Hello there!

I’m also @[email protected] , and I have a website at https://www.savagewolf.org/ .

He/They

  • 0 Posts
  • 114 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle


  • All three are web based frontends for git repositories; you use git to send and receive code to/from them for storage and sharing. They all also provide other things useful to developers such as issue tracking, wikis and such. They are different products that fulfill the same role.

    what software does github.com use?

    It’s all proprietary software (presumably) written in-house. We don’t have access to it.

    whats the difference between them (pros/cons)?

    Github:
    Pro: Wider reach, everyone knows about Github.
    Con: Proprietary; your code is hosted based on the whims of Microsoft.

    Forgejo:
    Pro: Open source, selfhostable. There’s a big instance on https://codeberg.org/ which a lot of open source projects are starting to move to.
    Con: It’s smaller and not as well known as Github. In theory it may also lack features, but I’ve not seen any that have gotten in my way.

    Gitlab:
    Pro: It’s… I guess in second place in terms of popularity? It’s also selfhostable.
    Con: It’s one of those open source projects with paid closed source features, so not really appealing to either group. It’s also had questionable management decisions recently.

    what about self-hosting? Possibilities/Preferences?

    If you want to selfhost a git server, I’d recommend Forgejo; it seems to be the most friendly towards the open source and selfhosting communities.





  • I like to see companies design their software such that their main financial incentives are tied to the quality of their product. This usually involves being open source; if someone can fork it, your paywalled version better have extra features that open source people can’t make easily. I also like to see them trying to avoid vendor lockin; if it’s easy for you to switch, then they need to actively work on not letting that happen.

    For example, Bluesky. They have an open protocol and (I think) you can easily transfer data between instances. If they start fucking people around, you can just jump to another ATProto app.

    For Kagi, the only thing you’re paying for is search… So if they fuck that up, you can just crawl back to DuckDuckGo.

    Obsidian is an interesting case. It’s not open source, but the files it works on are just markdown. If they go totally wild, I can just easily switch to VSCodium to edit my files.



  • Personally, I think that the discussion around this will evolve as the news spreads, but I agree with Robert on this one. Sure, X/Twitter has become a less welcoming place than before, but shutting out a significant portion of your community without seeking their input first isn’t a sensible move for such a foundational open source project.

    Nah, I think I’m cool if Debian doesn’t respect the input of Nazi sympathisers.


  • It’s possible for an upgrade to break things and leave your system in an unusable state or cause your data to be lost.

    However, that could happen at any time with no warning. Your hard drive could break, your charger could cause a short, your laptop could get stolen. If you have any files you don’t want to lose, I’d strongly recommend you set up a backup asap.

    In terms of whether to actually upgrade, Mint 20.3 stops receiving security updates in April so you should probably upgrade to 21 sometime before then.


  • Android backs up data to the cloud. If the phone breaks or gets stolen, you don’t need to recover data from it - you can just pull it from Google’s servers.

    In addition, people tend to not treat their phones as “permanent storage”. The concept of losing or breaking their phone is probably more clear, so they make sure to back it up in some way to the cloud or their desktop.

    Also, it’s much more likely for a phone to be stolen than a laptop or desktop.





  • If Alice is able to send “algorithm updates” through a secure and untraceable medium, why not just use that to send a unique email address that Bob can send messages to?

    If the links between participants is to remain secret, why not have a big ledger shared between a thousand people that any of them can send unaddressed messages to? Bob would send a message encrypted with Alice’s public key and it gets mixed into the ledger. Alice then pulls the entire ledger and then decrypts any messages encrypted by her public key.

    I don’t see why there is a need to accept the inherrent unreliably of an llm to solve this problem.