If you want to take it even further a fully virtualized Opnsense with Proxmox is amazing. Your router can float between cluster nodes and each VLAN becomes a virtual interface in the hypervisor. What still blows my mind is how I can migrate the instance to a second server and bring the original server down for maintenance without my users noticing a thing.
As long as your Proxmox Cluster is backed by shared storage (ceph, gluster etc.) and HA is configured for your opnSense VM you can just shutdown the Node. Works flawlessly with pfSense (PVE backed by ceph).
I use managed switches for this, L2 units are fine if you let opnsense do all the inter-VLAN routing. All network devices go into the switches which are connected to the servers. As CptKriechstrom mentioned my PON or modem is connected to a switch and is tagged into a VLAN, which enters opnsense through that specific virtual interface.
I use (EdgeMAX) managed switches, so that shouldn't be an issue, I understand the concept now of what I'd need to do but I'm going to have to find a tutorial or something as I wouldn't know how exactly to set that up.
Ok, It's slowly coming together. So I assume I'd then put the virtual WANs of each cluster node on the same VLAN and whichever is currently hosting the router would chat with the PON to give me a WAN link.
No, an extra restriction ("For open-source use") is added on top of the GPLv3 license, which violates the license, actually (see §7):
> All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
It's better to license under the stricter AGPLv3 and not put any extra conditions.
keepamovin doesn't have or need a licence at all (GPL or otherwise) so can't be violating it. He is distributing his program by virtue of being the author/copyright holder, not by virtue of owning a (GPL) licence for it. He doesn't need a distribution licence (from himself).
In LICENSE.MD, he declares that I (for example) may take a copy of his program provided I choose one of the licences he is willing to offer me. One of the choices is known as the GPL. Let's say I choose that. Now he's given me a copy of the program and granted me an unmodified, unrestricted GPL licence to use and distribute it. Let's write the terms down in a file called licence.gpl. (This is just a copy of the GPL itself.) I don't hold the program's copyright. I don't have a licence to distribute the program further under his LICENSE.md but I do now own a licence to use/distribute my copy of it as described in the licence he's granted me, licence.gpl.
My distribution licence (licence.gpl) doesn't allow me to add extra restrictions when distributing. So people I distribute to under the terms of my licence.gpl will automatically be granted a GPL licence by keepamovin (not me) to distribute further.
keepamovin as the author and perpetual sole copyright holder is different from me and people I distribute his program to, who are all mere licencees never copyright holders. We all hold licences he has granted to us directly and individually. (We don't grant licences to each other, having no right to do so. The GPL allows me to distribute my copy of the program to you at which point keepamovin will automatically give you a licence. (A licence is more abstract than a licence file.))
All distributions rooted in my copy should probably make clear that they are under licence.gpl not LICENSES.md. But that's something for any program offered under a choice of licences to solve.
The copy of the program at the site above is offered by keepamovin under an open source licence (GPL) and also other licences. The site thus does have an open source offering of the program. So it's true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source".
(Just as a licence is more abstract than a licence file, a program here is more abstract than a copy of a program. A person's giving a program to another person means ownership has transferred. So I was careful to write "copy of the program" above, as none of this distribution/redistribution involves transferring ownership of the program, which abstract work remains forever only keepamovin's.)
Fair enough, I stand corrected. Worth noting that differences over interpeting the relevant provisions of GPL led to a lawsuit and the court didn’t rule in favour of the side that relied on these provisions: https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/02/court_neo4j_ruling/
From a quick glance, that lawsuit seems qualitatively different. It's about a hybrid licence that I'll call AGPLCCL here. One side thought it therefore wasn't an internally consistent licence and the court ruled that it was.
keepamovin is offering to grant me an unadulterated (i.e. non-hybrid) GPL licence to use/distribute my copy of his program. I'm treating as axiomatic that the unadulterated GPL is an internally consistent and open-source licence.
While you are right that Neo4j license was altered more substantively, @keepamovin still made a rather big restriction by stating that GPLv3-licensed BrowserBox is only available "For open-source use" (thus it's no longer "unadulterated"). It restricts me from using that software under the terms of GPLv3 without making my system open-source. That's why I suggested AGPLv3 if @keepamovin wants to ensure that applications relying on open-source version of BrowserBox remain open-source.
LICENSE.md declares that if I have an intended use in an open source application, I can apply for and automatically be granted a pure GPL licence to then copy BrowserBox Pro directly from that site. Even if only some but not all people are similarly eligible, it still becomes true that "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source". That some people are ineligible for a licence to directly copy from that site doesn't change that.
> It restricts me from using that software under the terms of GPLv3 without making my system open-source.
If your system is closed source, then you are one of the people ineligible for receiving a GPL licence from that site that will allow you to copy the program directly from that site. It is not that you get some restricted licence. You get no licence at all to copy from that site. (We'll put the non-commercial and commercial licences aside for the moment.)
Next, let's look at how the situation isn't too bad even for the ineligible sods. If by "it" you meant "your licence" then that's false as you don't have a licence at all. If by "it", you meant "that site", then that's somewhat true. The site doesn't restrict you from using the software, it only prevents you from getting a licence and downloading the software from that site. If a GPL licencee gives you a copy of his copy of the software, keepamovin automatically and unconditionally grants you a pure GPL. That is, when the copying takes that path, he will grant you a GPL even if you don't have an open-source application of your own. You can use that copy of the software in your closed-source system (to whatever extent the pure GPL's terms allow).
Now consider Alice who makes a promise P1 to keepamovin saying she intends to use BrowserBox Pro in an open-source project. This makes her eligible for a pure GPL licence to directly copy BrowserBox Pro from the site above. So she does. What prevents her from subsequently making her project closed source and using BrowserBox Pro in it? It's not the GPL but her promise P1. If she closes her own sources she wouldn't have violated her (GPL) licence but she would have broken her eligibility promise P1 and thus defrauded keepamovin into granting her the GPL in the first place. Her situation is complicated not because she has a complicated hybrid licence but because she has two legal documents to satisfy, P1 and the pure GPL. P1 was used to obtain the pure GPL. (This is where I remind myself that this is all just my point of view.)
What about Bob who has an open-source and a closed-source project? Call them O and C respectively. He promises (P2) keepamovin that he is creating an open source application, so gets a pure GPL licence directly from the site above, as well as a copy of BrowserBox Pro. He uses this in O. Can he make a copy of his own copy of BrowserBox Pro for use in C, or download a fresh copy from the site above for use in C? I believe he can do both. LICENSE.md reads "If you are creating an open source application under a license compatible with the GNU GPL license v3, you may use BrowserBox Pro under the terms of the GPLv3." Thus Bob, having got a GPL legitimately by virtue of O, can also use BrowserBox Pro anywhere else his licence (pure GPL) permits him to, such as possibly C. Using BrowserBox Pro in C will not have made his promise P2 false. So unlike Alice, he will not have defrauded keepamovin in regards to his application for a GPL licence. The pure GPL Bob received from keepamovin tells him "You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force."
It's easy for Alice to become like Bob by having a token open source project making her eligible for a GPL licence directly from the site above.
What about Carol, who wants to use BrowserBox Pro commercially but doesn't want to pay? She can ask any GPL licencee, such as Bob above, for a copy of the program. keepamovin will implicitly and automatically grant Carol a pure GPL licence, since that's what Bob's licence assures Bob. Carol can use this copy of BrowserBox Pro commercially to the extent allowed by the pure GPL. LICENSE.md is irrelevant to Carol except for telling her that keepamovin is the author and copyright holder and the one granting her the GPL. And she needs to remember that she got her copy of the program from Bob who said he had a GPL and thus permission from keepamovin to make a copy for her.
Nobody gets a BrowserBox Pro licence from the site above that is a restricted GPL. Depending on what conditions they meet and what they ask for they either get a pure GPL or a non-commercial licence or a commercial licence or no licence at all. People who make copies of the program from GPL licencees automatically get a pure GPL licence from keepamovin. There is no restricted GPL licence in existence here.
At any rate, to repeat paragraph one, the woes of the ineligible (such as potentially you, Alice, Bob, Carol) in obtaining a GPL licence and a copy of the program directly from the site above do not make "BrowserBox Pro goes open-source" false. That at least some people are eligible for a GPL directly via the site above makes the headline true.
It's not a community per se but there's a lot of research and discussion going on directly in the llama.cpp repo (https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp) if you're interested in the more technical side of things.
Likely it's hosted on the same infrastructure. The general recommendation is to host the status page on different provider so it's more likely to stay up.
It's not even source code, it's the fact that this just looks super sketchy in general. The website http://faction504.com/ listed just links directly to the Play Store page. There's no info on what Blackpage does or who runs it.
The issue with AMD and AI is, as always, the software stack. Even if the hardware is great ROCM simply doesn't have industry traction and accessiblity.
Doesn't have the traction for now. Cloud providers (ms, google, amz, etc) are quickly tiring of paying Nvidia monopoly premiums for their gpu hardware. Google has already invested in tpus and it wouldn't surprise me at all if they got together to fund ROCm development or even went so far as to develop their own NN asics.
Cuda is great, but it's not strictly necessary for much of the latest AI / ML developments.
ROCm is so terrible the cloud providers rolled out their own chips rather than use AMD which has perfectly good GPUs and the worst software stack ever.
ROCm still doesn't support consumer GPUs; that means people building random things (as opposed to more serious work things) won't be using their stack, so none of the innovation will be there.
It may be possible to use it with consumer GPUs anyway, but many won't try because it's not officially supported.
Intel, AMD, Google, Amazon, etc should team up to create some sort of standards/consortium around an open source CUDA alternative, something that anyone who can fabricate chips could use, and the consortium could have their own team of devs/researchers to make improvements / next gen versions of their CUDA alternative.
Something like the way chrome vs chromium is, or even a foundation like the linux foundation, where you have multiple distros contributing packages/etc back into the ecosystem.
they are already doing that with XLA, google has TPUs, amazon has tranium/inferentia. common interface in future that you basically just cast model to `.toDevice` of an enum of accelerated computing types seems to be the goal.
> Cloud providers (ms, google, amz, etc) are quickly tiring of paying Nvidia monopoly premiums for their gpu hardware.
I think cloud providers love exclusivity(Nvidia MSRP is significantly higher than it is available to clouds) and based on pricing compared to competitors like lambdalabs they have highest profit margin on GPU instances. Also based on availability, they likely have the highest utilisation. They definitely wouldn't want to commoditize the space. Google already has TPU that they could scale and sell to everyone but it would make the margins significantly smaller if they do it.
If you ask me to make an account before I can see your content (even if it looks interesting) that's a turn off and I'll go somewhere else. Maybe have a button at the top that says "explore as guest" or something like that?
Also you should advertise that this is an open-source project on the landing page, as that may cause more people to be interested in trying it out.
I don't like the centralization of Cloudflare, but it's the only way I can host public web pages out of my homelab with a DSL connection. I would rather have a CDN than put my content on a VPS as the servers remain 100% under my control and I can change providers anytime.
If we look at this from a technical perspective, what is the cost of running such a service?
Something like Facebook obviously costs a lot more to run, as it stores photos and video and also provides each user with an individually generated feed. In contrast HN is rather lightweight and basically serves mostly static cachable content to all users. I believe it was stated somewhere that the entire HN comfortably runs on a 64GB 4/8 bare metal server. On the extreme side I host my personal static web site on my home DSL connection fronted by Cloudflare, as the CDN does all the work and the bandwidth used is minimal.
To the people running these new communities the software cost is low as they're based off an open-source service of choice (Lemmy, Mastodon, etc.), and as we saw on Reddit moderation can be done by volunteers. Are the remaining costs for admins, hosting, etc. feasible for a non-profit with some user donations? And can we create more efficient platforms with a plainer style that will minimize the server and electricity costs?
The cost is not in the servers (even though that costs money too, obviously).
90% of costs of places like Facebook are wages and various other expenses that you need too once you are running operation at a similar scale.
E.g. you do need to pay for a large team of lawyers because you are dealing with a ton of copyright takedowns, cease and desists, even lawsuits every single day.
The same with large team of moderators/content reviewers because in many countries people posting illicit content (with the definition of illicit being different by country!) may get your business blocked/shut down in that country. Including seizure of domain, any hw you may there, etc.
Add to that various regulatory compliance (e.g. the the GDPR once you are above certain size), engineers to run and maintain the systems, security team to deal with any attacks that happen 24/7, accountants, secretaries, even janitors and cleaners to keep the offices habitable.
Those are the actual costs. Not your puny server in a closet.
