Yes, but when you connect your phone to a Nebula network, and go to http://media-server in your browser, the DNS won't resolve it to your desired node, because the phone client (same on desktop) didn't update DNS of the phone, so you'll have to use node's IP address.
That's what I've read (when evaluating Nebula), at least.
It doesn't automatically update, that's true. But I think the typical way to deal with this is to have a nebula subdomain. www.nebula.example.com instead of www.example.com.
When your nodes are not very numerous, and their IPs are statically assigned, you can just have them in a hosts file, or even served by your normal name server if you're using a split-horizon configuration.
If you want multiplatform drivers that you can use to plug your device into computers of any architecture, there are abstractions for that. IMO, it's easier to write 3 or 4 versions of your driver than to use them, but they exist and some people really like them.
If you mean standard logical interfaces, those exist. Also, hardware interfaces are highly standardized.
The problem is that the drivers are exactly the code you write to make all the abstractions fit each other. So there is very little you can do to abstract them away.
> Couldn't drivers be built on some abstraction that would simplify some work?
That's like asking the alchemist to publicly publish their manuscripts.
In an ideal world, yes. However, we don't live there. Until a few years ago, GPUs and other drivers were guarded more carefully than the fucking Fort Knox.
Once you publish your drivers, you reveal a part of the inner workings of your hardware, and that's a no-no for companies.
Plus, what the other commenter said - getting hardware guys to design for a common driver interface is probably not gonna get traction.
Somebody somewhere has to do the work of making sure everything works together. Right now that's the OS. You're proposing moving that work to a standards committee. Either way, the problem persists. You either do that or go the Apple way which is to vertically integrate the wholes stack from hardware to software, but then you have Apple's problem, which was lower hardware compatibility.
If you could get every hardware manufacturer in the world onboard with such an interface, perhaps. But even if 90% of them were onboard there would be edge cases that people and companies would demand support for and there goes your standard.
Drivers exist to ultimately turn actual hardware circuits off and on, often for highly specialized and performance-critical applications, and are often written based on the requirements of a circuit diagram. So any unified driver platform would also involved unified hardware standards, likely to the detriment of performance in some applications, and good luck telling Electrical Engineers around the world to design circuits to a certain standard so the kernel developers can have it easier.
We found that Python isn't really designed for constrained environments. The object model, in particular, makes it hard to have fast method calls. The memory layout is also affected by the language, leading to bigger objects and a worse GC.
If you are just running a small hello world, or a number crunching loop, then both languages behave similarly. However, if you actually want to run something more consequential in production you will have an easier time with Toit.
Speed: maybe, sometimes. Of course, MicroPython makes it very easy to create modules written in C, accessible from MicroPython. So if you need extra perf you can always write a smattering of C.
Reliability: I don't see why Toit would be any better? FWIW we make medical devices using MicroPython and have tests that have run for many months with no failures. MicroPython, the language, is extremely reliable and thoroughly tested [1], though admittedly the port-specific code can be less so.
We've evaluated Toit and it has some nice features (the containerization is novel and powerful!)...but it's a quirky language with sparse peripheral support. Ultimately it's trivial for Python-familiar developers to switch across to MicroPython - a big benefit. Being constrained to the ESP32 is a limitation that many of our customers would not allow.
The commercial domain name system is a perfect example of the type of artificial scarcity capitalism creates and exploits.
Domain names are tiny little rows in a database. They cost next-to-nothing to set up and maintain. There’s absolutely no reason why they couldn’t be a public good, paid for from the public purse.
And yet you pay (at times extortionate) amounts for them… why?
Because capitalism.
Isn't this a bit simplistic? Domain names are a limited resource, so there has to be some way to regulate who can use which domains. What alternative method of regulation would you propose and why it's better?
Tbh it would be really cool for there to be a TLD dedicated to extremely cheap names, on the order of 0.1-10c. This could enable all kinds of fun use cases, including automated ones.
Lets say the domain is .anything, and your domain had to be at minimum 10 characters to limit the use of squatted names”. Then you could build a website for one purpose like “lets-go-get-pizza-tomorrow.anything” or whatever. Perhaps there could be a mandatory expiry or something.
That's a s(p/c)ammer's dream if there's a lesson to be learned from the.tk experience.
I think this should fall on governments to create such a system for their citizens. A cheap web.de or website.au, would be very practical.
Also I think national regulators would have more legroom to control such domains as they can exclude non-residents and avoid to deal with international rings.
On a personal level, I'd suggest buying a short domain (I own a couple of ab.xy ones) and use that as a personal tld of sorts.
And with Cloudflare, you don't even need to manually configure the DNS settings or let's encrypt.
Having a website up and running in 10 seconds without having to go through the process of registering a domain is such an amazing experience!
Currently, we're pretty limited on 5-character ab.xy domains, and they'll cost you over $1000 USD to register[1]. However, 6 and 7 character domains are available, and can indeed be really useful!
Having a cheap tld (e.g. .xyz, .pw, .icu) definitely lowers the odds of being able to send emails from your domain name, impairs search engine discovery, and has other similar effects.
What about <permission> having browser-defined UI instead?
A site needs to access the location, for example there's a button on the page, 'Show my location', which is wrapped in a <permission> tag. When the user hovers over the button, the browser UI would appear on top of the area with a lock or something (the site cannot style this UI). If the user clicks on it, it would show the usual 'Site wants to use your location', and if the user agrees, they can click on the 'Show my location' button, if they don't agree, the browser UI would be shown again on the next hover.
It would make it impossible for sites to obscure the permission-requesting UI.
These fuckers ask for location on each search query, basically on each page load.
It is annoying to operate on Firefox focus and regular Firefox on android as it has a bug I assume that does not honor per site permission disable request.
Same on Firefox desktop, it works, sometimes it does not and then the site is unusable unless you deny location on each page load. Urrrghhh
We need global default off and per site permission.
Also, would it not be easier to pass dummy coordinates like 0.00,0.00 to bypass the nag screen ?
Same for notifications. "Yeah yeah notifications are enabled. Stop bothering me" ??
reply