Which is not the case on Plan 9.

NetSurf is closer to a browser.

Sure does!

Awesome (although I never owned an Amiga myself)! Thanks for your work.

I know that this might be an unpopular opinion, but I don’t really care about whether the software I use every day is open source or not, given that I rarely need to look into the source code anyway. (Do you?) Is the webRequest API about to be phased out?

Why would your trust in Mozilla have anything to do with using this browser?

Browsers based on Firefox are at the mercy of Mozilla. If Mozilla once again delivers a new function that is directed against privacy, those who develop Firefox-based browsers must either deactivate this function or also deliver it. And this is not always clearly documented. And Mozilla has simply acted against my interests too often - I no longer even trust LibreWolf.

(Leaving this aside, I also fail to see any advantage of Zen over Vivaldi.)

If you want a keyboard centered workflow it’s hard to beat.

Easy.

based on Firefox

Ew. No, thank you. Seriously, Mozilla has completely destroyed all trust in Firefox.

and open source

So is Vivaldi.

The short answer: NetSurf, because it is the only contemporary web browser that also works under Plan 9, is extremely resource-efficient and is not based on one of the big (= commercial) browser engines.

The long answer: It depends. I like to use eww to test the accessibility of a website, but since Mozilla destroyed everything I liked about Firefox in November 2017, I’ve been using Vivaldi as my main browser. Although Vivaldi is based on Chromium, it is quite privacy-friendly, performant and extremely customisable. Unfortunately, some websites do not work very well with NetSurf. (I like to report this as a bug to the website operator. It is fatal that everyone always assumes that everyone wants to load and execute hundreds of KiB of JavaScript).

A viable alternative is Guix, which uses Scheme for its scripts and could also use the Hurd kernel instead of Linux, but works the same.

They have not.

OpenBSD seems to be able to have branches (CURRENT and STABLE), and they seem to be able to manage them just fine.

Yes, it is, because it does the job. Why exactly shouldn’t they?

A Windows zero-day vulnerability recently patched by Microsoft was exploited by hackers working on behalf of the North Korean government so they could install custom malware that’s exceptionally stealthy and advanced, researchers reported Monday.

I am always amazed at how easy it is for ‘security researchers’ to speculate about which government is solely responsible for exploiting security vulnerabilities.

Most groups of people who write code have one person to report to.

You don’t need to install SQLite to use Fossil, as Fossil already contains the (newest) version of SQLite, given that both tools come from the same developer.

In my experience, Git is harder to use than Fossil and if shit hits the fan, it is much harder to unshit the fan. There are reasons why there are numerous tutorials and books about how to tame Git. I don’t want to have to tame the tools that I use every day.

And yes, most tools are not Linux. Linux is a huge bazaar (with one BFDL, but that’s optional). Most real-life projects are a cathedral though, and Git just doesn’t mirror this.

The reactions are shocked enough.

It depends on the outer circumstances, I think. Using the prevalent tool makes sense in existing environments (which is one of the reasons why many companies use SVN - it worked for them before Git existed and it still works for them, so why not?). For new projects, one-man teams and/or companies starting from scratch, Git might not always be the best choice.

True.

SVN has become notably better over the past few years, but let me clarify that my comment was not meant as a reason to use SVN.