> So, now you have to worry about your VPS/Internet provider deplatforming you. Or about your domain name being seized. And spam filtration, backups, redundancy...
Your VPS / ISP better have a good reason to "deplatform". If you're really worried, use two different ones.
Also, people have more problems with being "deplatformed" by Google, often with no reason given, and with no way to communicate with a human about the issue. Look it up. I'd be more worried about that.
DNS isn't a single point of failure. Nor is email when it comes to reception (that's what backup MXs are for). If you need redundancy when it comes to being able to fetch email, you can easily have the primary MX also forward to mailboxes on another host so you have two (or more) copies of everything. None of this is all that hard, and people have been doing it for ages. Give it a try :)
I'm still running Sendmail on NetBSD, the way I've been running it since the '90s.
You'll find plenty of people telling you to not do it, but they mostly seem to think that others shouldn't do things because they can't.
The biggest problem with self-hosting email is deliverability, and it's easily handled by smarthosting through a reputable service, so anyone who says it can't be done hasn't really thought things through very much.
The true value of a company can be measured by our ability to communicate with them. If we can't communicate except after public outrage, then what does that say about the company?
Here's a genuine question: is Proton Mail the least shitty of companies that provide email services?
I self-host email and will continue until I die. But for others who need a company to do this for them, is Proton Mail the least shitty of options? Does this change the evaluation? I'm genuinely curious about the opinion of others here.
I'm one of those people. I compile thousands of open source packages on VAX, m68k, SuperH and other less popular architectures. I think I know at least a bit about how much of this "maintenance" is repeated-but-not-substantiated bull and how much is real.
Claiming that actual maintainers spend more than trivial amounts of time on "maintaining" endianness correctness, I think, is somewhat disrespectful to those maintainers.
You try to make it either/or in the most overly simplistic way possible. I wonder if you do, in fact, know that it's not a matter of only one or the other, but instead of acknowledging that, you'd rather pretent to be ignorant.
Don't tell me to shut up. That's not very nice, no matter your justification. The open source world is definitely not do it yourself or pay, and everyone else needs to shut up. Again, it's more likely that you know this, but you want to be intentionally antagonistic.
You also neatly avoid discussing what I brought up. These things all make me think you're not participating in good faith.
You have it wrong. Rather than reuse parts of X11, like the compositors that support hardware that nobody will ever be paid to support, Wayland is trying to reinvent the wheel and replace X11, with support for only what's new and/or popular.
> However everyone demanding X11 is really demanding Wayland designers stop their work and go back to X11 - and none of them are paying for that.
Absolutely nobody is demanding that Wayland developers should stop their work and go back to working on X11. Nobody. That's a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement.
What some of us would like to see is Wayland not try to make everything either/or. But, just like systemd, things started with, "you can do both", then went to, "it's harder to do both, but you can", then to, "the old way is dead, so stop writing code that supports it", and eventually to, "let's completely rip out the old way of doing it because "maintenance" and everyone will be forced to use the new way". GNOME is already doing this, even though it's supposed to be open source, platform agnostic and portable.
The fact that you bring up paid work shows you're happy to accept idea that support for things is only worth what people will pay for it. Consider how that fits with corporatization, and consider how that fits with open source in general.
In other words, should all open source project be drivable by some corporation deciding to just throw money at something?
If you think about this for more than 30 seconds, you may finally understand why those of us who aren't fans of the corporatization of Linux and aren't fans of projects that don't interoperate and ultimately end up fragmenting the open source software world are not fans of the eventual consequences of projects like Wayland.
It's not "X11 is great and Wayland sucks" - it's "why is this project fragmenting things rather than interoperating, and why are people so eager to be led by corporations in to supporting corporate interests?"
Discussions about the corporatization of Linux largely move on emotion. Imagine getting flagged multiple times for asserting that writing code that assumes little endianness is bad programming practice, just because someone had a talk where he suggested 32 bit should die and perhaps even all things big endian.
The speaker didn't give any reasons, mind you, why big endian should die other than handwaving about how it means "more maintenance", and the responses to "can you give any examples of how it means "more maintenance" other than saying it?" were largely, "can you give proof it's not "more maintenance"?"
I feel the same happens with Wayland. People who don't understand its position have strong feelings in both directions, yet very little discussion is about the underlying rationale for it in the first place, about who benefits by marginalizing people with non-mainstream hardware and who benefits from forcing the software ecosystem down narrower paths.
X11 and Wayland really should coexist, at least for as long as it takes for Wayland to lose a majority of its major issues, yet Wayland designers didn't seem to think that'd be worthwhile. Some of the projects that're working on making them work together need more attention than they're getting.
I've preserved a number of machines by building them in to rackmount cases. It never occurred to me to make a faux product out of them. This is amazing! The graphics and detail are wonderful.
The story is confusing in that they don't link to the actual project, which you can only get to by visiting the Github link, then going to the developer's projects page, then finding nano11.
I'm not sure, but I think nano11 is even more aggressive than tiny11builder's "tiny11coremaker.ps1":
When you're building your own CPUs, why be beholden to US companies for GPUs? This makes perfect sense.
GPUs are great if your workload can use them, but not so great for more general tasks. These are more appropriate to more traditional supercomputing tasks, as in they're not optimized for lower precision AI stuff, like NVIDIA GPUs are.
Maybe I should try to port this to the 65CE02 on the Commodore A2232 seven port serial card. It could use one of the serial ports for BASIC input and output.
If I wanted to get fancy, I could even use the Amiga side to load and save programs from the A2232's 16K of memory...
I suppose if you're buying something for someone who is new to all of this, it might be worthwhile to have many things be RPi branded so if there are issues, there's only one party to worry about.
So Arnd Bergmann thinks that all future systems, embedded included, will have 64 bit CPUs? Or will embedded just stop using Linux and move to the BSDs?
UEFI makes it so you can boot your Unix OS, like NetBSD, without needing to have specific bootblocks that are tailored to the given machine. You can move drives between Arm machines, too. Much simpler.
Sounds about right for Google.