Kinda ironic coming from the country that keeps trying to get chat control passed in the EU.

This site makes a big point of using the term "RESTful" repeatedly, but it seems to be JSON-based by default?

I don't know why modern web frameworks insist on continuing to misuse or misapply the term despite a fairly large amount of messaging recently about how exactly this term is misapplied, and the resurgence of frameworks and tools that do correctly apply it, e.g. HTMX, Datastar, Alpine AJAX.

Otherwise, this looks cool. I'd encourage you to un-roll-your-own docs and use something like Starlight or Docusaurus so you can have usable search and versioned docs.

That's a fight we lost two decades ago now unfortunately. Nearly any modern-ish API is a JSON-based RPC. There's nothing wrong with that, JSON RPC is a plenty fine solution for many common use cases, it just isn't REST.

Note that there is also a standard for JSON-based RPC systems, called JSON-RPC [0]. Not every JSON-based self-titled "RESTful" API uses JSON-RPC.

[0]: https://www.jsonrpc.org/

Being RESTful and the data encoding used are largely orthogonal aspects of an API.

Wikipedia RESTful article says:

> The formal REST constraints are as follows:[10]

> Client/Server – Clients are separated from servers by a well-defined interface

> Stateless – A specific client does not consume server storage when the client is "at rest"

> Cache – Responses indicate their own cacheability

> Uniform interface

> Layered system – A client cannot ordinarily tell whether it is connected directly to the end server, or to an intermediary along the way

The key line is actually this:

>An application that adheres to the REST architectural constraints may be informally described as RESTful, although this term is more commonly associated with the design of HTTP-based APIs and what are widely considered best practices regarding the "verbs" (HTTP methods) a resource responds to, while having little to do with REST as originally formulated—and is often even at odds with the concept.

Taking that to mean you disagree. However using HTTP verbs has nothing to do with using JSON or not. Notice it says "HTTP" not "HTML" APIs.

What do you think of HTMX vs Datastar for a new production app? Any key reasons to use one over the other?

What’s with the pivot away from the purely speed based testing? I recall getting the ick when I saw it as your primary metric for engineer goodness not too long ago and I don’t see any mention of it anymore on your site. Have you pivoted to something more sane?

ETA on international calls availability? Will there be another announcement, email blast, etc? UK, Canada, Australia or EU to start?

Rather poetically, this C software in 2025 segfaults on launch. I would file a GitHub issue if this was open source, but alas, nope.

Are you running it inside a VM or Wine?

Nope, just the installer, win11

You should make it draw from a palette of colors, like an actual terminal does, and easy to customize. Base16 would likely be enough given the web has opacity and a bunch of other ways to slightly modify colors. I'd also like to see how much of this doesn't need to be React™, even if your application is entirely React. Maybe splitting the CSS and the component logic?

Don’t click into posts just to comment empty ragebait dude, actually grim if this is your passtime

This thread is crazy, it reads like 2 people arguing but there are actually zero repeat commenters, like some sort of debate conga line

Using this tool requires disabling SIP, so not "easily bypassed" at least from a malware perspective.

This title is super weighted, Valve makes it quite clear that users do in fact own a thing, a license for a product on Steam. This is fundamental to games with online DRM.

It's fundamental to all non-free software.

It's fundamental to all software. Even FOSS software is licensed, it's just incredibly permissive and doesn't cost money.

You are correct of course, One exception to this is materials released into the public domain.

Allow me a short incoherent essay on my thoughts on the subject.

Public domain is a fascinating concept to me, My view is somewhat US centric, for example, some countries have no legal equivalent of the concept. but I think the idea that we the public can collectively own something is neat. Nothing wrong with copyright, I think copyright is a very important legal structure recognizing the effort to create something. but I also think it somewhat enlightened to say after a given amount of time the public owns this. Or the way the US government says "works created by the US government are for the good of all US citizens and as such are in the public domain". should a person be allowed to say "I made this for the public good and release any claim of ownership over it". sqlite infamously has trouble because some countries are legally unable to recognize a work put in the public domain. But all of nasa's software and papers are available under the same consideration.

This is just wrong. They could just sell copies instead of licenses. Copyright law doesn't care about interaction with already-existing copies, so mere usage of a software (and making archival copies) doesn't need a license at all

The fundamental problem with printed goods in general and software in particular is that they are so easy to copy.

A manufactured item is fairly hard to copy and the law on counterfeit goods is correspondingly weak. There is some law there, but it is hard to get it enforced, usually requires a court battle, etc. for example design of garments are infamously impossible to protect, garment manufactures tend to have to lean hard on trademark law to get any protection on design.

But printed works, It is easy to get a perfect copy, and computers are even worse. Trying to make a computer not copy something is like trying to make water that is not wet. This is the domain that copyright law started to appear. Basically laws explicitly saying you own what you wrote and get rights about decisions on when and where it can be copied.

But the point of my rather long-winded and incoherent rant is to say they can and do sell copies. when you buy a work those bits belong to you. you can do whatever you want with them... well, almost whatever you want with them. It is illegal to distribute them to others as this runs afoul of copyright law.

The FBI warnings are about public playback and illegal copying, both of which are explicitly outlawed by copyright law itself.

Mere execution and usage of software is simply not something copyright law cares about, which is why your assertion that

> Running software without a license is literally illegal (at least in the US).

is wrong. There is nothing in the law that gives copyright owners an exclusive right to "usage", only to the making of new copies, their distribution, derivative works, public performance, etc.