You can see the spirit of what they're going for also with the MIT binaries - that's also like saying the whole project is AGPL, but a loosening for using it as-is.
Given their goals seem to be
- Permissive use without modification, even in combined works ("MIT binaries"); but
- Copyleft with modification, including for the Affero "network hole", or commercial terms
could you suggest a clearer license option? AGPL triggers copyleft across combined works, LGPL doesn't cover the network hole, GPL has both problems. Their goals seem really reasonable, honestly, there should be a simple answer. It seems messy but I like it more than the SSPL/BSL/other neo-licenses.
I don't know anything more reasonable, but I would argue that this (isn't) reasonable precisely because it causes so much confusion due to the ambiguity and their refusal to clarify exactly what the terms really are.
Dokku user for a decade here, congrats on shipping, love to see more self-hosted PaaS options like this.
Why are binaries checked into the bin/ directory in the repo?
Compared to Dokku, I like how your LE support is builtin instead of a plugin. Is your main www ingress server an nginx that gets externally configured (like Dokku) or are you using net/http or libcaddy directly?
Dokku has a history of trying to compete with Heroku buildpacks - as a non Heroku/non Ruby developer this never resonated with me and there are a lot of vestigal parts (e.g. .web.1) that i would just put in my own Dockerfile directly. So focusing solely on Dockerfiles i personally feel is a good move.
One issue i faced with Dokku is eventually the build process for my Dockerized app was too memory-intensive to run on the VPS. I switched to running docker build locally, sending the container via `docker export | ssh | docker import`, and having a single `FROM myapp` dockerfile in Dokku. This was not particularly ergonomic to set up. Is it possible you can improve the UX of client-side built containers, or will you focus solely on the GitOps deploy?
The binaries are for local testing for now, the actual binaries are built on the server/VPS on installation, we are planning to distribute single binaries in future.
The reverse proxy + TLS is Handled by traefik running in a docker container itself, we chose traefik because of the automatic docker label based dynamic routing, I hope we don't need to switch to something else anytime soon .
We have plans for remote/local builds using a small docker registry instance on the server/VPS to eliminate the need of any external registry
There are a bunch of reddit users leaving reddit comments but I'm not seeing any info from reputable sources. As of now no public commentators seem to know what these keys are truly for - I'm sure whoever extracted them knows so we'll have to wait to find out...
What is ACPI other than a DTB baked into the firmware/bootloader?
Any SBC could buy an extra flash chip and burn an outdated U-Boot with the manufacturer's DTB baked in. Then U-Boot would boot Linux, just like UEFI does, and Linux would read the firmware's fixed DTB, just like it reads x86 firmware's fixed ACPI tables.
But - cui bono?
You need drivers in your main OS either way. On x86 you are not generally relying on your EFI's drivers for storage, video or networking.
It's actually nice that you can go without, and have one less layer.
Gitea has a builtin defense against this, `REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW=expensive`, that completely stopped AI traffic issues for me and cut my VPS's bandwidth usage by 95%.
This is the most assured best way to make sure your remain the only user of your stuff.
I highly encourage folks to put stuff out there! Put your stuff on the internet! Even if you don't need it even if you don't think you'll necessarily benefit: leave the door open to possibility!
Crawlers will find everything on the internet eventually regardless of subdomain (e.g. from crt.sh logs, or Google finds them from 8.8.8.8 queries).
REQUIRE_SIGNIN_VIEW=true means signin is required for all pages - that's great and definitely stops AI bots. The signin page is very cheap for Gitea to render. However, it is a barrier for the regular human visitors to your site.
'expensive' is a middle-ground that lets normal visitors browse and explore repos, view README, and download release binaries. Signin is only required for "expensive" pageloads, such as viewing file content at specific commits git history.
From Gitea's doc I was under the impression that it was going further than "true" so I didn't understood why because "true" was enough for me to not be bothered by bots.
But in your case you want a middle-ground, which is provided by "expensive"!
> Enable this to force users to log in to view any page or to use API. It could be set to "expensive" to block anonymous users accessing some pages which consume a lot of resources, for example: block anonymous AI crawlers from accessing repo code pages. The "expensive" mode is experimental and subject to change.
Forgejo doesn't seem to have copied that feature yet
Go exposes raw pointers to the programmer, and its current GC is entirely non-moving. Even excluding cgo, I think a moving one would probably break real programs that rely on pointer values.
Yes, there's a case to be made that exposing "real" pointers in a GC'd language was a substantial mistake, but I guess it simplified _some_ parts of FFI. The trade-off so far maybe is fine, but it is a shame that there are certain things that can't be done without introducing new substantial costs. Maybe the compiler could learn to do something suuuper clever like recognize when pointers are being used non-transparently and automatically pin those, seems fraught with potential error though, trivial example being stuff like &a[0] (that ones easier to catch, others might not be).
True, I forgot about unsafe package. They would probably have to make it a Go 2 thing and add indirection to raw pointers or a need to "pin" them. Since pinning would already exist for CGo I suspect that would make more sense and wouldn't have performance penalty.
I can’t find it either. It may have been him, washing machines are the kind of alternating current appliances that he avoided in preparation for living in space
HN was so enamored with him when his deal was about hacking eating into being more productive by not having to chew
> I enjoy doing laundry about as much as doing dishes. I get my clothing custom made in China for prices you would not believe and have new ones regularly shipped to me. Shipping is a problem. I wish container ships had nuclear engines but it’s still much more efficient and convenient than retail. Thanks to synthetic fabrics it takes less water to make my clothes than it would to wash them, and I donate my used garments.
I'm sure i remember a few more details, like his claim that black t-shirts worn only once are the most stylish possible garment, but i'm willing to put that part down to the Berenstein Bears effect.
Given their goals seem to be
- Permissive use without modification, even in combined works ("MIT binaries"); but
- Copyleft with modification, including for the Affero "network hole", or commercial terms
could you suggest a clearer license option? AGPL triggers copyleft across combined works, LGPL doesn't cover the network hole, GPL has both problems. Their goals seem really reasonable, honestly, there should be a simple answer. It seems messy but I like it more than the SSPL/BSL/other neo-licenses.
reply