ddevault

31 ms·

331.
by ddevault 4y ago
It's a useful shorthand, certainly, but what is it shorthand for? Sophistication of the software, availability, performance, sustainability, security? We have many of these things and we offer transparency and data to back it up. Sourc
332.
by ddevault 4y ago
Hundreds of thousands of people are on the fediverse, and many large projects use email every day for their work - Linux, GNU, Postgres, Debian, etc. It might not be for you, but it works for many people.
333.
by ddevault 4y ago
We pay out base salaries well below market rates, but we supplement them with the FOSS consultancy at each individual employee's discretion. With these sources combined, our total compensation is similar to market rates, and often more
334.
by ddevault 4y ago
Maybe. Even if someone is banned, I still care about their privacy, and I would not want to disclose that they were banned. Providing this information also provides useful feedback to malicious actors like spammers, who are ordinarily banne
335.
by ddevault 4y ago
In the history of SourceHut, only one person (setting aside spam/crypto-miner bots) has been banned from the platform. They were harassing maintainers and failed to respond to an email inquiry seeking to discuss their behavior before r
336.
by ddevault 4y ago
Right now, there are no consequences for non-payment. In the future, your account may be put into a read-only mode following a grace period. Your projects won't disappear overnight.
337.
by ddevault 4y ago
Sorry, but I think we have to agree to disagree.
338.
by ddevault 4y ago
I should have been clearer: the expectation is only in force following the beta. We have a specific set of goals we would like to meet first. In the meantime we expect users to pay but are understanding of those who would prefer not to pay
339.
by ddevault 4y ago
Email is very robust and does not fail silently -- unless you ignore the "undelivered returned to sender" emails you get. Mail servers are very fault tolerant, with essentially all implementations supporting an exponential backoff
340.
by ddevault 4y ago
ForgeFed is just a protocol, just like email. The interfaces can be essentially identical. It's pretty difficult to host a fediverse server, too. I want to make SourceHut easier to self-host post-beta, including dealing with email bits
341.
by ddevault 4y ago
No. Our transaction fees are 2.9% + 30c, the standard rate for Stripe. So we make $1.64 from the $2/mo plan.
342.
by ddevault 4y ago
I still find the insinuation quite ridiculous, to be entirely honest.
343.
by ddevault 4y ago
Well, it had 515 magic GitHub popularity points before the move, if that matters to you. There's no notoriety condition on HN -- it's newsworthy if HN voters decide it is. I figured you'd know better than to drag out the old
344.
by ddevault 4y ago
I'm not sure that we'll be moving forward if we're not willing to answer to the fact that our indulgence in free services is putting our freedoms in jeopardy. What use is it if you jump ship from GitHub to another service whi
345.
by ddevault 4y ago
We will place your account into a read-only mode following a grace period if you don't pay up. I hate link rot and I have no intention of contributing to it with SourceHut.
346.
by ddevault 4y ago
No, not at this time. I don't think that ActivityPub is the correct way to address this issue -- some people treat it like a golden hammer. SourceHut is already federated: via email. Email is a standardized, federated protocol with t
347.
by ddevault 4y ago
I don't think that's a reasonable take. We are legally obligated to publish the source code running on our servers because we have incorporated code from others under the terms of the AGPL, without asking for them to assign copyri
348.
by ddevault 4y ago
We think the workflow is better, and no one was born knowing how to use GitHub, either. SourceHut is very affordable and the price is well worth the cost. If you want FOSS to be sustainable, FOSS platforms have to be sustainable, too. Sourc
349.
by ddevault 4y ago
This is why we take pains to be transparent about things like finances: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ SourceHut is profitable and sustainable, thanks in no small part to the fact tha
350.
by ddevault 4y ago
If you don't pay, someone else will. GitHub is funded by private investors demanding a return, which incentivizes behavior like repurposing your code to facilitate mass license infringement. SourceHut is entirely funded by its users an
351.
by ddevault 4y ago
SourceHut offers an email-based workflow with a web application built on top of it. You can file tickets via email, but you can also file tickets on the web: https://todo.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/hare The same goes for patches.
352.
by ddevault 4y ago
HN believes this comment is spam and I cannot reply to it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31963630 So I'll reply here instead. > This is somewhat off topic, but I'm wondering if you've considered off
353.
by ddevault 4y ago
Just click through to their new readme on sourcehut: https://sr.ht/~kyoto-framework/kyoto-framework/
354.
by ddevault 4y ago
SourceHut is not proprietary. It is 100% free software (mostly AGPL) and provides tools to migrate your data between hosted or self-hosted instances.
355.
by ddevault 4y ago
Thank you :)
356.
by ddevault 4y ago
SourceHut is designed to facilitate collaboration, of course, but it's done differently from platforms like GitHub and those that seek to emulate it. And of course it is more than a git frontend, providing tools specifically to facilit
357.
by ddevault 4y ago
Yeah, it's just a joke. SourceHut is already profitable & sustainable. But, I think that it is important that we establish the expectation that users should be paying for the service. It keeps our interests aligned directly with th
358.
by ddevault 4y ago
Founder of sr.ht here. I understand these fears, and I have gone to great lengths to give users tangible assurances in this regard. Trust is something that has to be earned, and it is incredibly important to me that we are worthy of yours.
359.
by ddevault 4y ago
I actually agree, but this is a pretty deep philosophical issue that requires several more blog posts to fully unpack - blog posts I will write. Essentially, I agree that the very idea of intellectual property is invalid, and my end-game wo
360.
by ddevault 4y ago
I think that your clause is fine and does not cause these licenses to be non-free. But it is worded a little bit weirdly, by stating that the output of Copilot etc is literally "this software" rather than a "derivative work&q

More ›