That's a very nuanced analysis. I've explained it this way especially to people who describe themselves as "bad at computers". Hey, give yourself a break, you've learned a lot about how to cope with windows. But this investment leads to a conservatism--- they dont want to learn coping skills o a new system. The devil you know.
I'd just add that GUI is more discoverable. When faced with a terminal, what to do? Whereas with a GUI you have a menubar, some icons etc. The GUI gives a lot more hints.
In the terminal (which I love) it is more powerful once you know how to crack the lid.
built in licensing
how's it built in?
I am not a big fan pf matrix but I think SchlidiChat was the one I used most successfully on android.
From what I have seen a main issue with Matrix is that the protocol can be implemented in bits and pieces. Which is perfectly fair but it leads to an inconsistent user experience. The default web clients you first use to try it out will be using strong encryption settings by default but then a lot of the mobile or native desktop clients don't support encryption. So it's difficult to get going finding cross platform apps that have all the desired functionality consistently between them.
In terms of the apps, I don't think comparing matrix to lemmy is exactly fair for this reason.
that's interesting... I guess a forum and a chat have a lot of similar attributes. The difference is in the presentation with forum being more static appearing. What would be the reason to deploy Matrix like that instead of using a purpose-build forum software? The most obvious would be not requiring a second account.
What's PoC?
Why is it an MIT project in the first place?
It’s not really something developers want to think about very much so they often just use the default.
Do you think it was intentional ideological decision by the Rust developers or some other contributors/interests to make permissive the default? Or a random decision that has ended up being consequential because of the popularity of Rust?
I have noticed for a long time that github promotes MIT license. It lets you use any, of course, but puts a real positive shine on MIT. My perception is that this is a purposeful intervention by MS into FLOSS to promote MIT.
I do not program. So maybe trying to understand all this is over my head. wikipedia describes
A static library or statically linked library contains functions and data that can be included in a consuming computer program at build-time such that the library does not need to be accessible in a separate file at run-time.
I thought that was the idea of binaries in general. In the Arch repos there are many packages appended with -bin. (The Arch repos also contain items of various licenses including proprietary.) Lots of FLOSS packages make a binary available by direct download from their website. Without too much detail, is there something special about Rust? Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of a binary release.
library code licensed under it must be able to be replaced.
Does this mean you need to be able to make a reproducible build? Or need to be able to swap code for something else? Wouldn't that inherently break a program?
Yes you are correct I mis-used the term. I mean copyleft. So I fixed the post. :)
soo you are saying people are tricked into it?
I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses.
Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre copyleft licenses? Or is it baked in to the language somehow?
Edit: It has been pointed out that I meant to say "copyleft", not "libre", so edited the title and body likewise.
Over the years, forums did not really get smaller, so much as the rest of the internet just got bigger.
matrix isn't a forum. it's a chat.
I assume they are just harvesting email addresses unless a very small site
There are so many niche forums.
Here's one I found a while ago when I was looking at repairing an old electric fan I found: Antique Fan Collector's Forum.
In the way that people would always add "reddit" to their searches, try just adding "forum".
I felt the same way every time I tried to use Twitter as I feel every time I try to use Mastodon. It's either way too much or way too little. I prefer everything about the reddit/lemmy/threadiverse style.
How would we even be having this conversation on microblogging? A bunch of reposts, with or without comments, disconnected from each other... So much nicer to have a "subject" line and a page where every relevant comment is presented.
Can you imagine if the threadiverse was sorted that way? It would be insane and essentially unusable at scale
On lemmy there is a way to basically do this by toggling the filters at the top of the top of the front page. You can see how this looks form my instance: https://programming.dev/?dataType=Comment&listingType=All&sort=New
I've always assumed nobody every uses it like that. I guess if you were bored you might get lucky and see something that interested you, at least if it was limited to Local and you were on a good instance.
I'm really interested in the concept.
I would like to see community-oriented search engines. But I don't know if "the community" is viable really. It would better be for communies. I just downloaded the browser extension and it lets you see the pages it is crawling; they are the sorts of things that would be of interest to a lemmy type community--- a lot of nerd stuff. Which is of interest to me. That's why I'm here. :)
What if I am in an online community interested in a different part of the web--- say celebrity gossip and royal watching. A network of forums, comment sections, socials, chats etc with thousands of people who are at least casually interested and some hundred who are very motivated. Like everyone else the web is getting harder for us to navigate. How realistic would it be for us to spin up an instance of this to make our own community search engine? This community does not want to see a bunch of stackoverflow, gihubs, arxiv papers, tech news or the other stuff I am seeing float past me in the crawling extension.
It seems that the place where this kind of thing is somewhat documented would be https://book.mwmbl.org/ --- but it's pretty vague.
mumble is already the name of FLOSS voip software so they're probably better off with the existing name. Which I don't love on first glance but there's probably some rationale for it.
This is a case where both tools are invaluable.
The original find has much more comprehensive options. Of course it is extensively documented and you can find all kinds of information online about how it works and how to combine it with other tools to accomplish all kinds of tasks. And it's GPL which is always preferable.
fd has a narrower range of functionality but goddamned it really is faster. fd can run several searches on the whole hard drive's contents while find is struggling to get through just a single comparable search on the same set of files. For simple tasks, the cli usage for fd is less to remember and less to type.
If I had to choose, I'd stick with find because it can do everything, even if it's slower and more cumbersome. But luckily, don't have to choose, just have both and use them as appropriate.
I'm a FLOSS/linux enthusiast. Over the years I have learned some scripting, and can get around in git. Occasionally I fork someone else's project to suit it to myself. Shell scripts, webapps, browser extensions etc. The kind of thing you can work in the source of without actual programming knowledge by just looking at text files.
Recently I modified a C program to have more legible/useful (to me) terminal output. I gave it a slightly different name and for compatibility have both versions running on my system. For my use-case it is a huge improvement over the original so I want to have it publicly available where I can install it from any system. And to share in case anyone else would enjoy it.
I don't think my changes would be appreciated by the original maintainer. For one thing, no changes have been made to the code in >10 years. The dev is still active so I guess the program is considered complete. For another, my changes are breaking and specifically disrupt the "linux philosophy" aspect of the program. I think having both version co-exist is the best way.
- I don't want to confuse anyone who is trying to find the repo of the original program.
- The original is hosted on github whereas I use codeberg; so the "forked from" relationship is not as clear as if I stayed on github
- I ?do? want to update documentation such as README in the repo to describe my changes and relationship to the original
- I ?do? want to update and
--help/manin the terminal to reflect the fork's name and possibly clarify how it works - Should I make some sort of courtesy PR or repo issue offering my changes even though I think it would be (even should be) rejected/ignored? It seems kind of time wasting.
- In the case where the original upstream was being updated, how do I integrate those with my changes? I've had some luck so far with doing my best to guess about the
gitprocess, I think usingbranch,sync,merge. But I couldn't tell you more than that. Any insight on how this is supposed to go? I have spent lots of time wading throughgit's documentation but still find the main ideas kind of confusing. - Anything else to consider?
Since I'm just dabbling, I try to stay away from more complicated workflows, or those which require specific system set up, when possible. My experience is that when I come back to it in a few months, a year or two years, I will have forgotten a lot; it might be a different system environment. I need to be able to re-learn everything at a later time. Simple solutions that are widely-compatible, and do not rely on my memory are preferred.
I don't mind doing a bit more work than is strictly required to learn about the FLOSS process. I've done it a few times before and it is useful to me to understand things.
