[HN Gopher] Show HN: Lunar XDR Brightness control
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Lunar XDR Brightness control
Author : alin23
Score : 119 points
Date : 2022-03-23 08:33 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lunar.fyi)
(TXT) w3m dump (lunar.fyi)
| speed_spread wrote:
| Does this mean you can get an iTan now?
| xxs wrote:
| That would depend on the wave length of the blue LEDs
| nullandvoid wrote:
| Also whether you're wearing your blue light defense
| moisturizer (context -
| https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-10-20-streamer-
| valky...)
| neogodless wrote:
| Sorry, you missed the updated naming conventions. It's now
| called Apple Warm Glow.
| radicality wrote:
| Any potential dangers with using it on a Pro Display XDR?
| Wouldn't want to ruin that screen, but I do have a very sun-lit
| room and one of the reasons I got the monitor was it's sustained
| 1k nit brightness (and only afterwards realised that it tops out
| at 500 nits and anything above is XDR only...) definitely going
| to try this though!
| bredren wrote:
| Perhaps the author of this tool is not aware of this, but the
| XDR Pro Display offers native 1600 nits mode.
|
| Apple shows this on the product page, and it is selectable in
| the System Preferences -> Displays panel.
|
| It is not the default setting, but it is what I run most of the
| time.
|
| https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/
| adamwathan wrote:
| This isn't true -- the native 1600 nits mode only uses 1600
| nits for HDR content. Regular content/OS UI/etc is still
| limited to much less brightness.
|
| Check out this HDR YouTube video at this timestamp to see how
| bright white actually is at 1600 nits:
|
| https://youtu.be/NlAsAuBtmps?t=180
|
| Here's a photo of my XDR display with a pure white rectangle
| in Figma next to white content in an HDR video, with the
| display set to the 1600 nits mode:
|
| https://www.dropbox.com/s/rmvu6r6vugaxg95/xdr-brightness-
| com...
| bredren wrote:
| Huh, I was not aware of that. I will take a closer look.
| alin23 wrote:
| The Pro Display XDR has active cooling (fans) and huge
| heatsinks so I'd say it's probably created with this use case
| in mind.
|
| It's not uncommon for creators to work on HDR content all day
| long where the nits are not limited.
| cersa8 wrote:
| If this works properly for a code editor I may have to reconsider
| buying a MacBook Pro for coding in the garden. Not looking
| forward to switch from Linux to macOS but the hardware is pretty
| good.
| alin23 wrote:
| It does work properly for code editing. That's my main use case
| actually, coding in botanical gardens with lots of sunlight
| around.
|
| It's so good to not have to squint on that colored text with
| less contrast.
| earthscienceman wrote:
| There has to be dozens of us. I also work in the Denver
| Botanic Gardens, so nice.
|
| As an aside, does anyone know what's up with the linguistic
| difference between Botanic and Botanical -- Gardens --... are
| both correct? When speaking, all my friends say "botanical
| gardens" but every gardens I've been to says "botanic
| gardens" on the placard.
| hwbehrens wrote:
| Here is a nice little discussion about this exact topic:
|
| http://talkingplants.blogspot.com/2019/09/botanic-or-
| botanic...
|
| It seems to be a historical and cultural artifact?
| seltzered_ wrote:
| Congrats on cracking whatever privateframework to make this
| work!
|
| I went from macbook to a raised, close-face Linux tablet for
| my outdoor computing setup (and have been thinking about hi
| brightness since the MSI Creator 17 and iPad pro 12" came out
| last year).
|
| Encourage sharing a photo of high brightness outdoors
| botanical garden computing on
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ErgoMobileComputers/
| Void_ wrote:
| Aren't there any good eInk displays for this use case?
| seltzered_ wrote:
| There's the book mira 13" (and 25") and dasung paperlike
| 13", which is much better than earlier years but even
| then they have their classic eink quirks (resolution
| isn't going to be as good as a hiDPI display, they also
| need some input power to do eink at high refresh modes,
| etc.). Plus it's yet another thing to carry.
|
| I've had a 'good enough' experience so far with the
| raised tablet setup outdoors and an extra battery.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| Unless you're out in a park under bright sunlight, I can't see
| this being useful. The max brightness is already blinding
| indoors.
| alin23 wrote:
| That's exactly what it's made for :) You can
| finally go outside and work on your laptop in the bright
| sunlight without squinting! You probably don't do this often,
| but it's nice to have, right?
|
| https://lunar.fyi/#xdr
| skerit wrote:
| > You can finally go outside and work on your laptop in the
| bright sunlight without squinting! You probably don't do this
| often, but it's nice to have, right
|
| Dear god, is this what laptop makers think too? I _want_ a
| laptop to use in the sun outside. I actively look for a
| laptop that does that, but they 're either super expensive
| and/or super ugly.
| argsnd wrote:
| The ambient light sensor on MacBooks will raise the limit
| past 500 nits when it detects bright sunlight.
| alin23 wrote:
| I've encountered exactly the opposite:
| https://alinpanaitiu.com/blog/over-500nits-failed/#sdr-
| cap-i...
|
| The SDR nits never go over 500 in my experience. But it's
| possible I haven't tested this correctly.
| argsnd wrote:
| My bad - I noticed that the screen becomes brighter than
| it is possible to manually set it to when it's in harsh
| sunlight, so I assumed that this was a result of it
| increasing the SDR brightness limit past 500 nits, I
| didn't know that such conditions were required merely to
| push it to 500 nits. Thanks for the info!
| alin23 wrote:
| Well it's definitely not the advertised use case. The promo
| videos are mostly made with studio rooms in mind. I've yet
| to see a laptop advertisement where someone is working
| outside in sunlight.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| The OLPC had a reflective screen designed for outdoors
| use.
| captainmuon wrote:
| Is it bad for your eyes? How does looking at an extra bright
| screen compare to looking at white paper in sunlight? I can
| imagine it is no problem to eyes adapted to the sun, but
| maybe there is a difference between emitted light and
| reflected light?
|
| And do you think it is safe to the screen? I heard that the
| screen will throttle itself at low-level when overheating
| anyway. (Edit: saw you answered it somewhere else in the
| thread!)
|
| Really excited to do a bit of coding in the garden now, but
| I'm worried for my eyes and my new MBP :-D
| alin23 wrote:
| In terms of the amount of light going into your eyes, my
| intuition says that you're getting more nits from a white
| sheet of paper than from a dark screen with white text (in
| direct sunlight)
|
| But staring into that light for a long time will tire your
| eyes no matter if it's reflected or projected.
| jon889 wrote:
| Literally was looking for this software about 5 hours ago
| because of this..
| randyrand wrote:
| Really curious how this works under the hood!
| alin23 wrote:
| I'll open source this feature and do a write up this week. But
| as a hint, it involves some internal SkyLight.framework and
| Core Brightness APIs to ramp up the headroom slowly.
|
| Here's my previous failed attempt:
| https://alinpanaitiu.com/blog/over-500nits-failed/
| grishka wrote:
| Ah so it's not taking screenshots continuously and rendering
| them into an HDR video?
| alin23 wrote:
| Definitely not :)
|
| It's changing the real nits limit of the screen, with the
| same APIs that the system uses when a HDR video is played.
| randyrand wrote:
| Congrats! That's really impressive work.
| _august wrote:
| Wow, this app is great. It unlocked the audio setting on my
| external LG display (which im running my speakers through), and
| lets me control with the keyboard keys! Thanks for making this.
| jiehong wrote:
| This app looks amazing! What a fantastic job!
|
| To be honest, some of it should be native to macOS.
|
| Some of it is very smart (like using your monitor as a soft box
| for online calls)!
| alin23 wrote:
| Ah, I didn't know it's called a softbox! That's actually what I
| had in mind, but oh well, Facelight has already stuck.
| adwi wrote:
| A softbox could be used as a key light, and often is, but
| it's classically more appropriate to use as a fill light.
|
| Soft light (which a softbox ideally creates) is defined by
| diffuse shadows. Perfectly soft light would cast no visible
| shadows.
|
| An important creative job of the key light, which is called
| such because it's the main source of illumination in a scene,
| is to create a sense of depth by casting shadows onto the 3D
| objects, giving our brain cues on how to translate them from
| 2D space into an accurate mental image. Usually harder lights
| (meaning those with sharper, more defined shadows) are used
| for the key to create this depth, then the fill light, well,
| fills in these shadows with additional light to walk them
| back, which is why soft lights are appropriate there.
|
| As with all creative rules, exceptions abound. Maybe you
| could make a virtual lighting portrait studio, have sharp
| white light on one part of the screen, then some sort of gray
| gradient on the other to fill in some shadow. Unfortunately,
| that would be most effective if they had a big curved screen
| and they were willing to sit very near to it :)
| hhh wrote:
| I think when they're used for lighting the subject's face
| it's typically a Key Light, but Facelight works just as well
| :)
| jordn wrote:
| What are the risks of doing this? I would love to ramp up the
| nits for outside work, but presumably it's been limited to 500
| nits for SDR for a reason.
| randyrand wrote:
| They added this 500 nits limitation to always leave room for
| HDR, so that SDR and HDR "coexist" properly. But it looks
| terrible imo I think they failed on that front.
|
| Also they want HDR to be a selling point. Not many phones take
| HDR videos and images. "It goes brighter" is what makes HDR
| pop.
| api wrote:
| I have a Samsung monitor that does this too, but it has an
| override in its menus. In normal mode it's stupidly dim. HDR
| looks like shit, so I just want SDR with proper brightness.
| randyrand wrote:
| I never thought I would dislike HDR, but Somehow companies
| are managing to make it a terrible experience on PCs (macs
| included).
| api wrote:
| It always looks washed out. Is it perhaps only for
| certain games or image/video editors that support it
| properly? Or does the support overall just suck?
| ricardobeat wrote:
| What makes it look terrible? The majority of consumer
| displays max out at 300-400 nits. This is the whole point of
| HDR, webpages are not designed with "sunlight-white" intended
| for the background.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yeah, this! Nobody wants a #FFFFFF page at 1600 nits,
| unless it's noon and they are outside!
| randyrand wrote:
| If it's noon outside you'll actually want more like
| 10,000 nits.
|
| 1,600 nits is useful for working indoors next to a large
| window.
| randyrand wrote:
| This is not the right way to think about it. What nits are
| books designed for? Do books look bad when you read next to
| a window despite being well past 1,600 nits?
|
| The comfortable amount of nits is entirely dependent on
| ambient lighting conditions.
|
| Next to a window, 1600 nits can look dim.
|
| What Apple is doing now looks terrible because SDR and HDR
| do not coexist well _at all_. Any HDR video even ones that
| you wouldn 't think would be "bright", blow up the screen
| while your SDR content next to it is now hard to read. HDR
| and SDR should have a comparable average brightness level
| with only "highlights" going "brighter than bright", but
| that's not what they do, they make the entire video
| brighter. People want uniform brightness. If I want my
| entire screen to go bright, I can set the damn brightness
| myself.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| > HDR and SDR should have a comparable average brightness
| level with only "highlights" going "brighter than bright"
|
| This is exactly how it works, mostly. Daylight scenes
| will have a higher average brightness. There is no point
| to 'high dynamic range' if a bright sky is the same
| brightness as a sheet of paper, or your website
| background; it's supposed to represent real-life
| brightness and contrast in photography & video, and there
| is no reason for your graphical interfaces to reach those
| light levels, i.e. Slack's white background should not be
| close in brightness to a cloudy sky.
|
| I don't see how the content could become harder to read,
| when the light output is exactly the same, unless you're
| playing some test HDR full-on white content. Your
| description reminds me of a shitty Benq 'HDR400' monitor,
| which would artificially limit the light output for non-
| HDR content making it gray and dull. That is not the case
| with the mini-led macs or better HDR monitors.
|
| Some examples of decent HDR - these look fine next to a
| browser or anything else on a MBP 14", and also in
| Windows with HDR on:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX2vsvdq8nw
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brujY1PvpY
|
| If you have any counter-examples or the particular setup
| you think looks bad, I'm curious to try it myself.
| kalleboo wrote:
| I don't know what the cause is (the iPhone camera or the
| display methodology), but whenever I watch an HDR video
| shot on my iPhone on the MacBook Pro XDR display it looks
| really unnatural and bad. HDR demo YouTube videos in full
| screen look fine, so maybe it's the iPhone, or it's the
| integration with the SDR UI, not sure.
| argsnd wrote:
| All of their phones take HDR videos and images.
| orlp wrote:
| I never thought this would become relevant in a context like
| this, but here it is, and it is painfully relevant:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSV4OteqBE
| alin23 wrote:
| If used for long periods of time, the LEDs will definitely heat
| up and decrease the lifespan of the display. By how much, it is
| impossible to know.
|
| But 2 things should be considered:
|
| 1. If most of the screen is not full bright white, _(e.g. white
| text on dark background)_ , then LEDs will have plenty of time
| to cool down
|
| 2. macOS has hard temperature thresholds, and limits the
| brightness when the display gets too hot:
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/apple-xdr-displays-limit-brightne...
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > 1. If most of the screen is not full bright white, (e.g.
| white text on dark background), then LEDs will have plenty of
| time to cool down
|
| Note that the display is not an OLED display, but a regular
| IPS LCD with local dimming zones for the backlight[1]. Thus
| only the dimming zones _not_ covered by white text would get
| to cool off.
|
| This also points to another downside of pushing up the nits:
| it will likely increase the bleed-through of the backlight,
| driving up the black level especially in white-text-on-black
| scenarios.
|
| [1]: https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/specs/
| alin23 wrote:
| Yea, bleed-through is annoying. But when used in direct
| sunlight, it's hardly noticeable.
| [deleted]
| orlp wrote:
| I've noticed a lot of Apple software pretends to be open-source
| (like this one: "Lunar is also open-source so you can check that
| for yourself: Github - alin23/Lunar "), when they really aren't.
| They're - at best - open core:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model
|
| For example, I quote from the Lunar GitHub page:
|
| > I'm pausing contributions for the moment as Lunar has paid
| features and isn't compilable because of missing parts of the
| source code (Pro features code is encrypted).
|
| > Lunar can't be built from this repo yet as the source code for
| the paid features is hidden. I will try to post stubs for those
| paid features to at least make it compilable in an only-free-
| features form.
|
| So right now I couldn't modify and/or redistribute Lunar as I see
| fit. It is not open source.
|
| And even if the Lunar repository is updated so that it at least
| compiles the free version, then what? Then it would fit the
| strictest definitions of open-source (you are free to modify and
| redistribute), but would miss the community aspect completely due
| to misaligned incentives. I could add a great feature, but my
| pull request would be denied if it overlaps a paid feature.
|
| You could fork Lunar at that point and make all the traditionally
| paid features for free and accept pull requests simply based on
| merit. But at that point you would be open-source, and not open-
| core anymore, and the concept of a paid version would simply go
| away. I don't really see open-core actually working in any way
| other than an attempt to leech contributions from the open-source
| community without playing by its rules.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| What would be some good options to get paid for open source?
|
| In this case, is this an application that could be distributed
| via the app store?
|
| The issue with making money off open source tools like this is
| that it's often aimed at tech savvy people / developers
| already, who can easily find the binaries to install themselves
| for free.
| orlp wrote:
| > What would be some good options to get paid for open
| source?
|
| Many might read this as "good options to get paid money in
| exchange for open-source source code". Then the answer is
| simple: you can, but only once. The code is freely
| redistributable without restrictions by anyone, thus no
| scarcity that one could get paid for exists after the initial
| sale (if the sale ever existed).
|
| So I think a better reading of the question is "good options
| to paid as an open-source developer".
|
| One could have a money pot for certain features of the
| software (which may or may not be done yet), that interested
| users can contribute in or outright buy, which you would then
| develop (or publish). E.g. "I will develop UTF-16 support in
| FooApp for $5000". This is especially interesting for open-
| source software used by enterprise. The problem* here is
| someone else might offer to do it for less (including free).
| A bad incentive here is that if you also control the
| "canonical" repository or project, you can reject pull
| requests for features that you intend to sell.
|
| An alternative is donation-ware, either through the project
| or directly to you as a person. The problem* here is that
| whoever controls the landing page of the most popular fork
| decides where the majority of the donations go to.
|
| Why did I highlight problem with an asterisk in both cases?
| Because they have a common cause: we would like to think that
| if we're the original author of a piece of open-source
| software, we are in some way special. The original,
| authentic, canonical, "real" software. We deserve to get paid
| for it, and no one else should. And people tend to agree! But
| as per my opening paragraph - the exclusivity is inherently
| gone. So economically, we can't be. And I don't think a good
| 'solution' for this exists, although I admit I haven't
| thought about it enough.
| fsflover wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-
| sourc...
| eptcyka wrote:
| This is why free software is what we should be aiming for, not
| just OSS.
| [deleted]
| q-big wrote:
| > Then it would fit the strictest definitions of open-source
| (you are free to modify and redistribute), but would miss the
| community aspect completely due to misaligned incentives. I
| could add a great feature, but my pull request would be denied
| if it overlaps a paid feature.
|
| Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This is
| something that you just interpret into "open source", but was
| never part of it.
|
| What open source rather means is that you are free to create
| your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself if you
| want some personal code included.
| orlp wrote:
| > Not every open-source project accepts contributions. This
| is something that you just interpret into "open source", but
| was never part of it.
|
| I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not
| everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought against
| the term "open source" for a long time, precisely because
| people have different ideas of it:
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
| point....
|
| > What open source rather means is that you are free to
| create your own version/forks that you maintain by yourself
| if you want some personal code included.
|
| That is commonly referred to as free (as in freedom, not
| price) software, which is the strictest interpretation of
| open source I can come up with. Note that others have other
| interpretations of 'open source' that are even more strict
| (you may only _view_ the source code, for example, or you may
| modify but not redistribute the code)! I personally don 't
| include 'binary virality' a-la GPL in this strictest
| interpretation, but again, some do.
|
| Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition. In
| my book it means free software that is developed 'in the
| open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit. A
| more precise modern term would be FOSS - that is what I
| understand when I see open-source.
| q-big wrote:
| > Note that others have other interpretations of 'open
| source' that are even more strict (you may only _view_ the
| source code, for example, or you may modify but not
| redistribute the code)!
|
| "Open source" means "open source as defined by the OSI" who
| actually invented this term. For the concept that you may
| view, but not, say, modify or distribute the source code,
| for some time Microsoft attempted to promote the term
| "shared source".
| mythz wrote:
| There's no version of OSS that comes with the contingent
| requiring its Authors to forever maintain or manage
| contributions for it. If they don't want to spend the time
| & effort to manage it, feel free to fork their OSS Software
| and maintain modifications yourself - that's what OSS
| Software enables you to do.
|
| > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition.
| In my book it means free software that is developed 'in the
| open' - accepting contributions from anyone based on merit.
| A more precise modern term would be FOSS
|
| You're understanding of what Open Source Software is
| invalid, call what you want your OSS to be something else
| like "Collaborative Open Source" because your definition of
| what you think it is, is not in any OSI definition or
| certified license.
|
| "Open Source" does have a clear definition [1], OSI
| certified licenses which meets its definition is available
| at [2]
|
| [1] https://opensource.org/osd
|
| [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/category
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I don't get into the OSS religious arguments.
|
| I consider almost all my stuff to be "open source," even
| the couple of projects that are "source available."[0] I
| think that it's important to make it _all_ available, if I
| will call it "open source," but there's no reason, in my
| mind, to make it so that people can just take my work and
| use it commercially.
|
| That said, I generally like to use the MIT license, because
| I don't like coercive licenses. I just don't like it when
| people try to coerce me, so I won't do it to them.
|
| I am currently working on a non-open-source/non-source-
| available project. Considerable parts of it are open-source
| (MIT license), but the core app code, as well as a modified
| variant of my BAOBAB server[1], are proprietary and locked
| away.
|
| I don't think any of it is particularly awesome or worthy
| of secrets, but the folks I'm working with aren't as
| sanguine as am I, when it comes to opening the kimono, and
| I'll respect their wishes. I worked for years, for a
| corporation that had Fort Knox trade secret security. It's
| something that I'm used to doing.
|
| [0] https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware/ambiamara
|
| [1] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/open-source-
| projects/#ba...
| detaro wrote:
| > _That is commonly referred to as free (as in libre)
| software, which is the strictest interpretation of open
| source I can come up with._
|
| No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free stricter
| than Open-Source. E.g. it's clearly something required
| through the Open Source definition:
| https://opensource.org/osd
|
| > _Stallman and the people at GNU_
|
| Free Software projects following the requirements of the
| FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's
| completely orthogonal.
| orlp wrote:
| > No, it's really not part of what makes libre/free
| stricter than Open-Source.
|
| I edited out the libre portion and I clarified in my
| comment that I don't (by default) include the 'binary
| virality' a-la GPL in my strictest interpretation, but
| some certainly do.
|
| Strictest interpretation meaning here as in 'the bare
| minimum to qualify', not the one maximizing
| 'restrictions'. Again here not everyone agrees on even
| the term 'restriction' here, some would consider the
| binary source requirement of GPL a restriction, and
| others would consider it a restriction if they can't see
| the source of the binary program they're running.
|
| > Free Software projects following the requirements of
| the FSF also do not have to accept contributions. It's
| completely orthogonal.
|
| I never intended to claim that. My claim is that I (and
| many others) would consider accepting contributions based
| on merit as part of open-source.
|
| Maybe my above comment was unnecessarily encroaching on
| the topic of whether something like the MIT license is
| "free" or "libre". Ultimately I think it's orthogonal to
| what my main point was, and I apologize if I misused any
| definition myself.
| bawolff wrote:
| >> Not every open-source project accepts contributions.
| This is something that you just interpret into "open
| source", but was never part of it.
|
| >I do interpret it into it, as do many others. But not
| everyone. Stallman and the people at GNU have fought
| against the term "open source" for a long time, precisely
| because people have different ideas of it:
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-
| point....
|
| Literally nobody interprets open source to mean you have to
| accept every (or any) random patch from anyone on the
| internet.
|
| > Note that others have other interpretations of 'open
| source' that are even more strict (you may only view the
| source code, for example, or you may modify but not
| redistribute the code)!
|
| wtf no... some people (microsoft) tried to do something
| like that branded as "shared source",but nobody considers
| that open source.
|
| > Ultimately open source doesn't have one clear definition.
|
| Really because the osi definition seems pretty clear to me.
|
| Regardless, even if something is ambigious it doesn't mean
| you can make it mean anything you want. If i said, in my
| books open source is a breed of dog, people would say i am
| being stupid, because i am.
| [deleted]
| mhh__ wrote:
| AppleClang is also just not open source at all as far as I'm
| aware.
|
| I fixed a bug in a compiler where apple deprecated object
| destructors with apparently very little reason or announcement.
| dessant wrote:
| You have to appreciate how much effort goes into creating this
| piece of software, everything from the app to the changelog
| looks like a work of art.
|
| I think your definition of open source is a bit corrupted, and
| skewed towards expecting people to work for free in perpetuity.
| The Lunar repository contains open source code, and you should
| not expect it to compile without errors, nor should you expect
| maintainers to accept patches.
|
| They don't owe you anything, and they already gave you more
| than most developers will do through their entire careers. I
| think it's perfectly understandable that the developer tries to
| find ways to make such a high quality project sustainable and
| profitable in the long term, and it won't help anyone to diss
| on them.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| Those are two separate topics.
|
| Good software is hard, I expect developers to make a living,
| and have zero expectations of them open sourcing it or
| distributing it for free. I am happy to pay for useful
| software and while I think open source is great, I don't veer
| into "information wants to be free!!1" idealism.
|
| That being said, open source has both formal and colloquially
| accepted definitions. Not withstanding anything in my
| previous paragraph, I support holding accountable any entity,
| large company or individual developer alike, to conform to
| that notion once they choose to make a claim of being open
| source.
|
| I. E. You don't Have to make it open source, but if you claim
| you do, then you actually should :)
| jonp888 wrote:
| "This product is so incredibly amazing that you should be
| grateful to us that we allow you to use it at all, and not
| ask any awkward questions about the restrictions we've placed
| on how you use it" is such a 'Apple' answer :)
| naoqj wrote:
| "open source" is a term with a very strict meaning. This app
| does not comply with that meaning for several reasons that he
| has outlined.
|
| He is not asking for the developer to comply with the term,
| he is asking for the developer to stop lying.
| girvo wrote:
| Is it? "Free software" was the strict one, to my
| understanding, but I freely admit I'm likely wrong.
| dTal wrote:
| Very astute. Open-core cannot be a true citizen.
|
| I also perceive a similar conflict of interest with the "open
| source but pay for support" model. A good deal of software I've
| come across with this model was perversely byzantine. If your
| users only pay you when they're confused, there's negative
| incentive to make it less confusing.
| api wrote:
| Citizen in what? A free labor pool for billion dollar
| companies and hustle culture bros who want to rebrand some
| FOSS and slap a control panel on it for a quick SaaS flip?
|
| FOSS is supposed to be a gift culture. You give back by
| making your own, fixing bugs, doing volunteer tech support,
| or yes paying the creators or a company or foundation that
| pays them. You don't just take and then whine about "gimme my
| free stuff," but that's the attitude that many people seem to
| have adopted.
|
| Another thing I really dislike is the ecosystem being
| dominated by surveillance capitalist companies. They have a
| vested interest in using FOSS to steer the ecosystem in ways
| that benefit them and their interests, and I don't like the
| direction they are likely to take things. Unfortunately they
| have plenty of money to "dump" high-quality open source on
| the market in order to exercise leverage over it. This isn't
| charity. It's a control technique.
|
| I am personally starting to dislike the OSI for pretending
| these issues don't even exist. If you look at who funds OSI
| it's completely captured by mega-corporations, mostly in the
| surveillance capitalist space.
|
| Open source needs a steward that cares about the freedom part
| more than the free part.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _FOSS is supposed to be_ [...]
|
| FOSS is "supposed" to be about individual liberty of the
| lone user to make any changes needed for themselves, and
| the right of that user to publish those changes as they see
| fit. Nothing more.
|
| Otherwise, I agree with you. If you want to stave off
| corporations doing this, you should use the AGPLv3 license.
| alin23 wrote:
| Yes, it's not open-source by that definition.
|
| It was fully open-source until v3:
| https://github.com/alin23/Lunar/tree/lunar3
|
| I've kept that around, it's still compilable, but probably not
| that useful.
|
| When making Lunar paid in v4, I didn't want to remove the
| possibility of sharing knowledge, so I kept the non-paid parts
| open-source.
|
| This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and
| DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features _(like DDC on M1)_
| to their own code. So I 'd say it's still useful enough.
|
| [1] https://github.com/MonitorControl/MonitorControl
|
| [2] https://displaybuddy.app
| sharikous wrote:
| Throwing my 2 cents my issue is with that
|
| >> Lunar can't be built from this repo yet as the source code
| for the paid features is hidden
|
| This is where I feel a bit insulted. As long as you have
| stubs (as you say you will write) for the non-free parts, I
| can accept the reasoning. But an unbuildable repo is not a
| repo, in my view. I am not going to argue semantics here but
| this is the problematic part, for me. I think that after you
| publish the stubs it can be called an "open source Lite
| version" - but before that, it's just "unbuildable code taken
| from your real code"
| samatman wrote:
| This is from the MIT license, feel free to swap from most
| of the others:
|
| THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY
| KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
| WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
| PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS
| OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
| OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR
| OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
| SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
|
| That includes being able to build it.
|
| It's in yelling case for a reason.
| datapolitical wrote:
| Your software looks amazing, unfortunately I use a Windows
| computer at work. What's the best equivalent?
| alin23 wrote:
| Thanks! Monitorian is the closest thing on Windows.
| prashnts wrote:
| > This allowed other apps like MonitorControl [1] and
| DisplayBuddy [2] to port some Lunar features (like DDC on M1)
| to their own code. So I'd say it's still useful enough.
|
| When I was trying to do some iOS dev, I basically noticed
| that having open source or even open core projects accessible
| for free helped a lot. It ranged from some hard-to-google
| things, like "how should I structure this part of the code",
| to fulfilling the utter lack of good documentation.
|
| So, thank you for releasing this!
|
| I'm not sure if it still holds, but Blink app (for ssh,
| EUR21) could be built yourself, but I still paid for it
| because it seemed easiest. So there is some possibility to
| keep source open while offering a paid app. Not everyone is
| going to bother to build it.
| orlp wrote:
| Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing. It is
| even better if you share (parts of) the source code to the
| community in a permissive license. But unless your incentives
| are aligned with community, I would be crystal-clear and not
| advertise it as open-source.
|
| Your incentives aren't aligned with the community. Should a
| free, open-source alternative to Lunar exist with all its
| features, your sales would go down. It is in your best
| interest to: 1. Create the best possible
| product that works the fastest, smoothest, without bugs, etc.
| 2. Create a minimal viable free product maximizing the amount
| of new trial users for Lunar. 3. Maximize the
| difference between the free and premium product to convert
| the most users from #2.
|
| Open source contributors shares incentive #1 with you. They
| don't share incentive #2, but there's no conflict here. But
| incentive #3 directly clashes with those of an open source
| contributor if only the free product is open source.
|
| I want to assume good intentions here, because the malicious
| interpretation would be that one wants to take advantage of
| the open source community by getting free work done on
| incentive #1 while rejecting anything that would cross
| incentive #3.
|
| So what is your goal? You obviously want to make money - we
| all do. What else? Is your goal to give to the open-source
| community for similar applications that wouldn't directly
| compete with you? It's noble, but risky, as you can't enforce
| that. If your goal is to conduct a 'business transaction'
| with the open-source community: "access to my source code in
| exchange for potential contributions under conditions w.r.t.
| incentive #3", that's fine too. But that is not open-source.
|
| If you simply publish the source code explicitly stating that
| parts of the source code of Lunar is available under a
| permissive license, that you only merge contributions that
| fix bugs or add pre-approved features, but otherwise people
| are free to do with it what they want, I don't have a problem
| with it. But calling it open-source is misleading in my
| opinion.
| q-big wrote:
| > Just to clarify, I am okay with paid software existing.
|
| "Open source" does not mean "you are not allowed to demand
| money". For example Fritzing ask the user to pay for the
| download (see https://fritzing.org/download/). It just
| means that you don't have a monopoly on distribution or
| asking for money.
| alin23 wrote:
| The goal for having the non-paid parts open source, is to
| share knowledge.
|
| I have to reverse engineer a lot of macOS internals and
| some hardware too to make some features possible. I don't
| want to keep that for myself. This XDR thing makes an
| exception because it required a lot more RE work than I
| expected I'd like to get some publicity for it before open-
| sourcing and writing it up.
|
| I don't think I can take advantage of the open source
| community here. The OSS community has largely chosen
| MonitorControl since it is fully open source, free and
| accepts contributions.
|
| I couldn't have started Lunar without the open source
| ddcctl [0] project, and I want to give back as much as I
| can without jeopardizing sales and having to go back to a
| 9-to-5 job.
|
| [0] https://github.com/kfix/ddcctl
| orlp wrote:
| That is all fair. Again, I don't have a problem with you,
| your project or the code you shared at all. I think it
| looks fantastic, and I applaud sharing the reverse
| engineering efforts. I only take issue with the choice of
| words, in calling Lunar open-source.
| alin23 wrote:
| I admit I wasn't aware _open-source_ was such a strict
| term. I always used it where the source code was
| available.
|
| I'll fix this wording where I can, thanks for letting me
| know!
| Terretta wrote:
| Plenty of us think open source means the source is an
| open book to be read, not a right to take and republish.
|
| There's a libre or free software mindset that tends to
| insist "open" source should mean free things as well, but
| many of us, including supporters of free software,
| disagree, saying these are two separate concepts.
|
| Free Software may require open source, but to keep
| terminology tidy, open source should not by definition
| drag in any requirements of free. For example, Free
| Software Foundation points out beneficiaries of free
| software have a right _but not an obligation_ to give a
| copy of the software source.
|
| Here the Free Software Foundation agrees that open source
| and free are not the same, and defines open source more
| the way you thought it meant:
|
| > _The FSF also notes that "Open Source" has exactly one
| specific meaning in common English, namely that "you can
| look at the source code."_
|
| > _It states that while the term "Free Software" can lead
| to two different interpretations, at least one of them is
| consistent with the intended meaning unlike the term
| "Open Source". The loan adjective "libre" is often used
| to avoid the ambiguity of the word "free" in English
| language, and the ambiguity with the older usage of "free
| software" as public-domain software._
|
| All that said, the term open source does come with the
| preconception of not just study as you mention, but
| generally some ability to adapt for self and often
| distribute further, which of course doesn't work if it
| doesn't compile.
|
| These are benefits the community expects:
| - Security - Affordability - Transparency
| - Perpetuity - Interoperability - Flexibility
| - Localization
|
| Your prior version offers these, the current does not.
| It's not even "partial open" or "open core" as the
| present open parts don't work as is.
|
| Arguably, what you're talking about, ability to see some
| source as learning reference, is a more specific term,
| "source available" or "shared source".
|
| Compare the following three terms:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-core_model
|
| You may find one of the licenses referenced in the
| _"source available"_ link helpful unless /until you have
| time and desire to move to open core.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _Plenty of us think open source means the source is an
| open book to be read, not a right to take and republish._
|
| No. The term "Open Source" was defined to have its
| meaning at the time of its creation by the OSI. You have
| no right to redefine it to suit your wishes or
| preferences. The FSF does not agree with your definition,
| contrary to what you imply by selectively quoting them.
| Your quote comes from a text where FSF argues that the
| selection by the OSI of "Open Source" as a term was a bad
| choice, since it can be _misinterpreted_ as simply "you
| can look at the source code". This text should then
| obviously _not_ be understood to be an official statement
| about what FSF believes "Open Source" to actually mean.
|
| Also, neither "Open Source" nor "Free Software" imply any
| right to "take", as you put it. Both terms are instead
| about what someone _already in possession_ of the code is
| allowed to do with that code.
|
| Your world view may be sensible and internally
| consistent, but it does not appear to entirely match what
| either the FSF or the OSI says.
| teddyh wrote:
| > _I admit I wasn't aware open-source was such a strict
| term. I always used it where the source code was
| available._
|
| The term you want is "source-available":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
| dessant wrote:
| It could be specified that only the free version is open
| source. You may also experiment with open sourcing some
| paid features too, possibly with some delay after the
| release if you're concerned about forks eating into your
| profit.
|
| I think the fear of forks is often overblown in this
| context, especially with consumer facing software. You
| have a huge advantage in terms of expertise and an
| established user base, and people will tend to pick your
| project over a fork, even if you open source everything
| and publish a paid package from the open source code.
| Those who are usually willing to pay for software will
| buy it for the convenience of not having to fiddle with
| the source code after every update, and to support the
| development of the project.
| samwillis wrote:
| I disagree, it is Open Source, just not all of it.
|
| To me Open Source means the source code has been published
| under a licence that allows me to make changes and to some
| extent redistribute it. A good indicator is if the licence is
| approved by OSI (https://opensource.org/licenses)
|
| It does _not_ mean:
|
| - they take contributions
|
| - there is a "community"
|
| - there is support
|
| - that it is "developed in the open"
|
| - that there is a public bug/issue tracker
|
| - that they provide you with details in how to compile or run
| it
|
| - there is any documentation
|
| - that the source code is in a complete state and wouldn't need
| changes to get it to run
|
| If it ticked those boxes it's an "Open Source Community
| Project".
|
| If the source code (or at least a significant portion of it) is
| available under a OSI approved license then it's Open Source.
| If not all the source is available they should probably say
| it's "partially Open Source" to be better citizens.
|
| I believe the FSF would even mostly agree with that list for
| their definition of "free software", however they have stronger
| thoughts about the licences and restrictions they apply.
| shultays wrote:
| What percentage of code is needed for you to call something
| open source? If not all the source is
| available they should probably say it's "partially Open
| Source" to be better citizens.
|
| Indeed, sounds like you also agree with not calling this open
| source then?
| smoldesu wrote:
| If you can't build it from source, then it doesn't qualify as
| open-source to me. If they eventually decide to make the
| "free" version compile, then I'll be fine with them calling
| it open source (even if paid features aren't available).
| However, until then, a more apt description seems like "an
| open component of a proprietary application"
| teekert wrote:
| Here is a free (as in) beer, except for the molecules
| contributed by the hop, those are 2$ a per glass of beer.
| Diggsey wrote:
| > If the source code (or at least a significant portion of
| it) is available under a OSI approved license then it's Open
| Source.
|
| It's the part in brackets I disagree with... If a significant
| portion of a piece of software is available under an OSI
| approved license, then a significant portion of it is open
| source.
|
| It's still wrong to call the product open source, because
| "the product" includes integral parts that are not open
| source.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| I'm trying to use "sub-zero" dimming with a 2021 mbp but can't
| figure out how to use it.
|
| EDIT: for anyone confused, it's because XDR and the sub-zero
| dimming only works in the drop down from the menu bar but NOT in
| the main windows of the app.. Very confusing.
| alin23 wrote:
| Make sure the _Allow brightness to reach zero_ is unchecked:
| https://app.lunar.fyi/display/builtin/controls
|
| Screenshot: https://cln.sh/O9MSDd
|
| Then just lower the brightness to 0, either with the slider or
| the brightness keys. Another red slider will appear for the
| sub-zero brightness and brightness keys will control that
| slider now.
|
| EDIT: I saw your edit now. I'm trying not to add more elements
| in the Preferences window as it's already too complex. The
| Preferences window is supposed to only be used when you have to
| change some more persistent settings.
|
| Sub-zero dimming is easier to use with the brightness keys.
| nicolas_t wrote:
| That makes sense. I think the reason I was confused is that
| when you first open the app, it shows the preference windows,
| so I tried to set the brightness below 0 in that window. It
| didn't work, so I checked Allow brightness to reach zero. I
| then tried the keys and it didn't work due to me having
| checked that option. I then unchecked it while trying to
| figure it out... And eventually saw the screenshot on your
| site where the user is interacting with the icon in the menu
| bar) which is how I got it working.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Next up: 'My expensive MacBook has burn in on the non replaceable
| display!'
| thebean11 wrote:
| What laptop has a replaceable display??
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| My Dell Precision. I've had it replaced twice under warranty.
| Don't recommend
| Reason077 wrote:
| Apple replaced the display on my 2017 MacBook Pro under
| warranty too (because the backlight died). They're
| definitely replaceable, just not (intended to be) _user_
| -replaceable.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| It is user replaceable. A guy came to my house with the
| new screen and a screwdriver set and swapped it out right
| there on my desk. Even left an extra bezel behind because
| they like to warp after months of opening and closing the
| lid, causing even more backlight bleed.
|
| My Precision is incredibly upgradable and user
| serviceable (I've swapped my wifi module, ram, m.2s, and
| serviced the fans myself), but it has a horrible screen
| (because of severe backlight bleed), trackpad, weighs
| nearly 10 pounds, and has a battery life of less than 30
| minutes after 3 years. Oh, and let's not talk about the
| thermals...
|
| I wouldn't buy it again.
| smoldesu wrote:
| Many. For a lot of laptop models, you can remove the bezel
| around the display and unscrew the display from the topcase.
| That allows you to upgrade/replace panels as-needed. Apple
| notoriously builds their displays directly into the topcase,
| which means that when your display malfunctions, or the
| screen cracks, you generally have to replace the entire top
| component instead of just the broken part. That's why
| anything "breaking above the hinge" on a Macbook will run you
| $600+ to fix no matter who you're paying to replace it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-23 23:01 UTC)