The ICBINB font is almost a semi-serif, almost like a sans serif that's slightly melted, whereas I'd say the crumpet is fully serif. The "e", "L" and "v" are pretty different. And I'd say the ICBINB font lends itself better to tighter spaces, whereas the crumpet font seems to beg for more space.

But certainly, I could see one being used to replace another in a pinch - but I'm not a font specialist (graphologist? Is there a word for a person who studies fonts?)

I feel like BDFLs are akin to the concept of village elders; they're not immune to corruption or scandal, but they often have this beloved status that can paper over a lot of cracks. That's probably dependant on their leadership style - the hard headed (Linus, DHH) vs the grandfatherly (Matz, Van Rossum).

Which, going back to your note on geopolitics, leads me to wonder: Is it just that more power corrupts more, or is it that (modern-day definitions of) democracy require a desire for power? I guess as the "FL" part of "BDFL" comes to bite more of the communities, we'll see better how different succession styles have different effects. I also wonder if the analytical nature of the individuals within the "populations", and inability to police defectors will mean uprisings will be more successful, either in causing BDFL attitude adjustments, or just overturning the community completely (for example, there's already a lot of momentum for a complete fork of Rails)

(Edit: having submitted this, I now see others have had very similar thoughts! Definitely an excellent conversation topic)

I think a lot of this is due to how so much is a scandal these days, for better and worse. (I'm obviously going to keep politics as much out of my response as possible.)

A few decades ago, people could have political views without ostracizing roughly 50% of the global population, or generally causing a ruckus at the holiday family dinner. (Obviously politics + holiday dinners has been an issue for a long time, but back then it was just something people tried to sweep under the rug. Now? Holiday dinners are getting cancelled or families are splitting up.)

It used to be that a scandal in the OSS community required you killing your wife (thinking back to ReiserFS). Now, a remark on Twitter is all it takes.

Again, I am absolutely not taking sides here. I'm just noticing a difference in the times, and agreeing that it is indeed interesting to watch.

People are far more happy to cling to the tribe they choose, and the tribe that has their back, over the tribe they were born to. Then, there are those who see that trend as dangerous to society (where, in many cases, society is really just a proxy for their own power or social status - ironically as viewed through their own chosen tribes more than the tribe they were born to)

That is to say, I don't think it's the political views that are splitting the families. Individuals have decided that care for each other should come secondary to those political views. I feel like there used to be a certain amount of care in the "sweeping under the rug" - it was the tribe against the world, it was protecting the family image as much as it was protecting the individual from society. These days, being a thing "in private" means being a thing alone, and that's no longer a compelling thought when external tribes are willing to embrace you.

Which probably applies to software tribes just as much as family ones.

This is ahistorical.

Not only was it the norm forever to ostracize entire sections of your society (protestant vs catholic and lots of other religions, black vs white, any form of non-hetero behavior, the Roma people and any form of outsider)

It often was the law

Americans shot their family members over whether we should own black people or not.

My french and white ancestors were expelled to Louisiana, intermarried with black people, and then when the US bought the french land, they introduced laws that made such families illegal.

Reagan made a hobby of publicly claiming his coworkers were communist. Thought that maybe we should be allowed to form unions? 100 years ago that was enough to get you investigated by the senate. Americans voted for him so hard the Democratic party is still floundering to have support. "We should allow unions" or "we should regulate companies" is still half-verbotten.

Do you know how many kids are still kicked out of their homes for the crime of being born gay?

This idea of "You used to be able to hold diverse opinions in public" is outright wrong. This past never existed.

Weird Christians in the US have tried to cancel things like Harry Potter and halloween for gods sake. They took a teacher to trial for teaching evolution. They made playing pen and paper RPGs a sin! When preachers molested kids, they shunned the kids

Being too chummy with another guy in public was a scandal! Being a woman who wanted an education was a scandal! Getting pregnant out of wedlock was a scandal that would tear apart families. Getting divorced was verbotten. Expressing support for social policy could get you fired, or murdered

Bush Jr literally said "You're either with us or against us" about supporting a criminal war and America pitched a globally public fit when other countries did not pledge allegiance.

This blog is for LinuxServer.io, who build repositories that produce free docker images, for free, paid for by donations, for a bunch of open source software. By the looks of things, they are literally a charity.

Conversely, their complaint is not "aren't docker rubbish? Let's mob 'em" - it's "heads up, something seems to be wrong and docker are not responding to anything, chances are there's trouble brewing - we're gonna start looking around and if you're depending on this, you should too"

I would say calling "the open source community" a "parasite" because they're using free services from companies that have benefited greatly and earned a lot of money from things given freely by the open source community seems weird.

Seems like a lot of people on here very concerned about those poor struggling corporations, and their exploitation by those evil open source charities. Feels like an evil political wind is blowing, wonder where that's coming from?

It sounds to me like their ultimate goal is to get more free stuff.

And I'm saying: open source should not rely on benevolent corporations.

And writing articles to beg for services is not a healthy strategy in the long term.

Instead: use open standards, don't rely on centralized infrastructure, create a marketplace for providers, and create a better future. Stop maintaining the status quo of indentured servitude.

"give us a hint" - "Stop begging!"

As I say, you're clearly coming into this with a strong unjustifiable bias, I can tell because you're forced to use words like "smear", "parasite", "exploiting", "beg", "indentured servitude" - it's a cover for the cognitive dissonance.

But if you genuinely would like a discussion about the pitfalls of the funding models of open source, yeah it's a reasonable question that has never been satisfactorily answered. There are whole PHD projects on the subject, and nobody's cracked it. Giving money to open source projects is difficult for many reasons - ranging from tax treatment to geography even to legality. Providing services is somewhat easier, but in many companies in some countries even that comes with geopolitical legal issues. Marketplaces only work if you have something to barter, and if you would like to contribute to the freedoms you enjoyed, it's hard to make that work in a marketplace model, not to mention that even providing people the option of donating money for a product comes with overhead (legal / technological / service / financial network / server etc).

If you would like a discussion about ensuring abstractions over the services you use, sure, I'm here for it. Of course, it's hampered by a lack of consistent interfaces, and in some cases interfaces that ensure they can never be smoothed over. But that sounds like a cool open source project - in this case, I guess it would be an anyhub kind of deal that can serve images for different use cases, paired with a DSL for defining a resource (that can generate a dockerfile / docker compose file, in docker's case). Of course, serving images isn't free, but you've cracked the problem of funding models of open source, right? Right?

And you mention indentured servitude, loaded though that phrase is, it's also a poor analogy. Tax would be a closer match. You depend on open source and make money off it? Great. Giving open source a cut of that pie in some way seems the morally right thing to do. How you do that is up to you, but telling people they can use your service then pulling the rug while simultaneously ghosting them? That sounds kind.

You know what, I think you're right - it's so much easier to lambast someone for daring trust or daring to express concern than it is to do anything meaningful to improve the landscape.

I mean, that's the other 770 words of the article. Except they're just giving their experience, and allowing you to come to your own decisions - because otherwise people might legitimately call them out for "smear" tactics.

> 2) what the alternatives are, and why they're not good enough

"as we grew we started mirroring our images to Gitlab and Quay.io," <= Alternatives (that they are using)

"Docker Hub is the de facto standard Docker registry, literally, if you don't specify a registry when pulling an image Docker will invisibly prepend docker.io/ to it." <= Why they're not good enough (extra config step)

> 3) what needs to change, which may include consumer behavior - things that we control, because we really don't have control over Docker Hub.

"but it does feel like we need to do something. Whatever we decide, we'll keep you informed." <= They're not there yet, but they're open and honest about it

> use fewer words, because people's attention spans are really short these days,

I can see that you have a short attention span.

> which naturally requires the words to have more dense and intense meaning

You are a belligerent, self important ignoramus who incorrectly believes the world needs his opinion. <= genuinely, do you like this style of discourse? Why are you treating shock language as a status quo worth maintaining, but trust and expecting decency from a corporation as some kind of unacceptable failing?

No.

Does it make me belligerent?

Yes.

I care deeply about humanity, and I'm surprised to conclude that we will definitely have a civil war soon.

See you on the other side.

Yes, please.

I'd love to hear your ideas, and I agree that we still need to figure things out, particularly how to make open source self-sustaining.

Thanks for the fork and the suggestions though - looks like I'll be having fun with this over the week!

It’s a way to convert a text or response into an array of numbers, that can be used for similarity lookups.

I made a way to query large datasets of text strings: https://github.com/punnerud/search-embeddings-llama3.1

Can be used to let it explore a graph of knowledge as long as the graph is related to the original question, and can explore different solutions at the same time without repeating itself (then it’s get linked back to similar answers and stopped)

In case you hadn't realised, the very concept of having two sets of binary distributions on one machine, vying for superiority and the correct version of glibc... is fraught.

Most of my use was with rails projects, and I can't recommend it.

Coupled with an abstraction that tries to save you from Nix, but almost entirely fails, you end up with a bloated hellscape where every time you load your project it will unnecessarily reinstall your packages and several times an hour it will have forgotten curl exists and so you have to manually reinstall curl (not-so-slowly increasing your /nix folder's size), every week or two a new version of devbox completely changes the workarounds you need to do, and don't try to garbage collect nix or it will delete vital files, and you end up scrubbing it all and starting again.

In python, it overrode the path so I couldn't get it to reliably use the binaries in the venv. Pip and Python were using packages in different places and I couldn't get them to converge for love nor money.

The devbox team were great and really tried to get things working, but in the end I couldn't get it to work with enough stability to properly recommend it to my team, and if I wanted it to half-work for any substantial length of time I had to lock to a version of devbox.

Obviously, ymmv, please do give it a try, it's an impressive project. But my view is that it's trying to do something that is very very hard, and for that you need a very clever solution. And this is a very clever solution, with very clever bugs, and so it's not something I'd recommend jumping into with both feet.

One difference that may have been decisive for our success is that when I selected devenv, my goal was not to avoid Nix at all, but rather to choose a nice convention for defining our project-specific Nix environments. I chose devenv because I trust the author's technical leadership (and it also has a decent community of contributors), it is very Nix-forward for this type of tool (most of defining your environment can be done in Nix, and you can even use it just as a Nix library rather than an executable tool (which we do, for one project)), it supports flakes in a first-class way, and it's built on my favorite library for defining flakes (flake-parts) which works via a NixOS-like module system. It also takes care of the direnv/caching optimizations we'd otherwise want to roll ourselves. I also love some of the small conveniences it offers, even when they're pretty easy to do with Nix alonw, like the `scripts` functionality. I also find it pleasantly easy to extend— my team has a couple partially completed upstream contributions on the backlog right now, and they were delightfully easy to get working.

Devenv does admittedly have a lot to it. Each of our projects generally only needs a subset of its functionality, but that breadth of functionality seems justified by the fact that it's not always the same subset that we need. Devenv does currently do some things I don't love, like use a custom Nix build for evaluation and recommend a custom Nixpkgs fork for best compatibility, but why it does those things is clear once you dive in and the future direction in those areas seems sound to me.

All of this is from my perspective as my small team's 'Nix guy'. My manager has some casual Nix experience outside of work, and has had success creating his own devenv environments for some projects I'm not involved in as well. Our other guy is totally Nix naive, but has a solid Unix background. He's never initiated any new work with devenv, but he's used our existing devenv integrations without issue.

I think for a team where everyone is still getting their feet wet with Nix, the approach you guys settled on is quite a sound option. But for teams with more mixed Nix experience levels like mine, maybe devenv can work better. For us, it does a nice job of providing a well-documented, idiomatic, highly compatible Nix library to experienced Nix users on the one hand, while presenting a nice porcelain for the other members of the team on the other.

Apart from glibc, I have never had issues with two sets of binaries vying for superiority. Nix binaries take preference with my "vanilla" setup. I think that might be Devbox doing something strange with $PATH?

There were a couple of other libraries, can't remember which ones. I remember once having a fun chain of a library that depended on a library that depended on two libraries that in turn depended on glibc, and for some reason the last link of the chain, only one of the libraries was hitting the system libc incorrectly - that was a fun one to debug. I think I ditched that dependency in the end, it was the only solution (and was clearly badly written).

One of my projects used an older version of ruby. In that case, there was a gem to connect to the database, and that gem links to the db client library, but the db is new and the ruby is old and guess what? Two different versions of glibc, both being used within the nix ecosystem.

I worked around a lot of it with LD_LIBRARY_PATH (I think? from memory) which I had to unset for everything in devbox, and used aliases to set it to a backup of that env whenever I found a binary that needed it - and then they tried to fix that, but it just seemed to stop my workarounds from working, so I had to come up with new ones.

But yeah, it was a wild ride. Most of it came back to glibc or environment variables or both, and probably me doing something I really ought not to do (like support old projects). Alas, for me, it wasn't worth the effort - but I sure learned a lot.

Is it me? Have I been misusing my 8266s all this time?

Otherwise, good article, nice idea, great conclusion!

“This relay module board for the ESP-01(S), It comes pre-soldered, and the ESP will just slide on top of it.”

So, bending that pin breaks a connection between the CPU board and the relais board, so that pressing the doorbell wouldn’t be able to send a reset signal to the CPU, or, as the article says:

FTA: “Without this modification, a doorbell button push would result in a reset/restart of the chip, which of course, isn’t what we want”

That made me wonder why the hardware is hooked up that way by default in a device that gets sold for this specific purpose.

A few searches learnt me that the device has a deep sleep state where it uses very little power. The only way to wake it up externally from that state is through a reset.

https://johnmu.com/quick-boot-button/ taught me that it can boot in about 100ms, and get WiFi on in a few seconds.

=> I think that keeping that pin in place is the intended way to use this hardware combo.

The device would boot when the bell is rung, first close the relais switch to ring the bell, and then do any home automation stuff a few seconds later. Latencies look acceptable to me.

I ideally would want to power it completely from the button push or, at least, from the same adapter as the doorbell, but both will be challenging. The first doesn’t deliver enough power for long enough, the second likely doesn’t run on 3.3V.

Charge up a capacitor, maybe?

That makes much more sense.

Yeah, I guess you would need to sound the doorbell every boot, and that might be inconvenient in places with a lot of power supply issues / loadshedding.

That said, that quick-boot-button link? That's some brilliant info right there.

Funny that the store bought wireless doorbell I have does exactly that. :D I guessed it does that to avoid/reduce returns from people who doesn't manage to pair it with the doorbell button and think that it is "not working". So pre-emptively they do a chime right after you plugged in to show that it is working.

It disconnects from wifi when rebooting, doesn’t it?

And now if this is wrong, hopefully I’ll be corrected and we’ll learn more. :)

So yeah, turns out it's nothing to do with the 8266's board, and everything to do with the chosen relay module. Since it has nothing to do with driving the relay, it doesn't need to be connected. But if it were connected, whenever it is high, the relay board connects it to the reset, so the chip gets reset.

So you are bending it simply to ensure that pin can't be plugged in to the relay

https://i.imgur.com/nNMMdhF.png

Firstly, the bridge - while up to code - did not have the kinds of buffers that could have been installed, or arguably should have been installed [1]

It isn't wrong to say that if you are going to authorise large container ships, if you are going to profit from large container ships as a harbour, and you are not going to invest properly in the infrastructure, you should take some of the blame when things inevitably go wrong. I don't know whether such buffers would have entirely saved the bridge or the people on it.

It also isn't wrong to say that if you are operating a large container ship, you should ensure it has failsafes in case of power failure. I don't know what failsafes exist (emergency anchors? Some kind of manual rudder?) that would be effective on a ship that large.

It also isn't wrong to say that given the public outcry, a scapegoat will likely be chosen, and it's more likely that they will scapegoat the foreigners rather than blame the politicians in charge of public spending.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/26/baltimore-br...

All large vessels require emergency generators. The requirement is usually startup within 45s but better performance is generally expected.

Here is an in-depth look on how steering systems on such vessels work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JElUSyNIJGo

    curl https://ifconfig.me --libcurl ip_fetcher.c 
    # Output: your ip address, and a file ip_fetcher.c

    gcc -o ip_fetcher ip_fetcher.c -lcurl
    # Output: no errors, just a file ip_fetcher

    ./ip_fetcher
    # Output: your ip address

    $ curl https://ifconfig.me --libcurl ip_fetcher.c
    $ make LDFLAGS=-lcurl ip_fetcher
    $ ./ip_fetcher

Ignoring the depressingly-predictable classist/colonialist tone, it's interesting to note that modern medicine recommends things like pelvic floor exercises to help with childbirth, primarily to prevent unwanted urination during childbirth and incontinence afterwards it seems.

But this observation - if correct - might lead us to conclude that certain types of exercise help the actual act of childbirth more than others.

Do we know if this has been corroborated / debunked? I'm wondering if there are any agencies out there with specific recommendations for those who are trying for a baby, for exercises that are actually proven to make childbirth quicker or less painful?

Isn't it an anti-classist tone if anything? It's associating "civilization" with weakness, confinement, and a lack of opportunity, and associating primitive living with fully developed muscles and says it provides for a normal and quick delivery. How is that not an endorsement of primitive living? I don't see how you can call that paragraph colonialist unless you see the word "civilized" and just turn your brain off.

2) The document is written for civilized people, because surely the document wouldn't call its readers primitive;

3) The flip side of "developed muscles" is "barbaric lifestyle" - the "proper" thing for women at the time was NOT to develop said muscles, but rather to maintain a "trim figure" ("one of the best exercises for a woman are her household duties, and that besides those she doesn't need more exercise", from a 1941 article);

4) In sum, given the context, the "endorsement" is a grudging admission that on this one issue the "primitive" women might be stronger, but in no way an overall endorsement of the lifestyle.

> "trim figure"

Where are you getting these quotes from?

Classist: Because of course, that's bunkum. Because even in 1960's "civilized" american society, maybe the upper class lady would keep herself "in confinement" but that doesn't mean that the majority of women would or could.

So no, I wouldn't say it's anti-classist.

(Note: I had presumed that George Blonsky was a doctor - but no, apparently he was a "mining engineer". I suspect he would have been reasonably well educated, but maybe not if he thought spinning pregnant women around to expel their babies was a good idea. So I don't know - maybe the classism was accidental. But it's definitely there.)

However, pregnant women do currently get completely different advice then they used to. As in, advice for me was to continue doing sport normally, just not stuff where you risk falls or hits (skiing, climbing, box). You get obvious advice to not overdo it, but hiking, running, swimming, cycling, dancing etc are recommended.

Anecdotally, older generation tended to act as if I was irresponsible or somehow courageous for doing these, recalling that they had been expected to stop all that for the sake of a baby.

> with more civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement.

Note massive cultural shift in here even outside of pregnancy - western women have all the chances in the world to develop any muscles they please. More or less, we are expected to care about fitness or it is at least normal to care about it.

> You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you

> receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and

> appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice;

> keep intact all notices stating that this License and any

> non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code;

> keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all

> recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.

So by removing the copyright notice from "each copy" of the "convey"ed source code, I think you could argue they violated this.

But as others have argued, even if you don't believe that this section forbids it, the polite thing to do would be to either a) get permission to remove the copyright notices, or at the very least b) create a file (e.g. CONTRIBUTORS.md, or a section of the readme) and place the copyright information in there. Saying "Ooh, we don't like X's name at the top of the file, it's too ugly" without any attempt to maintain some acknowledgement might not be a violation, but certainly isn't within the spirit of the AGPL, the main point of which is to "(1) assert copyright on the software".

As I said, I tried to stick to the facts in this post so it's easy in isolation to think we're being petty dicks, but there's a reason we had to rewrite a WHOLE AGPL3 ML library from scratch, instead of re-use the existing AGPL3 library we had, because it was associated with hlky.

So I discussed this situation generically, because the specific situation doesn't really matter given the question asked. And no, I said it was impolite - but I totally understand that impolite is a big step up from toxic.

The bigger issue is, and maybe this doesn't apply here, but creating a situation where there may be a legal copyright claim to be made simply gives the a-hole more leverage over you, which is exactly what you don't want, if even the mention of his username is triggering.

(I won't point out that you mentioned his username 10 times in your blog post!)

So weigh up the risk/reward. If he's done a DMCA, and you've batted it back, the next step is legal proceedings. A license is exactly that - a license, it never assigns ownership. If I remember correctly, AGPL3 has protections so that he cannot revoke the license on a whim - unless you break the AGPL3 license.

You will never own the copyright to that file, no matter how much you desperately want to, no matter how many times you change the file, no matter if you remove his name, no matter how much you feel like you've paid in dealing with him being a dick. If he can make a case that the file you have is not significantly different in nature to the one he wrote, he still owns that file.

Toxic people will be toxic, but never get into a pissing fight with a skunk.