1. 7

    Just let go of the romantic idea of a hackerspace. You will learn that “we are all friends”-communism does not work just a few seconds after someone with lower standards chipped the plane blades AGAIN that you have thoroughly sharpened. Or broke all 4mm drill bits and then went on sabatical. Or just laid the lid on paint or glue cans and you stand there with dried&hardened stuff saturday at 7:30 pm

    Find one or two handful of peers with same mindset and set up a workshop, five is a bit little, ten becomes burdensome.

    It will work if and only if:

    • it is no open house
    • presence is logged
    • at the end of the day everything is cleaned up
    • water/electricity/heating meters are logged at least weekly
    • machines are shared, consumeables ARE NOT
    • everybody has a liability insurance
    1. 8

      I’d like to invite you to come visit RevSpace[1] in the Netherlands, if you’re ever in the area. You’ll see that while things aren’t 100% perfect, it’s quite possible to run a healthy 100+ member hackerspace without resorting to draconian (and IMO community-breaking) measures like “no shared consumables”.

      Here’s a brief though very limited tour of the space: https://www.nycresistor.com/2019/01/12/hackerspace-envy-a-visit-to-revspace-in-the-hague/

      We do log door unlocks by members, for example, but it certainly isn’t full presence logging; anyone can visit whenever a member is present. It’s not a fully open house (in that the doors are locked in principle), but anyone is welcome to visit, also repeatedly, even if they’re not a member.

      It’s more about community management and incentive design than anything else; if you establish a social expectation that everybody cleans their part, and you make cleaning supplies prominently visible in the space… then things get cleaned. It works the same for other expectations. Sometimes they are violated, and you have to talk to the person in question; but the vast majority of the time, it goes fine.

      I don’t doubt that there are other hackerspaces (that I’m not aware of) that have similar experiences and results. Ultimately, and I can’t repeat this often enough, what makes a hackerspace work is community management. Setting expectations, being clear about what is considered unacceptable behaviour. If you don’t do that, things will go to shit very quickly, like in any community. But it isn’t an inherent problem to hackerspaces.

      [1] https://revspace.nl/

      1.  

        Are you telling me to not desire to go to a cool place?

      1. 8

        Please don’t bring hackerspace drama here.

        #lobsters on Freenode might be a good place to ask, check to see if @shapr is lurking.

        1.  

          I should edit my post for the drama aspect, but I still wanna know

          1. 5

            Your complaints are just distracting at best; no one here can do anything with that.

            1.  

              This is not a very charitable comment, but I both get why you find my feelings disappointing and useless and respect that you find me personally unproductive to the extent that I have felt them. I wasn’t sure how to express the problem. Engineers are apparently people too - it’s so annoying.

              \_(^.^)_/

              I don’t think it’s a non-issue, but I don’t have an issue with your having an issue with my having an issue. Please accept this second-order apology.

          2.  

            What?

          1. 3

            So my question now is, how much does this affect SHA-256 and friends? SHA-256 is orders of magnitude stronger than SHA-1, naturally, but is it enough orders of magnitude?

            Also, it’s interesting to note that based on MD5 and SHA-1, the lifetime of a hash function in the wild seems to be about 10-15 years between “it becomes popular” and “it’s broken enough you really need to replace it”.

            1. 8

              […] the lifetime of a hash function in the wild seems to be about 10-15 years […]

              That’s assuming that we’re not getting better at creating cryptographic primitives. While there are still any number of cryptanalysis techniques remaining to be discovered, at some point we will likely develop Actually Good hashes etc.

              (Note also that even MD5 still doesn’t have a practical preimage attack.)

              1. 3

                It would stand to reason that we get as good at breaking cryptographic primitives as we get at creating them.

                1. 1

                  Why? Do you believe that all cryptographic primitives are breakable, and that it’s just a matter of figuring out in what way?

                  1. 1

                    I have no idea but that sounds like a GREAT theoretical math problem!

                2. 2

                  This seems likely, but we won’t know we’ve done it until 30-50 years after we do it.

                3. 5

                  In the response to the SHA1 attacks (the early, theoretical ones, not the practical ones) NIST started a competition, in part to improve research on hash function security.

                  There were voices in the competition that it shouldn’t be finished, because during the research people figured out the SHA2 family is maybe better than they thought. Eventually those voices weren’t heard and the competition was finished with the standardization of SHA3, but in practice almost nobody is using SHA3. There’s also not really a reason to think SHA3 is inherently more secure than SHA2, it’s just a different approach. Theoretically it may be that SHA2 stays secure longer than its successors.

                  There’s nothing even remotely concerning in terms of research attacking SHA2. If you want my personal opinion: I don’t think we’re going to see any practical attack on any modern hashing scheme within our lifetimes.

                  Also the “10-15 years” timeframe - there is hardly any trend here. How many relevant hash functions did we have overall that got broken? It’s basically 2. (MD5/SHA1). Cryptography just doesn’t exist long enough for there to be a real trend.

                  1. 5

                    As any REAL SCIENTIST knows, two data points is all you need to draw a line on a graph and extrapolate! :D

                    1. 1

                      FWIW, weren’t md2 and md4 were both used in real world apps? (I think some of the old filesharing programs used them.) They were totally hosed long before md5.

                      1. 1

                        I considered those as “not really in widespread use” (also as in: cryptography wasn’t really a big thing back then).

                        Surprising fact by the way: MD2 is more secure than MD5. I think there’s still no practical collision attack. (Doesn’t mean you should use it - an attack is probably just a dedicated scientist and some computing power away - but still counterindicating a trend.)

                        1. 1

                          I have a vague (possibly incorrect) recollection of hearing that RIAA members were using hash collisions to seed broken versions of mp3 files on early file sharing networks that used very insecure hashing which might have been md4 (iirc it was one where you could find collisions by hand on paper). Napster and its successors had pretty substantial user bases that I’d call widespread. :)

                    2. 2

                      The order of magnitude is a derivative of many years of cryptanalysis over the algorithm and the underlying construction. In this case (off the top of my head), this is mostly related to weaknesses to Merke-Damgard, which sha256 ony partially uses.

                      1. 1

                        How funny!

                        What are your relevant estimates for the time periods?

                        When was the SHA-256 adoption, again?

                        1. 12

                          Here’s a good reference for timelines: https://valerieaurora.org/hash.html

                          1. 2

                            That site is fantastic, thank you.

                      1. 3

                        hi raymii, i remain so curious about this project.

                        i have questions… or just vague generalized confusions. i get that TT-rss together with Readability is the best way to read RSS. i can get behind that. i clicked around and tried to figure out the point of all this for a buffoon like me. i am down with the basic idea. maybe i am missing something?

                        it seems a bit unfinished. is that incorrect? the project is so so cool. I am not trying to call you out since I know this is just a project. But um uh is what i see in Burrow on Chrome at gopher://txtn.ws the um uh end result? there are some of those things where apostrophes turn into a%*s or whatever… even in the lobsters-translated-into-RSS feed… there are some links that lead to nothing or take a few clicks…

                        when you, raymii, view what you, raymii, view, however you actually view it, how do you do that? is the tool supposed to be the screenshots? the good ones with the dates and whatnot i mean? well so, how do you get to that stage? you know?

                        thanks for tolerating my unmitigated stupidity in this regard, i remain faithfully yours and so, so curious

                        btw lastly i think the whole thing of having 944 feeds, or however many feeds, is kind of silly but not in a bad way. i mean i see it as the beginning of something, not as the end goal like “yay i have more than i can read,” but more like, “yay i can figure out how expose this annoyingly infinite knowledge in such a way that it is digestible.”

                        i mean i think it highlights an interesting problem, namely, “how, in a world of huge amounts of information, does one get to the root of an issue and get multiple perspectives and generally do the New Media thing where you judge sources and their reliability and so on?”

                        so i think this project of yours could be the base for something larger, something that does more than merely aggregate, but something that displays in a(n) (oh, how I hate the word!) “objective” way the various not-really-easily-made-non-subjective things that happen

                        i mean for example, some news comes out, in multiple media outlets, and those are grouped and you can say, oh, I want the Ars Technica supposedly l33t hacker version of this, or oh, i want the ridiculous promotional version of it on the pretend-indie-web corporate blog, or oh, i want the sage commentary by e.g. nickpsecurity on some obscure Lobste.rs-like forum version of this, or oh, i want them all at once

                        i mean if we can’t have Xanadu today why even bother breathing and eating, it’s practically 2020 already!

                        anyway you probably didn’t have all that verbiage or nonsense in mind when you posted this, sorry-not-sorry but i just wanted to enliven these comments along with the obligatory upvote for your exciting work

                        regards, lettucehead

                        1. 13

                          I stopped being interested at “We would not judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree”. Bitcoin’s whitepaper is titled A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. We are judging a currency by it’s ability to be used as a currency. The cryptocurrency space is full of these charlatans who think Bitcoin needs to be some undefined esoteric non-mainstream non-currency. (It’s also crap for breaking laws because you can follow the flow of coins through the network among other flaws.)

                          Monero? Now that’s good for breaking social constructs.

                          1. 3

                            It’s also crap for breaking laws because you can follow the flow of coins through the network

                            Tell that to all the criminals making money from ransomware that receives the ransoms via Bitcoin.

                            Following the flow through the network is not very helpful if the flow out of the network is mixed in a big exchange.

                            1. 4

                              flow out of the network is mixed in a big exchange

                              Then law enforcement just calls up the exchange and goes “Hi, I’m the FBI. Who just deposited 750BTC?” and they tell them, because they’re legally required to do so in basically every country. I’d even argue that the flow out of the network is the easiest thing to track for that reason.

                              I’m honestly not sure how ransomware authors get away with things. Maybe there are trusted mixing services or exchanges in countries that refuse to cooperate.

                              1. 5

                                The authors are selling the software for money. The operators get away with it because:

                                • The individual payments are not super high, so don’t trigger a large investigation
                                • There’s quite a few operators
                                • The operators don’t tend to target their home jurisdictions

                                These combined factors mean that cops would need to bring together forensic computing expertise and international policing. That’s an organisational challenge the police have never needed to meet before, and there’s not a lot of money to make it happen.

                                1. 1

                                  Well put and interesting

                                  1. 1

                                    They also use Tor and I2P. That part is pretty vital.

                                    1. 1

                                      In addition, most cryptocurrency exchanges make a point of not implementing KYC/AML, so that it’s possible to do the following:

                                      • implement a ransomware scheme
                                      • sell the resulting BTC to a 3rd party, at a hefty discount, for cash
                                      • the buyer proceeds to send the BTC to an exchange, and maybe buy other cryptocurrencies, send to other exchanges, park the amount in Tethers, etc etc.
                                      • after a while, the proceeds of the transaction on the exchange are converted into fiat currency.

                                      At the end, $100 of ransomware payments is realized as maybe $40, but it adds up in the end.

                                2. 0

                                  Monero is also a cryptocurrency :) There’s nothing wrong with arguing that Bitcoin is a failure as a currency because it doesn’t allow sufficiently anonymous transactions, or because its transaction costs are too high or its transaction volume too low, or any other reason you can think of; and similarly there’s no reason to treat Bitcoin as the only relevant cryptocurrency, and view things that Bitcoin specifically is bad as inherently impossible for cryptocurrencies in general.

                                  1. 1

                                    I truly believe in cryptocurrency as the future, and personally Bitcoin is structurally a usable currency (YMMV). Just the angle of “cryptocurrency advisors/consultants/experts/analysts” makes my blood boil

                                1. 12

                                  You definitely cannot compare AWS and OVH prices. The reason is that this price isn’t reflecting the VM spec only, but the whole ecosystem with it.

                                  OVH has a very clumsy API, no tooling to actually manage your infrastructure besides a web interface that changes all the time. The only presence of “Email Pro” next to my VM management shows the difference in integrations between the 2.

                                  AWS is definitely more expensive, but has also much more integrations and services (mentioned in the article, but dismissed as not a big thing). You rent a VM in AWS and you have key management, audit logs, managed database (not only SQL and Redis, but also Elasticsearch, Mongo, Kafka, …), all the tooling to manage those (terraform, ansible, chef, puppet, awscli), and a much more granular VM size catalog among other things!

                                  Therefore, I think this comparison isn’t complete enough.

                                  1. 3

                                    I’m a very happy OVH customer but I can only agree with you. I would never use OVH for hosting something valuable.

                                    1. 3

                                      Doesn’t invalidate your point about OVH experience not being great but at least there’s a terraform provider now:

                                      https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/ovh/index.html

                                      Note: OVH customer for about 15y.

                                      1. 2

                                        If you look at the modules list, you cannot even create a VM with Terraform…

                                        Just look at the difference with AWS: https://www.terraform.io/docs/providers/aws/index.html

                                        I’m also an OVH customer for ~10years, the pricing is great, the customer support has been varying greatly in term of quality, but I wouldn’t use it for any business projects…

                                      2. 2

                                        NB: This is my employer. My objectivity is shot, because I love working here :)

                                        Thanks for posting this. Many people don’t take the many layers of managed service offerings above and beyond simple image/VM hosting.

                                        If your use case is such that all you need is VM hosting, then such things are irrelevant, but for many companies, leveraging the economies of scale and cost savings you get from having your VM, your database, your elastic search cluster, and and your data transformation / warehousing / BI all managed for you can be quite substantial.

                                        1. 4

                                          Maybe dumb, but… “this” & “here” – OVH || AWS??

                                          1. 1

                                            From following through the profile link to github, it appears it’s AWS. But I also wasn’t certain from the post :)

                                            1. 3

                                              Yes I work for AWS. Sorry for not being clear. I think I was a bit wary of our social media policy, but either I’ve broken it or I haven’t :) No sense dancing around.

                                      1. 1

                                        I see a lot of negative reaction here, but why is it assumed this will be negative and bad? What is the algorithm? Jk I mean logic

                                        1. 2

                                          I think it’s because of how Twitter has treated third-party developers in the past when they closed down their APIs.

                                          Also because a lot of people, including me, think that they’re not really honest about what they want to achieve.

                                          1. 1

                                            This is about the shutting down of the “Firehose” tweet-stream, where universal access gave way to Enterprise-only clients of DataMinr, correct?

                                            1. 2

                                              That’s only one example out of many; the most troubling one is how they started crippling 3rd-party clients to force everyone to use their own universally-reviled one. There are loads more tho.

                                        1. 1

                                          Except for spam, the USENET model was quite good—let the end user filter out the stuff they don’t want to see (killfiles). And I still like the idea alt.hackers had—it was a moderated group, but with no moderator. It acted as a good filter.

                                          1. 1

                                            Have any reading material? Curious

                                            1. 1

                                              Most end users would like their service to also filter unwanted content for them so that they don’t personally have to do it. See also: gmail.

                                            1. 2

                                              The only issue I see with this is that whoever controls the infrastructure will de-facto make the rules. Decentralization is great except it tends to only break kingdoms into fiefdoms.

                                              1. 2

                                                Don’t you mean stars into planets? #urbit

                                              1. 6

                                                Second, the value of social media is shifting away from content hosting and removal, and towards recommendation algorithms directing one’s attention. Unfortunately, these algorithms are typically proprietary, and one can’t choose or build alternatives. Yet.

                                                For me, the main issue is having an algorithm directing my attention in the first place.

                                                centralized enforcement of global policy to address abuse and misleading information is unlikely to scale over the long-term without placing far too much burden on people.

                                                Glad to finally read it from the Twitter’s CEO.

                                                1. 7

                                                  For me, the main issue is having an algorithm directing my attention in the first place.

                                                  While I agree in terms of most current algorithms on offer, I don’t agree with this as a general principle.

                                                  A search engine and a spam filter are both algorithms that direct your attention, helping you focus on the things you want to and avoid irrelevant information. The issue is when people with other agendas get in between you and your algorithm. Search engines and spam filters can be corrupted for advertising/propaganda/manipulation just like any recommendation algorithm but without them we would be much worse off. If the algorithm is open, transparent and user customisable then I am all for it and want more.

                                                  There is too much data in the world and life is short.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    I separate between “hard filters” like spam blocking, and a system that decides to hide me some content of a user I decided to follow, instead of showing everything.

                                                    There is too much data in the world and life is short.

                                                    True, but for social media, I prefer to follow fewer people and interact more, so it’s perfectly compatible with a strictly chronological timeline.

                                                    1. 1

                                                      THIS IS WISE

                                                    2. 3

                                                      Agreed; I really hate the way people use “algorithm” to specifically mean “an opaque algorithm outside my control that changes unpredictably”; it’s really unhelpful.

                                                      1. 2

                                                        I didn’t say, nor mean, in any moment, that an algorithm is something opaque outside of my control. If you thought so that’s your problem.

                                                        I don’t want an algorithm re-ordering or hiding the posts from the people I choose to follow. I don’t care if it’s opaque or free software.

                                                        1. 2

                                                          It appears many people do want these recommendation algorithms though. If I’m understanding correctly, companies like Twitter and Facebook added them, and then measured user engagement. User engagement went up, and the algorithm was shown to be effective. While there are some vocal opponents of these new recommendation based feeds, the reality is that large companies wouldn’t keep them around if they didn’t increase the time users spend on the site overall.

                                                          1. 4

                                                            In my personal opinion, spending more time on the platform doesn’t mean it’s good for the users. Only for Twitter, because they can sell more advertising.

                                                            Maybe it’s more time spent because you are dealing with some random idiot that called you nazi or something like that.

                                                            And if large companies want to keep the algorithm, I don’t care, I won’t use that, as I want strictly chronological timeline.

                                                            1. 1

                                                              I’m not sure I agree that many people want these algorithms. They have generally been made the default, and sometimes only, choice with the alternative options hidden out of sight (or in Twitter’s case: randomly switching back to the default). Most people just don’t care at some point and just give up.

                                                            2. 2

                                                              I don’t want an algorithm re-ordering or hiding the posts from the people I choose to follow. I don’t care if it’s opaque or free software.

                                                              Ah, but that’s different; at first you said you didn’t want an algorithm, now you said you don’t want algorithmic re-ordering. But sorting the posts chronologically in the first place is an algorithm. So is using your follower list to determine whether a given post should be included in your timeline.

                                                              1. 2

                                                                Facepalm. But actually this makes utter concrete sense.

                                                                But still, I think the issue is in where sirikon determines the algorithm is directing attention … I feel like the definition of algorithm is a side quest here because the question of attention-direction is more profound.

                                                                The opacity of the hypothetical evil algorithm (some call this opacity “proprietary,” but I think people around here attribute to unfree software qualities that are illusory and/or misdirected anger at unrelated evils) is the source of the mysterious redirection of attention, but I think it is pretty clear if considered thoughtfully that the question of what directs attention is completely vexed, totally bonkers, and irreducible to quibbling, mathematical, verbal, or otherwise.

                                                            3. 1

                                                              Not too different from how people use people to indicate generic people who aren’t the people to whom they’re talking but share certain negative characteristics, nor terribly different from how people use calculus to describe all reason as in “it was not a part of McBlergh’s calculus” (it did not “factor in” to McBlergh’s decision making). Curious: What helpful substitutes you can imagine? I admit this could seem to be an incredibly unfair question, unless you admit that you can see that I see that you’re getting at a clear and definite point, which is that “algorithm” is supposed to mean “mathematical proposition” or similar, not “mathematical proposition of evil.” But I am curious. I think it’s fair, if you think about it from other perspectives than highfalutin’ math-lovingness, although I suppose descriptivism is ultimately for the hoi polloi….

                                                        1. 2

                                                          I have downloaded their repositories and it seems OK. Was some source code or commits deleted? Or just some tags were deleted or redirected to nowhere?

                                                          As long as they share the complete source code under a free software license, we could call it free software. But „free“ as in „freedom“ does not equal „free“ as in „free beer“. Free software does not mean that the author is obligated to provide you services (like packages or support) at zero price.

                                                          If they have deleted some commits/branches (I see last commit one year ago), it is not nice, but they can do it. This is one of reasons why I run my own Mercurial and Git servers and why I backup/clone interesting software into it. I do not use Mac OS (a proprietary software) so I have not backed this up, but you will probably find someone who has a complete backup.

                                                          I would recommend you using a free operating system like GNU/Linux. It has much more friendly culture than proprietary systems and besides the „free as in freedom“ you can usually also get more „free as in free beer“ here.

                                                          1. 10

                                                            friendly culture

                                                            I think this very up for debate.

                                                            Also, this doesn’t deal with the core problem - is the economics for free as in beer enforced by free as in freedom sustainable? It seems this closing is a last-ditch reluctant move.

                                                            1. 1

                                                              I think this very up for debate.

                                                              In GNU/Linux I can e.g. install my own kernel module without asking for a permission (a digital signature). And however it does not forbid you using proprietary software, the free software is the norm here which gives you all the rights (to study, modify, distribute, run for any purpose…).

                                                              free as in beer enforced by free as in freedom

                                                              No, „free as in freedom“ does not imply „free as in free beer“ and it does not force you to provide your services or distribute the software at zero price.

                                                              The „free as in freedom“ and copyleft just require you to do the business in an ethical way and be respectful and kind to others (regarding the software).

                                                              1. 2

                                                                In GNU/Linux I can e.g. install my own kernel module without asking for a permission (a digital signature). And however it does not forbid you using proprietary software, the free software is the norm here which gives you all the rights (to study, modify, distribute, run for any purpose…).

                                                                This is not what is meant by culture. There have been known controversies when it comes to “friendliness” in the free software community, involving toxic working environments.

                                                                No, „free as in freedom“ does not imply „free as in free beer“ and it does not force you to provide your services or distribute the software at zero price.

                                                                The „free as in freedom“ and copyleft just require you to do the business in an ethical way and be respectful and kind to others (regarding the software).

                                                                The problem is if I have the freedom to distribute and modify, I have the freedom to distribute it for free (That is, if I sell people a CD with GPLed source, then they have the freedom to distribute it and not give me money.). It’s easy to say “ethical way” without specifying one that can sustain a developer.

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  known controversies when it comes to “friendliness” in the free software community

                                                                  Good for you. It’s just not what franta was talking about, and he made that clear.

                                                                2. 1

                                                                  In GNU/Linux I can e.g. install my own kernel module without asking for a permission (a digital signature).

                                                                  Yes but often times you need a piece of information to get this to work and many times you have to put up with some verbal abuse and hazing to get to that piece of information.

                                                            1. 3

                                                              GitHub is changing. It is important to understand that GitHub is moving away from being a Git Repository hosting company and towards a company that provides an entire ecosystem for software development.

                                                              Hasn’t this always been the case?

                                                              1. 5

                                                                No, if you look back to when Git was first becoming popular (around 2008) the alternatives to hosting your own Git repository were very cumbersome. Using pull requests instead of sending patches was part of the draw, but the main thing was “be able to use Git without putting up with (for instance) the terrible user interface of Rubyforge.

                                                                1. 6

                                                                  But a pull request isn’t part of Git, so I think my postulate still holds true.

                                                                  1. 6

                                                                    What I said was that pull requests were a small part of the draw, and the main thing was being able to host a git repository without dealing with apache or sourceforge.

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      Is it possible to get actual numbers from some kind of VCS server log from 11 years ago?

                                                                      Did you know Fossil is 12 years old? http://fossil-scm.org/home/timeline?c=a28c83647dfa805f I just found out.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        I’m having a hard time seeing any connection between what you said and what I said. Wrong thread, maybe?

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          i get your lack of sight on account of my lack of clarity so here’s some of that:

                                                                          when Git was first becoming popular (around 2008)

                                                                          … as a rhetorical point, boils down to a dispute between you and zg regarding these like long-range ecosystemic benefits (and the pull request thing is kind of an aside - you are in agreement more than youre in disagreement, imho, and causality is not inferrable about why git and github pulled ahead, is it? it’s pretty contingent)

                                                                          is it possible to get actual numbers

                                                                          this refers to numbers about popularity

                                                                          otherwise talking about some farfagnugen ecosystem-level obscurities is kind of pointless

                                                                          i mean zg kind of just said rhetorically that he doesn’t agree with the fossil guy and you kind of just said that one time in history one thing happened once, and so i figured that having maybe some actual rigorous data would allow us to come to some kind of conclusion, but I know that it’s not very important or interesting, but i was just curious, actually, and i feel like there’s a slim chance that some literal data on vcs usage might exist and that that would solve a lot of these “does the ecosystem come before the theoretical innovation in VCS design or the chicken before the egg or what?” types of questions. since they take place in an ahistorical vacuum otherwise. doy.

                                                                2. 1

                                                                  Ya pretty much. I think the author missed the point of Github. It was never really about Git more than to the extent that Git appeared to be in the lead at the time and perhaps some preference by the founders.

                                                                  The value proposition is everything around supporting the Git workflow.

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    A few things:

                                                                    1. Fossil exists in contradiction to the value proposition of “everything supporting git,” to solve problems that aren’t yet solved…

                                                                    2. Fossil is NOT git, in the same sense that, once upon a time, GNU was supposed to be NOT Unix…

                                                                    3. Literally, GitHub invited the guy AS the Chief Point-Misser in a special critical capacity.

                                                                    4. Everything around supporting the git workflow is a value proposition – only to the business supporting “everything around the git workflow! …

                                                                    4.1 (continuing) … – but that’s a proposition about the ecosystem NOT to the conceptual framework of what it means to “do VCS stuff.”

                                                                    I explained this to epilys, but also wanted to point out to you, that the author probably “missed the point” of GitHub intentionally, whereas you missed precisely that point…

                                                                    1. 1

                                                                      If you say so.

                                                                      1. 0

                                                                        aren’t you saying that GitHub matters but VCS does not?

                                                                        aren’t you saying that Git is irrelevant and the whole thing should just be called “Hub?”

                                                                        when you say “it was never really about Git… etc., etc.,” what do you mean by “it,” if not GitHub?

                                                                        aren’t you just saying “value proposition” in the hopes that everybody forgets that GitHub is a “value-proposing business”… running on a vcs called GIT?

                                                                    2. 1

                                                                      I disagree. I’ve been a Github user since 2009ish and I used it 90% for “hosting a git repository” - that was in addition to hosting my own git repos via ssh/gitolite, so also some mirroring.

                                                                      When my company paid for github, it was to have a git repo. And pull requests, but nothing else. And I simply don’t believe I’m the outlier here. Sure, webhooks were nice but that’s the extent of any added benefit there.

                                                                    3. 1

                                                                      #include jolly-sarcasm-compiler.h

                                                                      I don’t know! But let me look in a BOOK or a TECHNICAL GUIDE at the very least - oh here’s one…

                                                                      https://lobste.rs/s/v4jcnr/technical_guide_version_control_system#c_bolhkj

                                                                      When you say “always” do you mean “since we moved away from mainframes?”

                                                                    1. 5

                                                                      In this article, we provided a technical comparison of some historically relevant version control systems. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out to jacob@initialcommit.io.

                                                                      No Fossil. sniff

                                                                      I reached out (since I was feeling open – ahem! – free)

                                                                      1. 6

                                                                        Hey appreciate you reaching out @lettucehead! I poked around on the Fossil website and the integrations look pretty sweet. I installed it and will hopefully get some time to play around with it this week. Hopefully will add a section into the blog post in the near future.

                                                                        p.s. I’m just learning the ropes here, but I submitted a hat request as the creator of the Initial Commit site.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          nice!!!

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        I find it awful that developers think Github should try to “improve” git. If the author wants a change, they should bring it to the git dev mailing list where the actual git development happens.

                                                                        1. 0

                                                                          Do you find it awful that car tire manufacturers try to improve tire traction? Or do you think that’s the responsibility of “the road people?”

                                                                          It would break the analogy for me to suggest that there’s a mailing list for roads, but there’s trade shows or standards organizations or whatever.

                                                                          I think you are in serious need of a history lesson, and I have a pretty “serious” writing style so I should say upfront that I mean this in the least annoying, most gentle way, and I’m pretty sincere in a meaningful way but not that serious in an angry way, and I always mess this up so I just need to be very clear, and there’s an imaginary huge spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down included, and, should you disagree, you may take it with a grain of salt (to your taste).

                                                                          Fossil is not “some project” by “some developer” – it is THE weird rebel VCS (TM)(R)(C) backed by the full powers of freaky FOSS ideologies that have been falling all over themselves (omnidirectionally) to hack new stuff since the beginning of computer time when von Neumann made the 32-bit array from giant tubes and this one whacko named Nils Barricelli immediately started making “life” in the form of cellular automata (that Stephen Wolfram pretends he invented) on punchcards.

                                                                          OK, that’s exaggeration – but I’m “serious,” there was Subversion, then there was Git and Mercurial. There’s also Fossil. On the side. Not “off on the side somewhere,” but in the center of being off to the side. If there were a rave of obscure VCSes then Fossil would be the DJ. (I’m joking but I’m totally serious.)

                                                                          Git has literally been the same for the last twenty years. All the variously (non-)exciting “UNIX simplicity” manifestos kind of break down when you consider carefully the issues entangled within git that have remained unresolved for developers generally because the ubiquity of the most important technologies is an impediment to further progress. This is not unique to git, but it is true about git.

                                                                          That simplicity cannot be improved upon while no consensus regarding improvement exists within GitHub. Why? Because they are the material being that represents the ubiquity of the technology of git in the market. If there’s no money behind it, it can’t happen. And there isn’t money behind Fossil. Which is the best place to improve not just “the ecosystem” but the actual technology of VCS itself. It is about the ideas and not about the profit or the users.

                                                                          That is the reason that the creator of Fossil was invited.

                                                                          That is the reason that he was invited, even though everyone knew he would be a contrarian.

                                                                          I submit that you are 100% correct when you say: “If the author wants a change, they should bring it to the git dev mailing list where the actual git development happens.”

                                                                          I further submit that this has already happened, but you just weren’t around for it.

                                                                          Finally, I helpfully suggest that it’s not “awful” to have the kinds of feelings that you, in the innocence and naivete of youth and scholarship, also helpfully looking out for the community, called awful.

                                                                          In fact, it is not awful, it is itself the community looking out for itself. But that just can’t happen properly until you have the knowledge that allows you to fully consider, in its genuine context, why the developer of Fossil is not the same as some complaining “developers.”

                                                                          I know it’s a pain in the butt to be unexpectedly in the position of having someone take a stand against you, but really I am taking a stand against the world, pointing out the little red line between Us and Them, and hoping you will recognize that you already have friends on our side. Literally our side includes the members of the exact mailing list that you think (thought? :D) the guy “being awful” should have contacted. I don’t blame you for having this opinion whatsoever – your mind is just probably running the wrong VCS :) maybe rebase that opinion

                                                                          also check this out it is so cool https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/index.wiki

                                                                          1. 6

                                                                            Thank you for the reply.

                                                                            Fossil is not “some project” by “some developer”

                                                                            I didn’t comment on any of this. I think you picked up some kind of dismissal and irony from my comment.

                                                                            Because they are the material being that represents the ubiquity of the technology of git in the market. If there’s no money behind it, it can’t happen

                                                                            While it’s true that capital pretty much controls linux and friends, the git community is independent.

                                                                            I further submit that this has already happened, but you just weren’t around for it. This is not relevant because the problem is the author tries to make github pressure git, instead of communicating with the developers.

                                                                            I should not reply to the way you express yourself because it is irrelevant to the discussion and your points (it’s an ad hominem) but since you comment on it I will tell you my opinion: saying you have a certain kind of tone doesn’t mean others should tolerate it; it’s not an excuse. Mature discourse is not like this. You can share your opinions without being mildly condescending.

                                                                            Also, thank you for the other comment about my site :)

                                                                            1. 0

                                                                              > Thank you for the reply.

                                                                              You’re welcome, and I owe you a continual debt for your continued engagement with a lesser being of my particular variety. I’m not trying to troll, I’m absolutely not trying to excuse myself, and I should point out the meaning of the root of apology. (Unrelated: website in link is maintained by a single individual! Incredible. What an example of cathedral-style development…)

                                                                              > the way [I] express [myself]

                                                                              Technology is my hobby, not my profession. So sorry if I’m not what you expected. And I’m sincerely curious. I’m not joking around when it comes to knowledge, opinions, and exacting detail. I am really hungry to know. I just don’t know how to communicate with developers very well (it is NOT easy) and I have a terrible proclivity for prolixity. I’d rather read your replies, although I will accept your downvotes.

                                                                              > dismissal and irony (yours in my opinion, but only in my mind in your opinion!)

                                                                              So what?

                                                                              (Note: I’m asking. I’m not asking “rhetorically.” I’m asking because I want to know.)

                                                                              > capital controls linux

                                                                              I’ve taken heat before for having been invited here by one of those sympathizers with intellectual radicals, a self-avowed hypertext crank, and possibly stupidly I don’t blame myself for the fact that everyone seems to think I share all his opinions – we’re strangers. I just wanted to be a part of the best forum in cyberspace, so I asked him.

                                                                              Anyway, does capital really control Linux, or is that just a lame explanation of the fact that nobody “controls Linux,” and everybody thinks that capital is a big deal? When I said:

                                                                              > no money behind it

                                                                              … what I meant was, “No people with deep pockets supporting the one crazy Fossil developer, directly.” Are you really replying to me? Am I misinterpreting you by thinking that we’re not really talking about the same thing? Now we’re talking about different communities, and I am lost. When I said:

                                                                              > the community (which I said twice)

                                                                              … I meant two things. The first time, I was using the term in a sentence about you. I meant the community that you (in my opinion) were looking out for by defining “the author” as one of the developers who, when thinking about improving things, thinks about things that you “find awful” (that’s OK – it is your opinion!) – things like saying GitHub should improve the technology it has used to get itself acquired by Microsoft for $7.5 x 1,000,000,000,000.00 USD (woah! crazy talk!). IMPROVEMENTS LIKE FUNDING FOSSIL IN THE FLAMING NAME OF HADES. Sorry. That was autocorrect, not me. I’m just gonna leave it there. Hopefully it doesn’t render poorly on mobile.

                                                                              The second time, I meant you, me, and everyone invited here by people invited by jcs. Because this is a community. Communities are places where developers go to read news and be annoyed by crazy old men and find romance. Communities are a huge problem. Communities are where keyboards interface with chairs. And this chair-to-keyboard interface started short-circuiting explosively upon learning that such a noble and talented person as yourself (I really do like your terminal emulator!) was capable of being deceived by the complacency of the powerful. I think it is popular to believe, on this very technically advanced forum, that everything sucks. And this is a terrible opinion. We, you and I, do not suck. That’s like, one of the categorical axiomatic booleans of writing software that doesn’t become an unimprovable Legacy pile of bloatware. No? One of the categorical axiomatic booleans of doing stuff that we can pretend is great until it really is great.

                                                                              And it is also the basic postulate of my entire philosophy on free software, which in my opinion is the only exciting software, because, to quote a really old guy who probably nobody here knows about or is interested in, credo quia absurdum. It really is the irrational man that is the source of all progress, because if only logical actions are taken then any mind which is not omniscient will remain in a local minima of cost when greater cost savings are possible. I believe that wisdom adheres to contradiction like flies to fly paper, and I literally think that is why everyone around here thinks that all software sucks, because it is a forum filled with talent.

                                                                              Anyway, it is apparent (to me, not apparent to some kind of objective mind that would literally be physically impossible to create because the model becomes the map eventually) that you think the only community that could possibly matter in this discussion is the git community. I would like to know why that is. I know it’s an annoying and tiresome question. I literally don’t know the answer and I do very much seek to know. I think it’s the wrong answer, and the only – literally the only – reason I can give you is this: “Fossil seems cool to me.”

                                                                              Look, I don’t have a classical education in this stuff. I know there’s such a thing as naming files for version control with dates and symbols that’s all neat and tidy called “SemVer,” and that mentioning this is a great way to convince your boss for a few extra weeks of what is in reality more free time to read Lobste.rs while you “convert to the new system” by running a shell script in the background, and I can honestly say my knowledge about VCSes stops somewhere around there.

                                                                              I also know every time somebody posts about GitHub a bunch of hot-blooded FOSS fanatics come out of the air like Rumpelstiltskin (mixed with poor, finally-defeated, possibly-woman-hating-but-probably-not-Hitler RMS) to complain that they hate the system of “stars.” But that is not the best evidence in favor of GitHub, and also not the best evidence in favor of Fossil.

                                                                              So, apparently, you think there are two communities. One is Linux and friends, and the other is the git one.

                                                                              IN WHAT WAY COULD THESE POSSIBLY BE DISTINCT? o.0

                                                                              How is anybody supposed to know what community is where – we are talking to each other, and that means you and I are in communion (in a very boring sense) with one another. We are online together and that is what this whole stupid project of sitting in front of a useless glowing rectangle is about. I mean I love mine and don’t know why, I guess because there are people on the other end… but I am sooo curious to know – what are your real thoughts?

                                                                              You can’t hide behind a statement that something very not mysterious is “awful” by saying that you weren’t commenting on whether when you said “developers” you meant people distinct from the author of the thing this is all about.

                                                                              Sorry I don’t have a literal technical argument. I hope you can follow the thread of my thought. Sorry if the words are too complicated I gather you’re from the Continent. (I mean that I’ll rephrase it if needed!) I am genuinely curious. I can accept downvotes for bad style. (I’m trying to improve it.) (Although who doesn’t want to be sardonic, flippant, tedious, and … wait for it … unwelcome?)

                                                                              (JK >.< but only about the unwelcomeness – i love the other qualities too much!)

                                                                              And SUCK == FALSE!

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                Oh and sorry I have l’espirit d’escalier but I also read…

                                                                                this

                                                                                this

                                                                                this

                                                                                and this

                                                                                … approximately 2.5 years ago after I found out about Fossil. I find out about things every week, but that was one of the good ones. I’ve been meaning to get back to it, and learn about all this mumbo-jumbo on my own, but you know, VCS is like waaaay down on the to-do list, and 1/($7.5*10^9)th less far down on the to-read list. (We can also start saying “One Githubth” if that’s easier than “One seventy-five-hundred-millionths.”)

                                                                                My questions are real. Maybe there’s not any right answer. I can accept that. But I just don’t get it. Why not use the better tool? Why not fund its development? Why ignore the guy after inviting him to the thing? You know what I mean?

                                                                              2. 0

                                                                                > the problem is the author tries to make github pressure git, instead of communicating with the developers

                                                                                Can you say more

                                                                              3. 3

                                                                                Git has literally been the same for the last twenty years

                                                                                Git is only 14 years old :)

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  I heard Linus carried the entire source code in his brain exactly as it exists today for exactly 6 years… 14+6=20

                                                                                  JK im an idiot thanks myfreeweb

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    by the way

                                                                                    fossil is “only” 14-2 years old! just found out

                                                                                  2. 3

                                                                                    Finally, I helpfully suggest that it’s not “awful” to have the kinds of feelings that you, in the innocence and naivete of youth and scholarship, also helpfully looking out for the community, called awful.

                                                                                    Your comment was overall well-put and an interesting perspective, but I feel like this was patronizing and unnecessary. It’s the kind of thing that derails from what could be a useful, continuing discussion. :)

                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                      i appreciate you pointing this out, i will try to not do that

                                                                                    2. 1

                                                                                      also if you were using fossil it wouldn’t be such a pain in the butt to rebase

                                                                                    3. 0

                                                                                      also your website abt meli is beautiful

                                                                                    1. 17

                                                                                      Possibly off topic but… what are you talking about???

                                                                                      1. 17

                                                                                        I was wondering the same question, and searching the web for “leetcode”, I found : https://leetcode.com/ which seems to be a platform for coding challenges.

                                                                                        Hope it answers your question, it answered mine.

                                                                                      1. 5

                                                                                        Though Guido is officially retiring, his contributions to Dropbox and the larger Python community will continue to be felt. He has already put into motion the conversion of the Dropbox server code from Python 2 to Python 3.

                                                                                        I’m surprised they’re still using Python 2, especially given how heavily they’re using mypy.

                                                                                        1. 0

                                                                                          oh?

                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                          I think they are in score order

                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                            Did you test this

                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                              Just observe any high-traffic story’s comments evolve, you will see this. It’s definitely intentional, just like on Reddit and the orange site. I think it may have been Slashdot who originated this practice of obsuscating the timeline and making even trivial remarks into popularity contests. It’s a bad idea, in my opinion.

                                                                                              Nonetheless, people still often use the intuitive terms “above” and “below” when posting, in apparent ignorance of how unstable the ordering is.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                thanks!

                                                                                              2. 1

                                                                                                Did you test this fnord

                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                  Did you test test test this fnord fnord

                                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                                    man i can’t reply twice to myself, why? It always says “you’ve posted here lately” but the time I made the post about was like, bam bam, one-two, dirty harry he-only-fired-five-shots style (except two shots)

                                                                                                    1. 1

                                                                                                      It’s to prevent accidentally sending the same comment twice: https://github.com/lobsters/lobsters/blob/master/app/controllers/comments_controller.rb#L42

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        thanks!

                                                                                            1. 14

                                                                                              There’s no B2B business that can be built on $2/mo subscriptions. Put on some big boy business pants and Charge More™.

                                                                                              1. 33

                                                                                                Sourcehut founder here. Sourcehut is B2C, not B2B. Additionally, this is an alpha-quality product and payment is optional. The prices will likely be raised when it graduates to beta, and payment will become mandatory outside of exceptional cases.

                                                                                                The goal is not to maximize profit, but to provide a sustainable service to the community.

                                                                                                1. 17

                                                                                                  Your pricing plan sounds fair but I am talking about sustainability. A business with technical support cannot survive on $2/mo plans, answering a technical support question from that customer will cost you the entire annual revenue from that customer. Perhaps you don’t plan on providing support to anyone but the higher tiers – that’s a respectable approach.

                                                                                                  Paid source repositories are used by software professionals, thus B2B. The overlap in the Venn diagram of “hobbyist” and “paid source control” is very small (and with a corresponding $2 budget). 99% of hobbyists will use a free service.

                                                                                                  1. 20

                                                                                                    Support on anything other than a best-effort basis is paid and charged separately at B2B prices.

                                                                                                    1. 12

                                                                                                      Pinboard is doing ~$250k in yearly revenue on $11 and $25/year subscriptions. I also think you’re vastly underestimating the number of people that pay for tooling for their personal projects.

                                                                                                      1. 7

                                                                                                        At that revenue level, Pinboard can’t afford to hire a second FTE to back him up. He can’t take a vacation without the pager. Do you think that’s wise or appropriate? If he ever wanted to walk away after a few years, do you think someone would want to come in and take over the business?

                                                                                                        We’re talking about the difference between shoestring budget and sustainable business. A sustainable business is profitable and not a bad thing: it allows you to keep the business running without burning yourself out.

                                                                                                        1. 13

                                                                                                          Sourcehut is profitable. Read the financial report. I’ve already hired a FTE to start in Q4 and Sourcehut has become more profitable every quarter. The prices will like be raised when the beta begins and payment will become mandatory for all users. Right now, the business is sustainable enough to keep me working on it, and ratcheting up the profitability is not a priority right now.

                                                                                                          1. 6

                                                                                                            Yeah, I did read it. According to my math and assuming you are FT, you are paying yourself less than $10/hr (~$1500 / 160 hrs/mo?). Is that right?

                                                                                                            1. 7

                                                                                                              No, I’m paying myself even less than that. But I make money from other sources as well. My personal financial position is sustainable (and net positive).

                                                                                                          2. 4

                                                                                                            Sure, I get the point you’re making, but the point I’m trying to make is that there’s definitely “successful” businesses out there at that price point.

                                                                                                            1. 7

                                                                                                              Your point was based on a bookmarking site that requires so much less developer and hardware resources to implement than an alternative to Github. A site that probably takes almost nothing to operate in comparison gets by on a small price. What SirCmpwn is doing is much larger in development effort and resources required for users.

                                                                                                              So, the example doesn’t tell us anything. It would have to be a sustainable business doing something similar for a long period of time that wasn’t selling its users out or burning through venture capital. That probably would narrow examples down quite a lot. It might also give us an idea what pricing would be like.

                                                                                                              Meanwhile, he’s in alpha making money while experimenting and building it. It’s an interesting approach.

                                                                                                        2. 8

                                                                                                          The overlap in the Venn diagram of “hobbyist” and “paid source control” is very small

                                                                                                          I think the interesting question is: is the overlap large enough to be self-sustaining? Not every every service needs exponential growth, for some it is enough to cover the costs + wages. E.g. SDF has been around for ages and seems to do pretty well.

                                                                                                        3. 4

                                                                                                          The goal is not to maximize profit, but to provide a sustainable service to the community.

                                                                                                          Something of a tangent:

                                                                                                          The idea that business owners have a moral obligation to maximize shareholder value is actually relatively recent, championed by a famous paper in 1976 that showed that under certain condtions, social welfare is maximized when individual executives aim to maximize shareholder value.

                                                                                                          The Value of Everything contains a great history of these ideas, along with some compelling criticisms.

                                                                                                          Interestingly, the BRT recently renounced shareholder value as a metric in favor of stakeholder value, which is potentially much more in line with businesses like sourcehut and pinboard that aim to maximize value created rather than profit.

                                                                                                          (I’m also a subscriber to sourcehut - even though I barely use it I’m more than happy to support anyone trying to build a sustainable open source ecosystem)

                                                                                                          1. -2

                                                                                                            The goal is not to maximize profit, but to provide a sustainable service to the community.

                                                                                                            Which, incidentally, disqualifies you from calling it “B2C”. Because if your goal is not to maximize profit (or shareholder value) then you’re not, strictly speaking, a “business” :-)

                                                                                                            Just to clarify, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it!

                                                                                                            1. 16

                                                                                                              I think it makes me not a capitalist, but still qualifies as a business.

                                                                                                              1. 8

                                                                                                                Since we’re in the company of word-mincing engineers who believe that qualifications must be in place before anybody can say whether a thing is or is not a business or possesses the attribute of being “B2C,” lets mince more words.

                                                                                                                A capitalist is not someone who desires the suffering of their peons, in and of itself.

                                                                                                                A capitalist, sensu strictu, is someone who owns the means of production.

                                                                                                                Things touched by the invisible hand are divided into capital, rent, and labor.

                                                                                                                Labor means what it appears to mean.

                                                                                                                Rent means, in addition to the rent that you pay for, the land itself, if you are a landowner.

                                                                                                                Capital is everything else.

                                                                                                                When Groucho Marx says, “Seize the means of production!” those means are synonymous with capital: the tooling, the machinery, the raw material and energy, AND the finances.

                                                                                                                So, sorry, you’re still a capitalist, barring further free-as-in-freedom philosophizing of the memetically replicating Turing’s Cathedral of the virus of the primordial thought-stuff of software. Maybe m4 is actually a semiconscious code-being and nobody owns it, and therefore it’s not an instrument of capital and therefore you’re not a capitalist (IDK if autoconf is one of sr.ht’s dependencies but you see what I’m getting at).

                                                                                                                However, I happily admit you’re neither a capitalist swine nor a capitalist dog, and I think it is this sense of capitalist that you thought you weren’t, and if so, I’m happy to confirm that.

                                                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                                                  You’re writing like almost everything written on capitalism doesn’t encourage accumulation of capital. At least in U.S., wealth maximization is implied when people mention that word. Otherwise, we’d just call it business or business ownership. He’s someone with capital seeking some profit but not a capitalist aiming for maximal capital. What he’s doing is closer to public-benefit corporations and non-profits practicing utilitarianism.

                                                                                                                  1. 4

                                                                                                                    To be fair, he did start the post saying he was going to be extra pedantic. And it was an amusing read in that context.

                                                                                                                    1. 3

                                                                                                                      Yes, and in the three hundred intervening years between now and the division of the economy into the three things I mentioned, which, by the way, I have precisely and accurately represented, there has been some linguistic drift.

                                                                                                                      There have also been some important historical events like the invention of liberalism, communism, Baha’ism, the computer, and the U.S. itself. And gravity and the “circulation of the blood” model of uh heartbeats. Also all businesses as incorporated in the legal sense, since they had to come up with said legal sense for purposes of taxation, and that was antedated by the formation of the nation state, since the idea of capital is kinda literally the idea of economics, which has to do with capital like CPUs have to do with registers. Also capitalization – but LiTeRaL CaPiTaLiZaTiOn (since English has German roots and they capitalize everything, and creative spelling died out with universal literacy, cf. any really old book, like, not-so-random example, On The Wealth Of Nations, by an old white man – unpopular these days, but nobody was very progressive at the time – who had the distinctions of being absentminded and Scottish, wrote during the Scottish Enlightentment, cerca 1700-1750 IIRC & -ish, and once accidentally forgot to get off the train and crossed into England, or something like that). But we’re getting off-topic.

                                                                                                                      You’re arguing that capitalists not seeking to maximize profit are no such thing. Correct?

                                                                                                                      I’m arguing that he is running a business, and damn if it’s a dirty thing because it’s really not, it’s the only way anything ever gets done anyhow. I am not slinging mud at DDV or sr.ht, so if you hear or see that in my post it’s badly written.

                                                                                                                      This whole discussion is about whether Drew should exploit the living daylights out of his users, and I think anyone who reads this page can easily conclude that the users hereabouts strongly desire to be exploited, since there is no small amount of public support of sr.ht. Much of this fundraising discussion has been Drew pumping the brakes to avoid some trigger-happy idea of Successful Business Productivity (TM) (C) (R) (Patent Pending) being allowed to replace the genuine sustainoblah of the communoblah (cf. my other, equally eloquent, cranial emissions on this amazingly exciting matter, both right around here).

                                                                                                                      You can say that Sourcehut is like Amtrak, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or something else, but really it is a VCS. I think to really be infrastructural and fundamental in the utility-as-in-Monopoly-the-board-game sense (as opposed to the utility-as-in-we-all-scream-for-ice-cream sense) you need to have back-room deals and very pretentious lovers and Nancy Pelosi’s rubber stamp and everything else.

                                                                                                                      Maybe it is different with technology in that you don’t need the backing of a phat Carnegie-level kingpin to even begin and it can grow over time to be like Amtrak. Certainly it is different with FOSS, and whether it can grow is a yuge and bigly test of the mettle, both of the founder and of the community, especially when the main considerations are of the sustainoblah and so forth. Hopefully Drew DeVault hasn’t got friends who’ve been secretly meeting with Jeremy Epstein or software freedom is really going down the tubes. :P

                                                                                                                      So it is clear that wealth maximization is beside the point – in fact, it’s more finely graduated than a cylinder, in Sourcehut’s case, apparently intentionally.

                                                                                                                      When discussing the implications of words, it is important to discuss what they imply for whom. Well I dunno if it always is, but it is now, dang it! Lenin said, when somebody had occasion to invoke freedom, and I’m always anti-Lenin in praxis but never in rhetoric, “freedom for whom? – to do what?” Because it is the answer to that question that is the same as the answer to the question of “Why?” Some postmodern people think that freedom is a byword for “rich people walking all over poor people,” and there is a similar logic there. I happen to disagree, but I get their point, and when I haven’t eaten for a long time I too get concerned that maybe it’s a war of all against all, and freedom is only when the armies are marching towards Those People Over There. Then I have some pineapple salsa, and in a half an hour critical pathways have been refueled with primordial glucose, and I can get behind the communoblah and say the Pledge of Allegiance and am overcome with relief and gratitude that … never mind. Freedom is tricky. We’re working on it. I am pro-freedom, btw. But it’s beside the point.

                                                                                                                      Sourcehut is a niche business. Is it still a business?

                                                                                                                      Sourcehut isn’t maximizing capital. Is it still an enterprise?

                                                                                                                      Not treating users like customers (or the other way around). Still used/consumed?

                                                                                                                      Not treating unthinking money-spenders like hogs in a hog confinement or rubes in a carnival. Still a subscription model? Still important to have good marketing?

                                                                                                                      The answers, respectively, are Yes; Yes; Yes/Yes, Yes and Yes.

                                                                                                                      So, back to the original thing, sorry it took so long: Does a capitalist inherently seek maximal capital?

                                                                                                                      The question is honestly intractable. YMMV.

                                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                                        I admit that I am using the term capitalist wrongly, in the sense that you, nickpsecurity, read it, and I even concede that the majority of people or even 99% of people correctly “mis-“read my (actual:) misstatement in that regard. The question isn’t intractable at all.

                                                                                                                        But the fact is, in your very simple (totally unstated, I’m guessing here) model of capitalists, 99%ers, and-small-bands-of-rapidly-iterating-capital-owning-programmers, well, the programmers just don’t fit in. They are like the “party vanguard” in Leninism (the elite stormtroopers of ideological purity, leading the huddled masses to the future), or the petit-bourgeois (read: upper-middle-class merchant-y types) in Marx, of whom I heard he once said, “Yeah, there’s gonna be some very very special ones of this class in my logical class warfare structure, and they’re gonna be super impt, since they’re gonna speak the lang of the elite and walk amongst the common folk or whatnot” and you know he was talking about himself, because he came from a bougie-in-the-modern-sense background but was all obsessed with that stuff you’ve heard about.

                                                                                                                      2. 3

                                                                                                                        A system of privates business and business ownership only becomes capitalism when it’s sufficiently ruthless? I don’t think I know people who use capitalism that way.

                                                                                                                        1. 3

                                                                                                                          Most of the richest companies screw over their stakeholders in many ways, the founders/owners of most businesses take most of the money others generate, and so on. Makes me think profit maximization often requires ruthlessness since it forces the maximizer to eventually do harmful things to increase revenue or lower costs.

                                                                                                                  2. 8

                                                                                                                    Arguing that all businesses have to maximize profit in order to qualify as a business is a pretty bizarre stance to take. I can decide to run my company at a loss and still qualify as a business.

                                                                                                                    1. 2

                                                                                                                      Arguing that, “arguing that all businesses have to maximize profit [sic] is a pretty bizarre stance to take,” is itself a pretty bizarre stance to take, since the first arguer was apparently asserting the invalidity of “B2C,” an appellation that honestly presupposes a big ol’ distinction between the Bs and the Cs, whereas a sustainable blah to the communoblah is a bit more of a Blah2Blah, since the purely theoretically profit-maximizing logic of “either you’re going From Business and To Consumer or you’re a nothingburger” no longer holds.

                                                                                                                      If you really wanted to point out something in the offending comment that was truly bizarre, instead of merely pedantic, you could have pointed out that Sourcehut has no shareholders for whom to maximize the value.

                                                                                                                      Instead you claimed that WeWork is a business, but that was never in dispute, thus, the bizarreness redoundeth upon ye.

                                                                                                                      I will say that despite what nickpsecurity had to say, the Pinboard comment seems to have generated some useful discussion.

                                                                                                                    2. 2

                                                                                                                      You might be confused about businesses vs. public corporations vs. capitalism etc.

                                                                                                                      You don’t have to try to be a paperclip maximizer just because all your friends are doing it.

                                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                                        You don’t have to be a utility-maximizing agency-possessing actor in a space of probability vectors collapsed by intentions that precede any instruments ability to objectively measure intent by precisely the interval sustained by one’s observation of others just because all your friends are watching Nike commercials with you in a panopticon of meaningless exhortation to “Just do it” with attractive and scantily-clad 10-foot-tall athletes filling every screen.

                                                                                                                        JUST KIDDING YOU HAVE TO ;D

                                                                                                                      2. 1

                                                                                                                        How did they give hundreds of millions of dollars from their business if they weren’t a business? Or maybe just a business with a different focus?

                                                                                                                        Random-ish example whose products I enjoyed marked down or on sale. Recently Pineapple Salsa. The -ish part is there since delicious products do bias my coverage sometimes. :)

                                                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                                                          I do want some pineapple salsa though, now that you mention it. How did it get so late writing unnecessary replies to unnecessary posts?

                                                                                                                          1. 1

                                                                                                                            His point is that B2C, where instead of Business and Consumer you’re in an Imaginary and Dreamy Sustainable Community of Cocreators, is not a B2C but rather a IaDSCoC2IaDSCoC or whatever. see my other post. He is not saying Newman’s Own doesn’t exist, he’s saying Free Software in Drew DeVault’s conception of what that means and stands for and whatever is not, like, a cookie-cutter example of a B2C. Geez.

                                                                                                                      3. 10

                                                                                                                        Not everything has to be a hockey stick. Sometimes just making a living is enough.

                                                                                                                        1. 1

                                                                                                                          Sometimes just making a living is enough

                                                                                                                          but hes not though, is he. $1000 a month is not enough where I live.

                                                                                                                          1. 13

                                                                                                                            Note that for my own part, my income comes from more sources than just Sourcehut. I have a breakdown here:

                                                                                                                            https://drewdevault.com/donate

                                                                                                                            And this is missing income from my new GitHub sponsors account, which is sitting at $25/mo right now. I also make money from occasional consulting on my various open source projects, mainly Wayland. I make a comfortable living.

                                                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                                                              Well, he seems to be about to hire someone else, so it seems to be enough for him.

                                                                                                                              1. 7

                                                                                                                                That’s very important. Many people aren’t motivated by money. They have a goal that they want to hit, are comfortable with, whatever. Then, past that, they’re willing to overlook potential revenue to do something that matters to them.

                                                                                                                                SirCmpwn seems so in that camp on top of what he says is a comfortable living. He’s willing to pass on some material opportunities to build things he believes in that might help other people, too. I respect that. Whether folks agree or not, it would help them to realize such people exist and factor it into their economic theories.

                                                                                                                        1. 10

                                                                                                                          I’m not a speedrunner or even a gamer, but you’d never know it from looking at my YouTube history. I love (and subscribe to) speedrunning and glitch channels pretty extensively…because they expose the game for what it is, and I like thinking about how the program itself was built, or what was missed to allow it to break in whatever way it did.

                                                                                                                          (Son of a Glitch come back, please.)

                                                                                                                          1. 4

                                                                                                                            I love this attitude. It reminds me of the CharOp boards back during D&D 3.5. Given some conditions, how is it possible to break the game? There’s a thrill in it.

                                                                                                                              1. 3

                                                                                                                                I love TvTropes, and it’s surprisingly deep for a wiki “just” about pop culture.