Yes and no. Buffer and Hootsuite are 2 players in this game, both allowing to publish or schedule posts based on updates to an RSS feed you configure. Most blogging engines (WordPress, Jekyll, Hugo) come with RSS feed publishing by default.
The tricky part here is the quality of the posts will be bad. Each social network has its own social mores and taboos. Some examples:
Fediverse you refer to Twitter as "birdsite". Anything automated here, unless explicitly called out as a bot account, tends to get ignored as low quality.
Facebook does posts in long-form.
Twitter can thread it to be long-form, but each tweet needs to stand on its own with contributing to the overall narrative. Basic pagination type of splitting sticks out.
LinkedIn... I don't know anyone who posts there that isn't trying to artificially puff themselves up in corporate culture, promote their product/service, or some combination. I'm truly unsure what a "quality" post on there looks like, so go wild.
Basically, posting "<post-title> (<link>)" is probably the most ubiquitous, low effort ways of cross-posting your content but... it's pretty universally understood that it's low quality content and not likely to accomplish the originally intended syndication.
Awesome! Most of the peertube stuff I've found out there has been FramaTube, a couple fringe-interest instances, those ones hosted by the creator which only have the owner's content (which is fine, I just need several instances like this to work), instances with super low bandwidth, instances in <not-my-language>, or some combination of the above.
With the exception of the first one that 404s, every one of these is going to get a lot of use in our house!
Do other peertube instances share the bandwidth or just share links to the original server? Would it make sense for me to setup a peertube instance purely to act as a caching proxy on my network?
Because the alternative is to embed a TLS private key that would allow you to MITM every other one of those devices. Someone extracted it? Looks like you have to either (a) bury your head in the sand or (b) rollout an expensive recall to change certs on those devices.
Why use slightly compromised HTTPS versus plaintext HTTP? Same reason they have those super cheap locks on diaries from the 90s: it's a deterrent. Makes it a little harder to do a bad thing.
A personal favorite response of mine if I don't have any questions left is "no, I think I injected most questions I had as we went along. I was going to ask <thing>, but I think we covered that well already."
This is helpful if you're like me and turn interviews into discussions instead of Q&A sessions. It shows you've considered you might not have the full context just from prior correspondence, while resurfacing a discussion topic for them to expand on if they wish.
Not necessarily. It does follow that if you submit to a tracker, but there's the DHT option which is advertised locally [0]. The way it seems to do it is the magnet uri includes the contents of a few IPs that might have, at minimum, a more up-to-date DHT with more IPs. At best it also includes some chunks of whatever you're trying to download.
I work for a company that recently reconsidered our stance on OpenShift. Long story short, we looked at vanilla k8s rather fondly because of nearly all of the counter-points. The factor that brought us back to OpenShift was the secure-by-default aspect and that some of the training wheels (OCP console) couldn't be replaced by vanilla in a secure way.
Here's what we do:
- We don't use "develop on OpenShift" features like Eclipse Che or on-demand Jenkins nodes to build a project
- We don't use OpenShift-specific resources if there's _any_ alternative in the vanilla kubernetes resource definitions (e.g., use Ingress instead of Route)
- Use outside CI/CD to handle building and packaging of the applications, then deploy them with Helm like any other Kubernetes cluster
- Use the OCP console like a crutch of last resort, preferring `kubectl` whenever possible
All of this helps avoid vendor lock-in as much as possible while still taking advantage of the secure-by-default approach to a kubernetes cluster.
Talking with Red Hat engineers, it sounds like the OpenShift-specific things are contributed upstream and, while they may not become available by exactly that name and syntax, essentially the same functionality does come into vanilla Kubernetes. Routes inspired Ingress resources, for instance. The official stance is for OpenShift users to prefer the vanilla resources because the OpenShift-specific ones are intended to be shims.
(not a Red Hat employee, just work for a company that is a customer)
The tricky part here is the quality of the posts will be bad. Each social network has its own social mores and taboos. Some examples:
Fediverse you refer to Twitter as "birdsite". Anything automated here, unless explicitly called out as a bot account, tends to get ignored as low quality.
Facebook does posts in long-form.
Twitter can thread it to be long-form, but each tweet needs to stand on its own with contributing to the overall narrative. Basic pagination type of splitting sticks out.
LinkedIn... I don't know anyone who posts there that isn't trying to artificially puff themselves up in corporate culture, promote their product/service, or some combination. I'm truly unsure what a "quality" post on there looks like, so go wild.
Basically, posting "<post-title> (<link>)" is probably the most ubiquitous, low effort ways of cross-posting your content but... it's pretty universally understood that it's low quality content and not likely to accomplish the originally intended syndication.