They were talking about hosting the git repository via sftp - so bare file transfer - a bare repository. And how that was enough for them.

While that is also hosted, and hosted through a service, it’s only a file transfer service and hosting.

That means specifically without a hosted service like a forge or gerrit.

Which is why I was interested in how they handle stuff that is usually done through such forges and services / hosted software.

Their comment was about not having any hosted service though.

Gerrit is a hosted service, no?

Funny how this shows up as cross-posted to the same community when there’s been a post about it two months ago.

It shouldn’t be labeled "cross-"post, but the linking to earlier discussion is certainly valuable and useful.

I remembered this post.

Even just being able to view the source code without cloning is very valuable. A bare repo does not provide that.

Did you not do code reviews? It’s the main thing I would miss. Being able to comment in-line, and manage iterations, is very valuable to me.

is bricking systems really an issue/a common issue for common mutable Linux distros?

… or use them anyway because if they actually don’t care for human rights, will they really care for licenses or licensing law in other countries?

Even then I think establishing intent is worth something.

And it may be different for some of the “lesser evil” modules of the license.

they will do it anyway or just not use your library

I think that’s still worth something. Not being a part of it, even indirectly is worth something. Not enabling them.

It is not a generic term for source-available software, and never was.

The problem with that reasoning is that precedence and origin do not necessarily define language use after it. Language evolves. Society and communities make up new or change definitions.

Misuse of the term is evidence that it’s not universally understood to be one way.

I think it’s mainly because “open source” can be understood as accessible, readable source. And many people seem to intuitively understand it as such. The “free” terminology on the other hand has a more ambiguous meaning between freedom and no cost. And early on, the “freeware” terminology was established as a differentiation to “free software”. “Open source” does not have such an equivalent established differentiation (like “source-available”, which seems to be just not as prevalent, maybe because there have been much fewer products with that alone).

I understand the desire to correct, specifically with the established OSD. But I have to wonder if it will ever bear fruit, given these circumstances. And in consequence, whether it’s even worth to point out.

I still hate the “vibe” terminology.

What I would have liked it to mean: While coding, put on some music, and zone out to coding.

What it means now: Prompt an AI to generate working code and solutions.

I don’t get where the “vibing” comes in. I guess you don’t have to think about the technical details? And that’s vibing? Maybe it’s just unfamiliarity and lack of practice, but poking the AI via prompting and thinking about how you can influence it better doesn’t feel like you could zone in to or “vibe”.

Maybe it’s about letting go of reasoning and just going for it? Vibing in the sense of going with the flow?

It’s not the first terminology I find unfitting. I’m trying to accept that it is what it is, and that it just is what “we collectively” have decided to call it (or ran with).

really cool animations

When will it launch?
I’m not entirely sure yet. I’d love to get it out before the European summer this year.

What if I want it right now?
I’m going to do a pre-order, where you’ll get access to the chapters that are already written. You’ll get to see each chapter slowly take form as I push out new drafts.

It would have been quite the surprise if they had 6 recommendations but their favorite was not amongst them.

You can see it in the post thumbnail

/s

dead link

This video is not available on NorthTube.

original https://tilvids.com/w/6c411a6e-511a-4912-a9c8-a812afdd0d30

I had to wait 5-6 seconds to visit that site.

The internet got so much worse - in two ways of course.

Who is Kate?

Kate the editor? Or is there an IDE called Kate?

The collaborative sharing nature of these platforms is a big advantage. (Not just VS Code Marketplace. We have this with all extension and lib and program package managers.)

Current approaches revolve around

• reporting
• manual review
• automated review (checks) for flagging or removal
• secured naming spaces

The problem with the latter is that it is often not necessarily proof of trustworthyness, only that the namespace is owned by the same entity in its entirety.

In my opinion, improvements could be made through

• better indication of publisher identity (verified legal entities like companies, or of persona, or owned domain)
• better indication of publisher trustworthiness (how did they establish themselves as trustworthy; long running contributions in the specific space or in general, long standing online persona, vs “random person”, etc)
• more prominent license and source code linking - it should be easy to access the source code to review it
• some platforms implement their own build infrastructure to ensure the source code represents the published package

Maybe there could be some more coordinated efforts of review and approval. Like, if the publisher has a trustworthiness indication, and the package has labeled advocators with their own trustworthiness indicated, you could make a better immediate assessment.

On the more technical side, before the platform, a more restrictive and specific permission system. Like browser extensions ask for permissions on install and/or for specific functionality could be implemented for app extensions and lib packages too. Platform requirements could require minimal defaults and optional things being implemented as optional rather than “ask for everything by default”.

Minification is a form of obfuscation. It makes it (much) less readable.

Of course you could run a formatter over it. But that’s already an additional step you have to do. By the same reasoning you could run a deobfuscator over more obfuscated code.

What makes you think only GitHub is celebrating?

I love Nushell in Windows Terminal with Starship as an evolution and a leap of shell. Structured data, native format transformations, strong querying capabilities, expressive state information.

I was surprised that the linked article went an entirely different direction. It seems mainly driven by mouse interactions, but I think it has interesting suggestions or ideas even if you disregard mouse control or make it optional.