Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We need a federation of forges

blog.tangled.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–424 of 424 posts

Re: We need a federation of forges

#421

Post by zachlatta »

account42 wrote: post #417
zachlatta wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of absolutism is crazy. People who are doing 90% of what we want them to do should be greatly celebrated and rewarded. Else we penalize idealistic people who are not perfect instead of penalizing the people who are actually doing the opposite of what we care about (ex. Autodesk). Do you want software to become as closed source as mechanical engineering? No! So let's celebrate people building software that's…

No, absolutism is absolutely needed or all you'll do is slightly slow down the shift of the overton window of enshittification.

This is how you get bad stuff. This mindset will turn the software ecosystem into mechanical / electrical engineering. Closed source, bad, and expensive tools.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#422

Post by OneDeuxTriSeiGo »

account42 wrote: post #419
OneDeuxTriSeiGo wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got pretty much none of the names right. Tangle: the appview server of the tangled network. Knot: the git server that holds an arbitrary quantity of git repos. Spindle: CI servers/runners/nodes. Each one is the name of a component and the name for those components is pretty arbitrary.

> You got pretty much none of the names right. That really proves his point though - the cute names are pretty much useless for an outsider.

That's not the point. The point is that there is no good, clean name. You can either adopt the brand specific name another org/productline picked for their version (which is somewhat similar but often not the same).

The equivalent of a knot in gitlab is a gitlab instance or for forgejo a forgejo instance. There's just not really a clean equivalent.

A knot is a git server but it's not the git host/remote. The remote is the appview (which is the software stack called "the tangle"). The knot isn't just a storage backend either.

The knot is a little bit of a lot of things from the existing models so it just does not and cannot fit cleanly into an existing definition. Doubly so because what the knot does today is not the only things it will do. It will likely gain additional functionality in the future so to give it a reductive label now will only add to the confusion.

Instead it's a knot. That's what it is. And you can explain what a knot is if someone asks but at the end of the day it's a knot and what that means is specific to this project and network.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#423

Post by whereistejas »

d12bb wrote: post #411
whereistejas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oopsie; should have added links. `jj` is a wrapper around git and offers a much better dev-ex for managing changes. it has features like: - conflicts are first class citizens - `rebase` is the default mode; there is no need for an interactive rebase mode. - all descendant changes automatically rebase - a much more intuitive version of `git reflog`. in `jj`, we have `jj op log` - cheap branching: branches in `jj` are…

> `jj` is a wrapper around git and offers a much better dev-ex for managing changes. You are mistaken there: Git is just one (of currently two) backend of the jj version control system. It’s far from being a wrapper.

Just because `jj` wraps around git doesn't mean it cannot have another backend. My comment doesn't imply that it only wraps around `git`. More importantly, the other backend which `jj` offers is (afaik) exclusively used at Google. Unless you are a Googler you will be using `jj` with `git`.

Also, the comment was aimed at a person who is obviously very invested in `git`. I was doing my best to offer them a description of `jj` they could swallow.

PS: pedantic people are annoying.

Re: We need a federation of forges

#424

Post by mikey_p »

4lx87 wrote: post #265
mikey_p wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The web still has other protocols on top of it, like RSS. Just because the "web" exists doesn't mean that solves every problem. Also OAuth only handles auth and permissions and doesn't do anything for provided federated views of disparate data sources. Also this isn't about identity either, you're really misunderstanding what this is about.

You're right. RSS builds on top of the web. ATProto does not. I'd say RSS is a resource format / content type, not a communications protocol. A resource format intended for syndicating updates – exactly what ATProto and ActivityPub do (but decided to invent new formats instead of extending RSS/Atom. JSON all the things!). It is very much about identity. To use tangled you need to use ATProto and authenticate using AT…

That's like saying that DAV doesn't build on HTTP.

And just because an existing standard exists does not forgo the creation of other standards that incorporate other features. I don't know how to build a social graph based on OAuth logins, but this would be fairly easy with ATProto.|

Genuinely don't know why you are even using HTTP when Telnet and Gopher are right there...

Post reply on HN