrap does something similar too (used by Flatpak), and I am sure there are more.

Completely proprietary… like QEMU/libvirt? :P

Right, because organizations generally run QEMU, not VMware, Nutanix and another handful of proprietary platforms… :)

Most of the pro-Docker arguments go around security

Actually Docker and the success of containers is mostly due to the ease of shipping code that carries its own dependencies and can be run anywhere. Security is a side-effect and definitely not the reason why containers picked-up.

systemd can provide as much isolation a docker containers and 2) there are other container solutions that are at least as safe as Docker and nobody cares about them.

Yes, and it’s much harder to achieve the same. In systemd you need to use 30 different options to get what using containers you achieve almost instantly and with much less hussle. I made an example on my blog where I decided to run blocky in Systemd and not in Docker. It’s just less convenient and accessible, harder to debug and also relies on each individual user to do it, while with containers a lot gets packed into the image and therefore harder to mess up.

Docker isn’t totally proprietary

There are a many container runtimes (CRI-O, podman, mirantis, containerd, etc.). Docker is just a convenient API, containers are fully implemented just with Linux native features (namespaces, seccomp, capabilities, cgroups) and images follow an open standard (OCI).

I will avoid comment what looks like a rant, but I want to simply remind you that containers are the successor of VMs (virtualize everything!), platforms that were completely proprietary and in the hands of a handful of vendors, while containers use only native OS features and are therefore a step towards openness.

I wouldn’t say that namespaces are virtualization either. Container don’t virtualize anything, namespaces are all inherited from the root namespaces and therefore completely visible from the host (with the right privileges). It’s just a completely different technology.

I used to run systemd units that just start docker-compose files, that’s also a thing, I suppose. Also generally it’s easy to manage the container directly (killing/restarting) without the needed lifecycle a systemd unit gives, I would say.

Yeah, and it also requires quite many options, some with harder-to-predict outcomes. For example RootDirectory can be used to effectively chroot the process, but that carries implications such as the application not having access to CA certificates anymore, which in general in containers is a solved problem.

I would also add security, or at least accessible security. Containers provide a number of isolation features out-of-the-box or extremely easy to configure which other systems require way more effort to achieve, or can’t achieve.

Ironically, after some conversation on the topic here on Lemmy I compiled a blog post about it.

citizen

Actually I believe it’s “residents”. You don’t need to be a citizen.

Not to the level I can get with rofi and i3. The only way to get somewhat similar is to use yabai, which needs SIP disabled to have somewhat similar features.

I want to customize all the keybindings for workspaces, since I want to create my own workflow. I think different people have different preferences. I am not looking for an out-of-the-box experience, but a setup I can make mine and opinionated. That’s what I mean that it depends on personal requirements too.

Polished doesn’t mean functional or ergonomic, which is something I value a lot. The ability to customize what I want easily is also something that Linux offers much more directly than macOS (which is the definition of getting in the way).

Again, I totally believe that for someone the Mac experience can be superior, but it depends on preference, use, habits and priorities.

This can be absolutely true the other way around too, depending on how proficient you are, and what you are used to or find intuitive. For me, macOS is extremely unintuitive, for example, while my fully personalized Linux setup allows me to do what I want. It is very subjective, ultimately.

Their privacy policy is rock solid, and there is no business incentive for them to do so, at the moment.

I will cut it short because I think we understood each other. I get your point of view, and I think it boils down to relative vs absolute harm. I think that consolidating the already established monopoly is worse, but ultimately it doesn’t matter, you seem to reach the conclusion of third parties (which is similar to what I also reached, meaning Kagi wouldn’t exist). The problem with that imho is that it doesn’t move the needle. It does not present an alternative way to provide internet services for companies. I am not sold yet on free labor and donations as the basis for the internet. I think there are a few cases that work (lichess being my favourite), but ultimately I don’t think it scales or applies to everything. Besides, that also works until the big dogs allow it to work, and if they do, they are probably still earning on it (the moment Google wants to shut down searx, it locks the scraping and goodbye).

I do like Kagi’s features, I do like their own scrapers results (personal/small websites, which I find much more useful compared to corpo blogs about tech stuff). I do like the concept of lens where I decide where to search easily, same for upranking/downranking websites in a custom way. I wouldn’t consider this event part of a bad track, I think this is still a reasonable business strategy, although I will hold them accountable in the future (as they grow, they should do more in-house).

The decision to fund Brave Corp, run by Brendan Eich, is my chief criticism of Kagi Corp.

I understood that.

Let me put a pin in this.

You mix this, to then say this:

The conversation that you said very few people participated in?

But you maybe misunderstood me (I will pretend it was not intentional). Not all the people who participated in that conversation are supporting the criticism you quote. And that is what I said:

First of all, the criticism is from a tiny fraction of the community

I did not say that very few people participated, which is anyway also true with respect to 19k users. However, this is without considering that it’s very likely many more people read that conversation, even without commenting, let alone the fact that that’s the result you find when you look for “kagi and brave”, which means if you are learning about this topic, you will go read that thread and get familiar with these facts.

Which was never the argument presented.

This has nothing to do with a slippery slope. It’s just applying the same principle which is a very common process to decide on moral/ethical stances. I think that Google is way worse than brave. The economical, social and environmental impact of Google is orders of magnitude bigger than the impact that Eich’s donation to support homophobic position had on the world, or the one that Brave has with its crypto-bs. Mass-violation of privacy, layoffs, complete distortion of the internet based on the dominance, anti-competitive behavior, cooperation with US DoD and the military apparatus, the list is long. Given this, if your argument is that Kagi shouldn’t use (i.e., fund) Brave, mine is that Google is worse than Brave, hence if we want to apply the principle “it should not fund companies with harmful practices”, it should not fund it. And let’s also add that it shouldn’t fund Yandex, considering it’s a Russian company which pay taxes in Russia (funding the invasion of Ukraine?) and who knows how manipulates the information for the benefit of government propaganda. So, there are good arguments to not fund any of these companies on the basis of the same moral claim. There are subsets of users which probably have different hierarchies of “who is worse”, but for sure none of those companies will pass the bar to be considered “not harmful”, so then you need to decide whether the benefits of not doing business with them improve the world or doesn’t. From my PoV, as I explained, the benefits of having a company without harmful practices is bigger, even if in the short term means funding a little shitty companies. In fact, I also stated specifically that given Brave can be a replacement for Google, it is a net positive even without other considerations, and that’s because I’d rather have money sent to Brave than to Google.

People even said Kagi should just keep it turned off by default so nobody funds Brave Corp except by choice.

I understand they are working on a feature to do that.

Very interesting, but most people just look at the homepage, maybe the About page.

That’s for the most part written by the same guy anyway, it’s a small company. Also, as I said before, if you are learning about the kagi/brave controversy, you will end up in the forum (which is public and linked everywhere), I would expect is the same if you want to know more about the company.

I used a quote from an actual nonprofit and attributed it to Kagi. Apparently, you didn’t notice, probably thanks to how similar Kagi’s language is.

What does it mean, lol. Language similarity doesn’t mean they are pretending to be a noprofit. They have a mission to “humanize the web”, and they tend to stress that they want to improve “internet” as a whole. How does this relate to hiding being a for-profit company/pretending to be nonprofit? The message if anything is that they want to reconcile the need to run a business with doing it in a way that empowers, and does not harm, the customers. Why would you read in bad faith an attempt to show that for-profit companies do not necessary have to violate user’s rights to pursue profit?

As I said, I think you are simply attributing the meaning you want to sentences to make them mean what you want.

By charging a nominal fee for searches, Kagi ensures that its search results are faster, more accurate, and completely respectful of user’s privacy. And by aligning our incentives with those of our users, Kagi is committed to building a better, more ethical future on the web.

All search engines have search costs, development costs, and administrative costs. Most search engines cover this by advertising, tracking, and selling your data. And for 25 years we did not have any choice. Kagi brings a new model to the market - pay for your search with your wallet instead.

Who on Earth would read this and think that it’s a noprofit? It’s a company that is trying to do (or says that it’s trying to do) something in a more ethical way than what happens in the market.

By the way, they talk about humanizing the web and I think their effort in the context of the “small web” goes in this direction. Surfacing more content written by individuals I think is a good idea and makes the internet a tiny bit more human.

I appreciate how you completely ignored all other arguments that did not play well with your thesis, like the concrete example of how they passed the saving back to the users when they could, instead of sucking them dry like a regular for profit corporation would have done. I understand this conflicts with the picture you want to paint of a forprofit corporation being necessarily evil (statement with which I agree in a good 85% of the cases), but as I said, I think that so far they have a solid track record.

I also answered to your specific query about the Brave controversy, explaining my thought process and my reason. So if you disagree, I would like to know why you would be OK to fund Google but not Brave. Or Yandex. I am curious about which moral principles lead you to that conclusion. Since I have been kind enough to explain my position very clearly, and you ignored the whole thing, I’d like you to do the same, if possible.

This is more of a distraction than a distinction. Kagi’s results mostly come from others.

No, this is a big distinction. If you don’t care about it or you don’t appreciate the differences, there are plenty of resources online where these are explained. For once, an engine can parse the query and search based on its own logic. A metasearch will always just use your query and get results from the sources.

Its community is criticizing it for the results coming from others. A criticism that, I note, you don’t seem to touch. If you must respond to anything, I would love to hear your response to their corporate decision to fund a shady company run by a shady man.

First of all, the criticism is from a tiny fraction of the community, and it is about which others the results are coming from, looking at it from a very narrow angle. It is not about the fact that the results are coming from others, but only from the fact that they are coming also from Brave.

My opinion is fairly simple: I believe the damages of funding bad companies is less than the benefits of having a good one, with a good product which can have a substantially good impact on the infosphere, thrive. I believe that Google is a way worse company compared to what Brave will ever be, for example. However, I understand that if Kagi stopped taking results from anything which is not minor scrapers and its own scraper, Kagi wouldn’t exist (or at least, it would be a completely unusable product). If Brave integration can mean less money to Google in the medium term, it is a net-positive change from where I stand. And I am saying this as a de-googled taliban who stopped using any of their services for years. Considering that they integrate Google, Yandex, Mojeek and Brave, I would say that Brave is actually the less-worse of the major ones.

… Known by who? It’s definitely not common knowledge.

Known by whoever read the very conversation on kagifeedback. The company even answered to this particular point:

Brave API is cheaper than Google API. If we can figure out a way to do use it transparently without negatively impacting search results, we can use this to lower our costs (currently we serve both, but this is not the plan long term).

Which is a pretty good demonstration that Kagi as a corporation is seeking profit first and foremost.

That’s extremely surprising for a company which is not profitable and did not even get VC funding. Also, the company has a good track of caring about its users. When they brought costs down, not long ago, they modified the plans and expanded the amount of searches (bringing the middle tear to unlimited searches), passing down the savings to the users. This was effectively reverting a change they implemented half a year earlier -> https://blog.kagi.com/unlimited-searches-for-10.

With new search sources proving more cost-efficient, the improved efficiency of our infrastructure, and the broader market embracing Kagi, we can again offer an unlimited experience to a broader group of users. We’re excited that this change will let many more people enjoy a fun, ad-free, and user-centric web search.

Marketing move? I don’t know, but what I know is that they did something many other companies would never do.

hen you only nitpick the label I gave my examples, not the “we’re all in it together” emotional appeals aping the language of a non-profit. For example, “We exist to make the internet a healthier, happier place for everyone” Which I found on the business’ page you mentioned, is written more like they are a cutesy nonprofit than anything.

So, I am quoting the fact that the company is extremely transparent about its business strategy, it doesn’t hide the fact that needs to earn money, it is transparent about its costs (incl. per search). You are applying your own bias and interpretation on sentences which in no way lead to intend that they are a non-profit (“utilizing the language of” is not “pretending to be”).

I mean, if you want to believe that they are trying to act like a non-profit, I can’t change your mind. There are direct quote of the CEO talking about profitability, e.g.,

This is part of the reason we included these search results - now we have 4 search indexes to work with and are much more resilient to any one killing the relationship on a whim. This also allows us to optimize cost as we can use different indexes for different queries, which is another important consideration for us as Kagi is not profitable yet.

There are entire forum threads where they discuss subscription models and profitability. It’s overwhelmingly clear that they are a for-profit company, which just decided to use a different business model with the idea of serving internet users (their customers), and therefore “humanize” the web. Now, you can filter out the corporate marketing BS, if you wish, but I see absolutely no ground to support that they are acting in bad faith trying to present themselves as a non-profit.

The main point is that profit is not bad by default. A co-op generating profit is absolutely great, for example. The point is how that profit is generated, and how it is distributed. If the model is based on a fair and transparent relationship with customers, which does not involve squeezing them so that the execs can buy their 3rd yacht, I don’t have a problem with that. If it’s not based on destroying users’ privacy to serve businesses (advertisers), I don’t have a problem with that. I will say more, in a capitalist world, this is the most we can hope for and if all companies would act like this, we would be way better than we are today.

Kagi is an engine, searx is a meta-engine. That’s what I meant. Which means kagi does not simply collate results from multiple source (like searx does), but implements its own logic. This means that - for example - it deranks website with many trackers, or can implement various features on top of the results. So it’s not a nitpick, it’s a substantial difference between an engine (kagi) and a metaengine (searx), which is essentially a proxy + aggregation of other engines.

It’s a known fact that brave optimizes result based on google data, and the kagi guys themselves in fact added that - with it being cheaper than google API - it could be a vector to eventually reduce cost for google API without impacting results.

That said, AFAIK kagi does not pose as a nonprofit, I think they make extremely clear that running searches (scraping, paying API, etc.) cost money and that they need to be profitable. Their stance is that by using a subscription model, their business interests align with user’s interests of providing good searches, rather than results that benefit advertisers, which is completely reasonable. This is literally written in their “why pay for searches” article that is presented when they show the pricing.

Of course it is a big difference, and you can argue for pros and cons of both options. I personally think the internet should not be based either on megacorp nor on free labor. Would I prefer kagi being a co-op? Sure. But it’s not like relying solely on free labor is free from any moral implication either (sure, you can donate, and I do to Lemmy for example, but only a minority does).