There's nothing really wrong with substack. People just like to shit on anything that doesn't pass whatever purity test they happen to use.
This is big problem in left-wing communities. They just can't get along and demand purity in anything they do - except themselves. Left wingers will happily and harshly defend their use of whatever capitalist product they themselves use with a bunch of excuses that fan make your head spin. Apple users a great example thereof. They will disparage so many other products and companies but somehow Apple is their baby and immune to criticism.
The eternal problem of open source: people will happily pay for proprietary software and services, complain that open source isn't ready. Then when it is, they will not donate a single cent to continue development but instead create passive aggressive posts and issues demanding features or shitting on the project.
It theoretically does but in practice, it doesn't really. More information here. For some reason peertube decided to roll their own webtorrent alternative instead of build upon webtorrent 🤷
I wanted IPFS to be successful 5 years ago. I wish it had been successful, but barely anything has changed. It's a resource hog with a terrible UX. There's nothing easy about it and the documentation is straight to "here's our HTTP API". Gee, thanks, what about the people who don't want to immediately write an application?
Uh... Where do you get that it uses IPFS? I checked the seedit repo and it doesn't seem to mention it in the dependencies nor readme.
This way, if the third party starts doing some bullshit like trying to lock me in, donating to a dickhead, or whatever else I disagree with, I can cancel my subscription, move to another third party, and keep all mails on my server.
I would like to be able to change providers and have the emails available on multiple devices.
IMAP allows multiple devices but leaves the emails on the server. POP pulls them from the server but that means they aren't available to other devices anymore.
The solution (I think) is to pull using POP onto a shared server, then make the pulled emails available using IMAP.
I'm curious how that'll work out. SELinux was so difficult, multiple talks and sites had to be dedicated to explaining how it works. Unless they added some kind GUI or other interface to make it easier to configure and debug, I don't know how much trouble it'll be adding...
Phoronix comments really are a battlefield for rust vs C. The seaheads just can't accept rust is safer and will moan about the borrow checker telling them they are doing something unsafe. Probably the same people would argue static typing is better then dynamic typing, but can't seem to see the parallels between safety guarantees at compilation time vs checking at runtime. Impressive.
More to zlib-rs: good job! RiR without bothering people is great. Just do it.
It's called Web Monetisation. It's a standard that's in development. In short, you, the user, can donate/pay money on any website that follows the standard. No patreon, no PayPal, no VISA, no yada yada.
Setup: You install an extension or use a compatible browser, create a wallet with a web payment provider, login / connect with the extension / browser.
Example operation: while browsing you happen upon a website (Lemmy.world for example) or web page (tilvids.com/u/thelinuxexperiment or one of the video pages), the "tip" button is made available, you hit it and 1£ is queued to be sent to the website or person on the webpage. At your leisure, you accept the transaction.
This can be implemented any number of ways e.g statistics are collected (locally) about which websites you visited with web monetisation active, at the end of the month, you are shown a breakdown of that activity. Say 10% peertube, 30% Lemmy, 40% mastodon, and a smattering of other softwares. You say "I want 10£ to be split across the different softwares with a minimum of 1£ per transaction". Or anything else you can come up with.
That's it. The website operator doesn't need you to have PayPal, or patreon, or some special bank. You have a " wallet", you decide how the money is transfered and to whom, and you're done.
Are you trolling or is this the first time asking for help?
Imagine if someone told you their car didn't work, you asked what they did, and they said "turned the key in the ignition twice and it doesn't start". ? No make, no model, no description of sound or recording of the action, no idea when they got the car checked, no photo of the warning lights, nothing. Would that be enough information for you to help?
As @just_another_person@lemmy.world said: post configs! What is your OS, what commands did you enter, what are the contents of your yml files, which containers are running, which images are you using, etc. Nobody can help you otherwise.
In programming terms: allocated memory has to have the data in it that you expect in order for your program to work. The unsafe languages do it by manually ensuring it's good and doing so mostly at runtime, or just assume the data is valid and write code that looks valid and have somebody check it before the program runs, or do a mix thereof. In all cases, it require a lot of human intervention and because humans are fallible with different skill levels, this fail quite often.
Safe languages are either built on top of unsafe languages that are battle tested and do lots of runtime checks behind the scenes (interpreted languages like python, ruby, javascript, etc.). Then there are languages that check actions at compile time like Rust. They tell you that the memory you're trying to access can be modified by another part of the code, which might make unexpected changes and that in order to access it, certain conditions have to be met.
In laymans terms: imagine you work at a storage facility (memory) and have to store and retrieve packages. To know where to store and retrieve them, you have a piece of paper with the aisle, shelf, and rack and position on the rack. That's your pointer. To store something, you have to make space on a rack and put the item there, write down the name of the item (variable) and location on a piece of paper (memory address), and keep it on you.
Imagine keeping all of that in order. You have to make sure you don't write down the wrong location (off by one error), remove a piece of paper then it's not valid anymore (dangling reference), remove a piece of paper without removing the item (memory leak), add a piece of paper pointing to something without actually checking what you expect to be there is there and then retrieve it later, and so many other things.Those are the things unsafe languages allow you to do.
Safe languages either enforce that before doing certain things, you check stuff (runtime checks) or that before you even start doing anything, you plan how you would do, and that plan is checked.
The crazy storage facilities are what most of our world runs on at the moment and there a whole lot of people who love it because it's simple and they know it. "Just tell the intern to get that box there, I made sure it'll be fine. Trust me, I've been doing it this way for years." meanwhile somebody gets the wrong medicine because a piece of paper said another one was supposed to be on the shelf. There are a bunch of people who have thought about ways to improve it, implemented, tested it, and are using it to manage their storage facilities.
I wish we had community linux project or something similar which was funded by donations and hired kernel devs to work on things the community voted on
This is probably what I'm looking for. I wonder how we can get this started. "Linux Kernel Collective" where you can pledge money to the development of the kernel in general, a specific thing in the kernel, or a specific team - with or without stipulations i.e "I trust you, I just donate" and "please show proof e.g monthly reports".
Dunno what would need to be done to get that started, if it already exists, or whether something like OpenCollective could be a good starting point.
If we can do it, I’d say via an institution like the Linux Foundation.
That doesn't seems like a good solution IMO, given how they already spend their money. If you gave 100 bucks today, 2 of that would end up in the kernel. It's similar to donating to Mozilla to get Firefox funded, but with Mozilla there's absolutely guarantee that's where it'll end up.
We can chip in money, so Linux can spend money where they see fit.
That's one way to do it, but I find it quite indirect. I'm thinking more of the way similar to how Rust For Linux came in: an external org funded developers to work on an aspect of the kernel. We could do the same but the aspect being funding either existing maintainers or contributors aspiring to become maintainers.
Other than that, I’d say we need to create an atmosphere for such people to thrive.
This, I agree with in general. Specifically for the linux kernel, overworked maintainers mean there's something wrong and hopefully spreading the load by funding those willing to contribute and maintain could be a way to do so.
OK, thanks. I'll wait until the move has been made off of Github before trying to contribute.
Thanks for the project so far!
Anti Commercial-AI license