max-privatevoid

7 ms·

61.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Well, "dogshit UX" isn't exactly actionable, is it?
62.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
If only they were actually portable. As it stands, mise is just another half-solution, and you can't solve the other half of the problem by ignoring it.
63.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
This problem is entirely self-imposed from the CLA bullshit they're trying to pull off, which also defeats the point of FOSS. I bet they "love Open Source".
64.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
The coffee is a tangible thing that required a lot of work to produce and deliver to you, and this work is required again the next time you want a coffee. The colorscheme is #19181a, #221f22, #2d2a2e, #fcfcfa, #ff6188, #fc9867, #ffd866, #a9
65.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
FS deduplication solves the problem at the storage level, but not at the transfer level. The components would still be downloaded multiple times if the downloader doesn't have a way to know what has already been downloaded. Docker&#x27
66.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Quadratic in the sense that, in the worst case, you have N programs sharing the same set of M dependencies, requiring N*M components worth of space. With sharing, it would only be N+M.
67.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
The Right Way To Do It(tm) is to assume that all library ABIs are unstable and ensure that the exact dependencies your software uses are present on the target.
68.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
And those assumptions often end up being wrong. There will always be differences between distros. Ensure, don't assume.
69.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Because it's an environment variable, and thus will have an (often undesired) effect on child processes. This information should instead be encoded into the binaries and libraries themselves, with things like DT_RUNPATH and DT_RPATH.
70.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Programs potentially duplicating dependencies at a quadratic rate is an equally abject failure. It's the other extreme of the dependency sharing spectrum. Share, but don't overshare. If two programs share a dependency, and that de
71.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
The dynamic linker is part of glibc, so if you're shipping multiple glibcs, ship multiple dynamic linkers as well and let each application use the linker it needs. LD_LIBRARY_PATH users deserve the death sentence.
72.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
This but without the Microsoftisms, and every component directory is immutable, and maximal sharing is encouraged.
73.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Content-addressed (or input-addressed) component stores, like Nix. If you're blindly assuming which libraries exist on the target system, you've already failed.
74.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
The damage the FHS has done to the software world is insane and container overuse is the biggest symptom of it.
75.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Why call it "Cppnix"?
76.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
I wonder who's to blame for that.
77.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
> This is like saying "black is white". Take a simpler example. If you have the freedom to imprison me for no reason, you can take away my (literal) freedom. Now you are free, but I am not. Because of this imbalance, the freedo
78.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
In short, if you want to appear like a corporation who acts in bad faith, aims to abuse their contributors and only cares about FOSS for the free labor they get from the people who are gullible enough to contribute, a CLA is a great choice
79.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Q: What's wrong in having a CLA? A: It allows you to re-license your project in future. It gives the original author the right to relicense your contributions at a moment's notice, to a license you might not agree with. It effecti
80.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
You're misinterpreting it. Integrating FOSS code into a proprietary product is what restricts the user's freedom. Copyleft licenses prevent this restriction. And yes, indeed, why bother working for freedom if it's easier to n
81.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Maybe I should start insisting on the term "FOSS". Pushover licenses ("truly open source") enable the exploitation of FOSS developers in the name of easy profit for the people building proprietary software around it, whi
82.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Do those companies really care about open-source, or just about code they can freely integrate into their proprietary products?
83.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
It's not possible to sell non-FOSS modifications to AGPL-licensed software. I think that's intended. It's not antithetical to Open Source, quite the opposite in fact.
84.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
The AGPL is probably the best option for a FOSS license. Why do you consider it "not truly open-source"?
85.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Please do not use the AGPL as a marketing point when you have a CLA.
86.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Spreading copyright among as many entities as possible to make relicensing more difficult is not a problem you should "solve". It's a feature of the license. A CLA ensures that contributors will be treated unfairly, and I hop
87.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
This is why you should look for software that calls itself "FOSS" or "Free Software" instead. Avoid CLAs at all costs as well. If the software is licensed under a GPL-like license without a CLA and has had significant co
88.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
It's not Open Source, it's not open. Being "close" to Open Source is completely useless.
89.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source c
90.
by max-privatevoid 2y ago
I think the idea that businesses can't use GPL- or AGPL-licensed code is absolutely ridiculous. This false premise seems to be omnipresent in every license discussion.

More ›