661–670 of 720 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That money had to have come from somewhere, whether it was taxpayers or individuals. What if I donated? Is it cool to just roll over and allow political groups to hijack a previously neutral service? Also there are other projects hosted there, and network effects involved.
>What if I donated? Then you would have been a supporting member, and had the opportunity to vote on this decision.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you don't care about privacy, then state your address, bank account balance, phone number, family members, and post photos of the inside of your house. Nope. I'm fine with the protection that the classic legal system provides. > Monero protects some of that information. No, it doesn't. I don't use cryptocrap. > Of course any privacy tool will first be challenged by the bad actors caught using it. That's just the…
Protecting and improving privacy is by definition excellent for humans. GrapheneOS gets many of their donations from Monero [1]. I'm glad you didn't state any personal information. You now can see exactly why Monero is important. Using other online methods of exchanging value would say those things without your permission! [1] monerostats.org
And on the other hand you have donations to Graphene that can be done just fine using a credit card (I know, I've been donating to them for years).
Thank you for making my point.
I don't think you want to store your source code in a place where they ban projects based on politics [1]: > Allowing these projects is not a neutral stance; the effects to the environment are severe. The "DarkFi" (seemingly some crypto designed for criminals, citing an FBI director) project for example uses a "PoW blockchain" (per their readme). PoW (Proof-Of-Work) projects waste an astonishing amount of computation…
At least you went straight to whataboutisms - instead of introspection. "Why cant we have the sweets, the others are getting-" instead of "Why did we built something that allows the worst of human nature to run rampant- and how could we do better"..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly? I don't remember exactly, something about a software project not being automatically bad for not implementing a code of conduct praising certain sexual deviances (woof)? I clearly remember why my account with lots of photos was deleted from mastodon.social without warning: There was a poll "Have you donated to the Antifa", two options: no / I'm a fascist. I replied there is some more nuance to the topic, al…
I joined mastodon.social not too long ago... How unfortunate. Do you know of any fediverse that won't instaban me if I accidentally post some wrongthink?
A friend of mine wanted to host a lemmy instance, but as soon as he opened registration it got flooded with pornography, even worse: mostly illegal. He deleted the instance immediately. This also gives me some sympathy for the moderation work that needs to be put in, which in turn makes disgruntled, or not fully aligned mods overreach, yet I don't want to be on the bad side of a tired mod.
Also I realized that I'm only mildly interested in the topics people usually discuss on these media. I contemplated self-hosting before, but realized it is not worth the hassle, I have a blog I don't have time to tend, or the important happenings in my life do not belong to the public.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Side projects with little resource usage" Wow so they banned literally everything?
It's an opinionated charity host for free software. Are you actually making free software or just dumping your junk that is technically free but no one uses? If the latter, they're telling you to go away.
Whether something is someone's side project or not is independent of the amount of users or the presence of a community. They can now ban any project with a single maintainer that exceeds an arbitrary resource limit.
Basically they're putting a gun to your head demanding you to always be popular enough to curry their favour.
When you think about how most projects start unpopular by definition, the only way to host on Codeberg is first by becoming popular on another platform and then moving to Codeberg, but if that is true why bother migrating? The moment your project's popularity fades or you lose maintainers, the project will get axed by Codeberg.
So basically the lesson you're getting here is to not trust the altruistic stranger. His motivations are less sincere than the ones of the self interested stranger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has any enforcement action occurred based on new ToS yet?
Not to my knowledge, but without a structured framework for those decisions, I have little confidence that enforcement will remain fair and even-handed moving forward. I also suspect that the ambiguity of the “reputation” clause will be abused in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally every rule is decided by random popularity vibes. Name one that isn't?
> Literally every rule… Imagine for a second if that were actually the case. Most rules are determined by physics, science, data, or something tangible. Food safety, aviation, electrical codes, even sports rules are based on math and statistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an opinionated charity host for free software. Are you actually making free software or just dumping your junk that is technically free but no one uses? If the latter, they're telling you to go away.
They reserved the right to ban anything based on exceedingly vague policies. Whether something is someone's side project or not is independent of the amount of users or the presence of a community. They can now ban any project with a single maintainer that exceeds an arbitrary resource limit. Basically they're putting a gun to your head demanding you to always be popular enough to curry their favour. When you think a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like the process is that if your project is obviously spam, they just delete it and ban you, otherwise they reach out to you first. Such indkvidualized contact is only possible because Codeberg is relatively small, and not a garbage dump for every code file or spam project.
Yeah, well we’ll see what the future holds. Based on past experience, without well-defined procedures, I expect activists will eventually seize control of the process and go after devs/projects that they have personal grievances with. I will not use or recommend Codeberg until they put some structure around this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ability for others to send you pull requests without requiring an account on your gitlab instance
I’m referring to the self hosted part. The outside world can send pull requests via the public GitLab mirror, or they can actually also access my self hosted GitLab instance via its public address - although I doubt anyone would bother. (Pull requests also can, and should, be sent via ways such as submissions to mailing lists.)