3 ms·
> What you're describing is premature optimisation. Have you bothered to read my post ? I don't know how I can make it any clearer ? 1. NixOS were dependent o
by traceroute66 3y ago
> What you're describing is premature optimisation.
Have you bothered to read my post ? I don't know how I can make it any clearer ?
1. NixOS were dependent on DONATED service(s)
2. It is not sensible to assume the service will continue being donated forever, that is just foolhardy.
Anyone who has ever run a business or has been involved in charitable work knows this. NixOS appears to have just learnt the hard way instead.
- tedivm 3y agoThey had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement, and are engaging multiple avenues to do so. They are having absolutely no downtime from this process. You're making assumptions that aren't warranted at all to make a point that really just seems like an excuse for you to be angry at random strangers. I'm honestly not sure why you are so upset (and rude) about this.
- traceroute66 3y ago> They had assurances that they wouldn't just have it ripped from them, are being given time to find a replacement Sure, but we're still talking after the event here. The overall point of being over-reliant on a single donor in the first place remains the fundamental problem that could have been avoided. I suggest we draw a line in the sand and agree to disagree.