lytedev

Am I the only one that dislikes using the <i> element for icons? Isn't that semantically incorrect?

I also run open observe at home, but I can't help but feel that the interface could use some... sparkle, and the mobile experience kinda sucks.

But you can't beat the excellent price and performance. Does what I need and much more

This is my thinking. Ctrl-Enter is usually "submit the form this input is a part of" in my experience, especially if you're in a multilinear text input (or textarea).

That seems to me to be one of the least generous interpretations, no?

It could also imply that, for whatever reason, the LLM opted for those tools. Therefore there isn't necessarily "reason" in the asked sense.

depending on how you view it, the build server _does_ serve the APKs, right?

Why is this?

I don't want to presume your use case, but Ghostty has a command for dumping the buffer to a file, which I use for processing output "too late" to use grep.

keybind = ctrl+alt+shift+o=write_scrollback_file:open

Bitwarden has a desktop GUI app as well as an official CLI. If you're comfortable with it, there are also community ones like https://github.com/doy/rbw

Wouldn't "partially" be fair? Since not ALL of the project is, but only source of a certain age?

It definitely is, buy I think the silent majority just don't care all that much. Is that what you're referring to?

What is the first-best choice for a new project? SQLite?

Doesn't enforcing this require storing the password in cleartext somewhere, which is a much more dangerous concept to begin with?

Currently work here and we're definitely still building and supporting Elixir applications and enjoying it!

Eh, maybe. There's a performance tradeoff here and maintainers opted for performance. I'm sure many folks would agree with you that it was the wrong choice, and I'm sure many folks would disagree with you that it was the wrong choice.

There are also specific methods for doing *erflow-checked arithmetic if you like.

The idea with rust is that you _can_ have safety with no performance cost if you need it, but depending on what you're building, of course, that may imply extra work.

The pragmatism of Rust means that you can use reference counting if it suits your use case.

Unsafe also doesn't mean throwing out the Rustiness of Rust, but others have written more extensively about that and I have no personal experience with it.

The problem with Rust is that it tries to force safety but doesn't have good ways for devs to tell the compiler code is safe...that is a fundamental weakness.

My understanding is that this is the purpose of unsafe, but again, I can't argue against these points from a standpoint of experience, having stuck pretty strictly to safe Rust.

Definitely agree that there are issues with the language, no argument there! So do the maintainers!

if I need to manage memory then I would look elsewhere atm

Haha I have the exact opposite feeling! I wouldn't try to manage memory any other way, and I'm guessing it's because memory management is more intuitive and well understood by you than by me. I'm lazy and very much like having the compiler do the bulk of the thinking for me. I'm also happy that Rust allows for folks like me to pay a little performance cost and do things a little bit easier while maintaining correctness. For the turbo-coders out there that want the speed and the correctness, Rust has the capability, but depending on your use case (like linked lists) it can definitely be more difficult to express correctness to the compiler.

I think this is true initially and Rust didn't "click" for me for a long time.

But once you are _maintaining_ applications, man it really does feel like absolute magic. It's amazing how worry-free it feels in many respects.

Plus, once you do embrace it, become familiar, and start forward-thinking about these things, especially in areas that aren't every-nanosecond-counts performance-wise and can simply `Arc<>` and `.clone()` where you need to, it is really quite lovely and you do dramatically less fighting.

Rust is still missing a lot of features that other more-modern languages have, no doubt, but it's been a great ride in my experience.

I'm not sure if this is what you mean, exactly, but Rust indeed catches this at compile time.

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio... https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&editio...

The core of this argument taken to its extreme kind of makes the whole discussion pointless, right? All the languages can do all the things, so why bother differentiating them?

To entertain the argument, though, it may not be a language issue, but it certainly is a selling point for the language (which to me indicates a "language issue") to me if the language takes care of this "library" (or good defaults as I might call them) for you with no additional effort -- including tight compiler and tooling integration. That's not to say Rust always has good defaults, but I think the author's point is that if you compare them apples-to-oranges, it does highlight the different focuses and feature sets.

I'm not a C++ expert by any stretch, so it's certainly a possibility that such a library exists that makes Rust's type system obsolete in this discussion around correctness, but I'm not aware of it. And I would be incredibly surprised if it held its ground in comparison to Rust in every respect!

I don't think I've claimed that ignoring the author's request is factually wrong. I'm debating on the internet because I _do_ believe the license makes more allowance than you give credit, but I definitely would not say that what I'm doing here is objectively "in the right". I've reached out to the author as a result of these discussions, because I do, in fact, value what you are referring to and believe I did make some false assumptions about what the author might have intended.

To say that the license doesn't supersede the author's words is your opinion. It does, in fact, supersede the request both in law and "socially".

If any requirement or request need be laid upon the software and its use, there are mechanisms for doing that available today and the author willingly chose to try something new. This doesn't negate their request, but it does bring into question the "social contract"; people have certain social expectations of software, particularly when licensed like this, that you seem to ignore or consider null in this argument, which seems unfair and one-sided.

I do believe that this situation is not as cut and dry and morally wrong as you seem to be stating. What of a user that deploys the project without ever reading that specific page of documentation?

Perhaps you and I are debating towards different end states here. Myself towards what a fleshed-out approach to this kind of permissive-license-plus-social-request open-source might look like and you towards ignoring the request of another human being implying an eventual complete breakdown in society.

It's simply untrue that every request from every human being (regarding something they have made or otherwise) must be respected and followed above all else and to think otherwise trends towards its own breakdown of society. Intent and requests are not the be-all-end-all of ethical cooperation that you seem to be arguing for. Does this imply that anarchy and chaos are the answer? No, of course not! As I have tried to indicate, there is more nuance here than your argument makes room for and indeed the lack of nuance in your own argument as you tighten it down further results in its own ethical problems which you seem to be trying to argue into impossibility.

Alas, we humans on an individual and group level will always have mutually exclusive goals and opinions and working through those is part of the human experience - relationships take communication, work, nuance, understanding, and compromise. Absolutism such as you are calling for is the kind of thing that results in societal collapse as well.

In summary, I agree with you that asking the author is the right thing to do here as I _did_ read the documentation thoroughly and I should have done so and not assumed that my little personal git forge was "exempt" from the request. As a result, I have reached out to discuss as requested. I also would say that anyone else that opts to interpret the license literally would also be in the right, though. I also disagree that this issue is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I also believe the status quo around "open source plus restrictions" (if you can say there is much of one) can be greatly improved and is a discourse worth having.

I don't think its fully correct that social pressure means that permissive licenses are no longer meaningful when it comes to the ethics or sociology of open source software.

Since the original subject is also about swapping out the imagery, it's also difficult to take your argument too seriously as the term "exploit" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for your argument.

I will also add that the social and ethical component goes both ways: is it ethical to knowingly give something away freely and without restriction and then immediately attempt to impose restrictions through a purely social mechanism? I would say so as long as your expectation is that some might politely decline.

Or worse, some may respond with the same vitriol and then we're at your original point, which doesn't seem to be preventing such an approach here, making me doubt your hypothesis.

I agree with your comment here, and would add that I believe the license and open source in general has a certain social restriction as well and implies how the software may or may not be used, which is part of what makes this discussion nuanced and difficult, as it appears there are two true and opposing points.

I think there will be at least some resistance to any license that isn't largely unrestricted.

But I do agree that this is the crux of the issue.

I'm using a nearly default configuration which seems to not have this problem. curl still works and so do downloads.

I guess if your cookie expired at just the right time that could cause this issue, and that might be worth thinking about, but I think "breaks the web" is overstating it a bit, at least for the default configuration.

It includes links with explanations, but the page does kind of "fly by" in many cases. At which point, would you still leave?

I'm guessing folks have seen enough captcha and CloudFlare verification pages to get a sense that they're being "soul" checked and that it's not an issue usability-wise.

I never claimed confusion, but that there is more to "intent" here than what one page of documentation says.

I think it's clear the author "desires" or "wants" folks to keep the images. However, I think the author also "wants" users to use the software without restriction, hence the license.

If I say I intend one thing in one place, but then also say another thing orthogonal to that thing elsewhere that seems to be at odds, what was my intent truly? If my actions do not line up with my words, how do external parties judge what is the socially acceptable approach given my two statements that are at odds?

I simply think the choice of license says a lot more about intent, and is, in fact, the mechanism by which a creator decides how their code may be used. If the author truly intends their software to be used a certain way, the license is _the_ way to have control over that.

I believe this conversation is a bit more nuanced than you are making it out to be and the discussion around "what is open source" is where this discussion begins and ends. I'm not going to try and argue about what the author "wants", which, I agree with you, seems clear, but is not expressed fully, given the chosen unrestricted license.

Yeah I had no idea that some folks would get so passionate about making changes to a piece of FOSS based on a request on a certain footer-esque documentation page.

I think its a great discussion though that gets to the heart of open source and software freedom and how that can seem orthogonal to business needs depending on how you squint.

I'm not aware of any ignorance (feigned or otherwise) on my part or in my comments about my ignoring the author's request. I'm aware that I am doing so and have made that clear and shared with others that also would choose to do so as they deem reasonable.

If you'll allow me to make assumptions, given that the author neither demands -- and is, in fact, explicit about not doing so -- nor licenses the software in such a way as to prevent this use case, I am guessing the author had at least some intent or foreknowledge around some folks wanting to swap the images. I further assumed that such use cases were for instances such as those the author wrote Anubis for to begin with, protecting small git forges with little resources. Now, I admit my server is not small and I have resources, and so am happy to pay for and donate towards open source software, but in this case the only option was to contact the author, which is something I deemed overkill in this case. I would simply wait and see how the author planned to approach the issue and revisit at that time.

Perhaps I've made the wrong move socially or ethically, which I think is at least a worthwhile discussion to have, and if I should decide I feel like I've made an ethically sideways choice, I will eat my words and make things right as best as I can.

However, if we're going to talk about intent, I an guessing there is a bit more nuance to bring to the conversation. Or perhaps the author can chime in or update the documentation to be more clear, because the liberal license says quite a lot about intent to me. I think it's at least a little disingenuous to say that the software license carries no intent behind it (spirit of open source and all that) and is "only" an enumeration of my rights.

I'm surprised to read this from you, somebody I and many others hold in high regard as accepting and knowledgeable, insulting someone's character because they didn't like some specific aspect of your work or opinions or chose to ignore an ask in this particular use case.

I didn't implement this out of fear or some lack of courage. In fact I had the original avatars up for quite a while. I simply wanted my own logo so visitors wouldn't be potentially confused. It seemed to fit the use case and there was no way to achieve what I wanted without reaching out. I didn't feel comfortable bugging you or anybody on account of my tiny little no-traffic git forge even though, yes, that is what you politely asked for (and did not demand).

I think if you do feel this strongly you might consider changing the software's license or the phrasing of the request in the documentation. Or perhaps making it very clear that no matter how small, you want to be reached out to for the whitelabel version.

I think the success story of Anubis has been awesome to read about and follow and seeing how things unfold further will be fun to watch and possibly even contribute to. I'm personally rooting for you and your project!

You are correct in that I ignored a specific request, but you are also ignoring the larger social contract of open source that is also at play. To release software with a certain license has a social component of its own that seems to be unaccounted for here.

Your analogy to me seems imprecise, as analogies tend to be when it comes to digital goods. I'm not taking pennies in any sense here, preventing the next person from making use of some public good.

You can make a similar argument for piracy or open source, and yet... Here we all still are and open source has won for the most part.

You ignore the authors words and published intent, and go so far as to undo them

I guess I took the MIT license as the author's word and intent. Are you saying their choice of license is not? It clearly outlines that I am free to use the software without restriction which you conveniently leave out of your core argument.

If you want to talk about open source and the social contract, this is the heart of it: freedom, which I have exercised. If I was using it for commercial purposes and doing something more against the "spirit of open source" I think I might be inclined to agree with you. But I'm not.