ddevault

23 ms·

271.
by ddevault 4y ago
This is one of the biggest strawmen I've seen on HN, a platform famous for building them. There's a lot wrong with this but the simplest is this: Pine's stated strategy is to deliver hardware and let the community deliver sof
272.
by ddevault 4y ago
Yes, but they probably should not be buying experimental products for this purpose. Set your expectations according to your purchases. The Pine store makes it abundantly clear that this is not a device which you can expect to plug-and-play
273.
by ddevault 4y ago
It's not a market and it does not act like one. These are not a bunch of startups hoarding intellectual property, they're a group of open projects working together under different flags to build a single product. The work of each
274.
by ddevault 4y ago
If the point of your product is shooting yourself in the face, you should find a different point. Not all ideas are worth pursuing.
275.
by ddevault 4y ago
> I'll definitely be writing to Pine and asking them to clarify what they as a company say about this post. Please let us know what they say.
276.
by ddevault 4y ago
Distributions like Manjaro should change their behavior and quit shipping unfinished patches.
277.
by ddevault 4y ago
I don't entirely disagree. In fact I wrote a blog post making similar arguments: https://drewdevault.com/2022/01/18/Pine64s-weird-priorities.... Ideally Pine64 would be facilitating the development of a
278.
by ddevault 4y ago
Even supposing your premise is correct (and it's not: diversity is good), the question becomes if Manjaro is the right choice, and it is definitely not. Manjaro is a very poorly run Linux distribution with misaligned incentives, poor p
279.
by ddevault 4y ago
>As I tried to demonstrate, there weren't enough people using my package on Debian to maintain it. I believe it's useful, so 1) why not, and 2) what should happen next? What's important is not if you think it's usef
280.
by ddevault 4y ago
The fallacy is in wanting to run "untrusted" applications. If you don't trust them, you should not run them.
281.
by ddevault 4y ago
I don't understand how your response follows from the points I made. In any case, people who need a package should add it to their distributions . This is what we should normalize. Especially for users like developers who depend on so
282.
by ddevault 4y ago
This is a common error. In actuality, it's not your job to maintain your own software in Linux distributions. It's the job of users of each distribution to step up and maintain the software they need. https://drewdevaul
283.
by ddevault 4y ago
You add it. You are responsible for your dependencies. You should already be getting notified of new releases, reading changelogs, etc, and bumping the pkgver in some repository is not arduous on top of that. The labor, split among everyone
284.
by ddevault 4y ago
Debian's curation is not so strict as you suggest, and what's more: there are more distributions than just Debian. Add the packages you need and you'll be fine. I can speak from personal experience in this respect.
285.
by ddevault 4y ago
Far fewer than 1 in 10 npm packages is useful. I don't think you understand what I want. I don't want to see all of the packages in these repositories added to Linux distributions. I want to see the packages that you need added
286.
by ddevault 4y ago
I'll match your bluntness, then: suggesting that anything on the order of 2 million packages are actually useful is plainly ridiculous. Debian et al act as quality filters by only actually packaging the stuff anyone cares about or ne
287.
by ddevault 4y ago
There are many, many Linux distributions that are already maintained in this fashion. Most of them provide Ruby packages! And they already have strong cryptographic signatures for all packages -- which is much better than MFA.
288.
by ddevault 4y ago
This is the only mitigation that distributions like RubyGems can use to curtail abuse without a major redesign, but it's far from enough. This is the wrong model for software distribution. We would be wise to look to Linux-style distri
289.
by ddevault 4y ago
The kernel <> userspace API is stable, famously so. Dynamic linking to glibc is a terrible idea, statically link your binaries against musl and they'll still work in 100 years.
290.
by ddevault 4y ago
Using Windows or macOS in the first place already runs afoul of best practices for privacy and security.
291.
by ddevault 4y ago
> I think Sourcehut does this in an ideal way. On the site it very clearly says that it's currently free, but as soon as it goes stable it expects users to pay, in fact they actually sent me an email reminding me of that fact. There
292.
by ddevault 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
293.
by ddevault 4y ago
Many projects, some of them among the most successful projects in the world (Linux, PostgreSQL, Debian, others), are not on GitHub and are doing just fine. I reject the axiomatic statement that projects cannot survive outside of GitHub -- i
294.
by ddevault 4y ago
1: We are working on a web tool which uses emails under the hood but is otherwise quite similar to pull/merge requests. We have already rolled out the contributor side of the process, which you can see demoed here: https://s
295.
by ddevault 4y ago
If you believe that it's important for free software to use free software infrastructure (and you should[0]), then there is no choice but to do so. Infrastructure like GitHub is primarily a function of network effects and the only way
296.
by ddevault 4y ago
We're not going to be taking PayPal. However, if you don't have a supported payment method, you're eligible for free service.
297.
by ddevault 4y ago
Some import tools exist, like this: https://sr.ht/~emersion/gh2srht/ Unlike SourceHut, much of GitHub and GitLab does not utilize standard, interoperable formats, so import and export can be a headache. Payment is
298.
by ddevault 4y ago
Free accounts are not sustainable. If you let investors subsidize you, it's not in the platforms best interests to work in your best interests. SourceHut charges for its services, publishes financial reporting, transparent operations
299.
by ddevault 4y ago
Next step is to train a model exclusively on leaks of proprietary Microsoft source code. Fair use, right Microsoft?
300.
by ddevault 4y ago
Cheers :)

More ›