SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Microsoft Say Edge May Come to Linux "Eventually"
When Microsoft announced it was switching the foundations of its home-grown Edge browser to a Chromium base we asked if it might allow the app to come to Linux.
[...] Microsoft's Kyle Pflug responded to the tux question on Twitter. He said that a Linux build is something the Edge team would "like to do eventually" but they 'can't commit to Linux just yet'.
Not yet – it's something we'd like to do eventually (our build system runs on Linux) but we're taking things one step at a time starting from Win10, and can't commit to Linux just yet.
— Kyle Pflug (@kylealden) April 8, 2019[...] That said, the availability of Edge on Linux would help web developers working on Linux. They'd no longer need to keep a Windows VM within reach solely to double check changes.
[Editor's Comment: Irrelevant submitter's comment regarding systemd removed. --JR 120454 Apr]
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday April 13 2019, @07:52AM (4 children)
No, I'm just an editor. Stories should be factual, accurate and unbiased, in accordance with our submission guidelines. This story is about Microsoft considering building a version of Edge for Linux. The comment regarding systemd was not part of the quoted story and was the submitter's own personal comment and bias. I therefore removed as I should. I only posted my own comment because our own procedures state that once a story has been released, it must be made clear that we have subsequently changed it as some of the comments already made might no longer make sense. This is exactly what I did.
An individual's personal views belongs in the comments.
I didn't go 'apeshit' - I just did my job in accordance with our published rules.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 13 2019, @01:15PM (3 children)
I don't fault you for removing that bit, I believe you and other editors have and should have that editorial discretion, as editors here have done so time to time. But you could have done it with less fuss.. You look defensive in justifying your editing, and that creates ... an odd optics.
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday April 13 2019, @02:01PM (2 children)
As I hope I have explained. once a story has been released our procedures require us to make any changes to the initial release clear to the community. As there were already comments relating to the systemd remarks made in the story it was necessary for me to add a comment explaining what had happened and why, otherwise those early comments could have been marked as off-topic or even flamebait themselves.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by aristarchus on Sunday April 14 2019, @11:00AM (1 child)
NO, janrinok, doing this after the FA was already published makes it look like you are a systemd and Micro$oft shill. Once it is on the front page, just own it. Your intervention here seems like, well, an intervention?
And I can hardly imagine how poor chromas feels, having his judgment summarily superseded, nor how our fine original submitter, DannyB, feels about what has happened, given that he explicitly referenced the offending text in a comment! Looks like editorial overreach, janrinok, no matter how you look at it. And we are not even getting into #freearistachus territory.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday April 14 2019, @12:40PM
What on earth did is say for or against systemd or Microsoft? You are reading things that are not there.
I am much less concerned with how it appears to you than I am in complying with our own procedures. Editors are used to having a second or third editor view their work and change things. It happens to me too. Sometimes we just miss things that at other times we would spot. We are usually grateful for another editor having spotted our mistake or having improved the story.
If Chromas has any particular objections I'm sure he will not hesitate to let me know. We are all equals as editors.
DannyB made a good submission regarding the topic and title - but there was no need to include a personal view regarding systemd. It didn't enhance the story, It didn't provide any additional facts to explain Microsoft's position nor the need for Edge to be ported to Linux. There is case to be argued for doing this, but the original article provided all the facts. DannyB's submission was much appreciated and was published. Would you suggest that we should simply have deleted it from the submission queue? We view all submissions - yes, even yours - but we have to ensure that we maintain the quality of our output, which we do during the editorial process. What I did was in full compliance with that process and changes to released stories are made all the time along with a comment explaining why we have done so. For example, you might have noticed that we often 'Update' released stories, particularly when the facts that are included in the update might challenge the content of the original story.
If you don't like it, why don't you join us on IRC and discuss a change to our rules? Or open your own discussion in your journal - but if you want our input in that discussion make sure that you tell us that is what you want. I, for one, only look at a few journal entries.