> For example with make you have `./configure` files, do I also have them here?
The concept of `./configure` is 100% orthogonal to Makefiles. You can have Makefiles without `./configure`, and you can have `./configure` that outputs something other than a Makefile. For example, I could easily imagine a `./configure` that prints a shell script like the one in the submission.
It's not a requirement - I give you: .RECIPEPREFIX
> If you prefer to prefix your recipes with a character other than tab, you can set the .RECIPEPREFIX variable to an alternate character
That said, how hard is it really to disable tab expansion in your editor? I have a block of configuration dedicated to the different indentation requirements of different programming and configuration languages. In more modern editors, I don't even have to do anything at all to edit Makefiles with tabs - they come pre-configured to do the right thing.
The whole goal of this approach is to get out of the vicious cycle of build files generating other build files, so no `configure`.
`configure` is not in itself a feature. What purpose does it fulfill for you? Then we can discuss how we may serve that purpose in some more lightweight manner.
I have the feeling your way of thinking is 'remove every abstraction so that we end up with a simpler system'. This works in some cases, but certainly not all of them. configure is one of them.
Why? Try removing a configure script for even a simple autotools project, and ensure that it still builds fine on all previously supported platforms by writing a cross platform Makefile. Good luck with that.
"This works in some cases, but certainly not all of them."
This too I'm totally willing to accept. I believe most abstractions are prematurely frozen and so poorly designed. But this makes me liable to err too far in the other direction.
"configure is one of them. Why? Try removing a configure script for even a simple autotools project, and ensure that it still builds fine on all previously supported platforms by writing a cross platform Makefile. Good luck with that."
Here we part ways. I think `configure` is one of the easiest cases for me to be sure of, and it's because I don't care about "all previously supported platforms". Many if not all of them are obsolete. Also, as rossy pointed out elsewhere in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15045076), it's impossible to know today if there's a bug in autotools for some rare platform.
We live in a world very different from the one autotools were built for, and it's almost a monoculture at this point. All that crap is utterly unnecessary today. I don't care about building software on all possible platforms, all I care about is building it on this one platform in front of me right now.
The most frustrating thing about autotools is that it's unclear which platform each individual check is concerned with. I have a whole mess of rules from 20 years ago -- and zero rationale for any of the rules. That makes even the few rules that are worth having a net liability because I can't separate them from all the useless ones.
Have you considered open sourcing and selling commercial licenses for integration? I think this is a product that many corporations would love to integrate with. However, as an alone standing product I don't think it adds a lot of value. Something like the business model of draw.io
Very good point, did think about that, but until now still not very sure about business model. At the beginning, when we build it, we want to have a editor for people to easily type and share their Math (even without knowing LATEX). Will definitely consider/think about Integration, or somethings else ...
I'm not trying to defend them, I'm more curious what your definition of anonymous would be? Eg, they could say anonymous and not store any data either, but potentially you can still be identified through an oversight - meaning even if they attempt to be anonymous, you might still not be anonymous. If taken far enough, only the most rigid, hardened and secured communication seems well vetted to keep you anonymous - but then we can't even trust them running it either.
So yea, I'm just curious what's reasonable here. What would make you feel good when associated with the word anonymous?
If they advertise a software as an "Anonymous Discussion Platform", the minimum standard that I think of is a P2P network built on top of GNUnet, Tor, or other similar networks.
How does this work? Where does the audio come from? Does it use some database of recorded IPA sounds, or does it convert from text to speech on the fly?
Judging from the source (viewable with Chrome extension source viewer [1]), it's POSTing the IPA text to https://www.ipaaudio.click/audio as the `ipa` key of a JSON object, the server does the heavy lifting and sends back an audio buffer, which the extension sends to a WebAudio context.
It'd be neat to know what exactly the server is doing, though.
You can use Chrome Store Foxified [1] to install the extension in Firefox. I just tried it, but I'm getting a `TypeError: NetworkError when attempting to fetch resource.`
LinkedBrainz is not something that the MetaBrainz team is directly involved with, however, according to themselves, «[they are] back, if basic for now.»
There isn't a lot of competition in the "free/libre database" market though. The only serious players are Jena/Fuseki (an RDF store) and Janus (a graph store).
PostgraphQL generates a GraphQL API from a PostgreSQL database. It won't change how your data is modeled or queried at the database level, i.e., it is NOT a graph database project like Agens, Neo4j, Cayley, etc.
This isn't a graph database, it's GraphQL which is an (unfortunately named) interface or "language" to query data, regardless of what the underlying database or data model is.
I've been watching https://dgraph.io with great interest. Looks like it could become a very solid contender as a horizontally scalable open source graph database engine.
The Enterprise Edition is not AGPL. It's under one of "Neo4j Commercial License", "Neo4j Evaluation License", "Neo4j Educational License", or "Fair Trade Licensing". In other words it's not free.
Why would I want to use the "Community Edition" of a company whose interest is to force me into buying their Enterprise Edition? The more people use this "Community Edition", and the more they are encouraged to force their "Enterprise Edition" under my throat, because "it will be easier to buy a proprietary plugin than change database". They are already restricting the use of important features such as "Unlimited graph size", "Database storage reallocation", "Schema constraints", "Runtime to accelerate common queries", "Role-based security", "Kerberos Security", "Load balancing", etc. Why would I want to get into this?! I'd rather spend my time learning and contributing to Jena or Janus than a bait "Community Edition".
The "enterprise edition" is AGPL. Feel free to interpret it differently then Neo does, but the license is AGPL [1]. Anyways, I don't understand the hostility. They're tying to walk the line between a profitable company selling software while still doing it all in the open. The fact that they kept things open source and not closed was one of the things I loved about working there.
So, are you saying that Neo4j is 100% free as in "100% AGPL, otherwise Commercial License if you don't want to use the AGPL"? In other words, the code is exactly the same, only with a different license?
According to [this page](https://neo4j.com/editions/) it's not. In fact, they are restricting important functionalities to their Enterprise Edition exclusively. Which means, the codebase is not the same.
Yes, the Community Edition and the Enterprise Edition are different. Certain functionality is restricted to the Enterprise Edition. It's a different codebase. I didn't say otherwise.
See how there are 'community' and 'enterprise' top-level directories? The 'enterprise' directory contains the enterprise-specific code. It's a separate project in some senses but it does share the same repository, and it is open source.
If you have not executed a Commercial Agreement with Neo Technology, the
Software is subject to the terms of the GNU AFFERO
GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 3, as follows:
It is AGPL; it's dual licensed. You can use it freely under the terms of AGPL, or you can enter into a commercial agreement with Neo Technology and use it without the restrictions imposed by the AGPL.
No you're not the only one :)
I quote 100% what you said. Also I think you don't hear much complaints simply because people quit GitLab once they try it and just move to GitHub instead (or something else for self hosting).
Anyway, how does this compare, features-wise, with GNU Make? For example with make you have `./configure` files, do I also have them here?