38
submitted 3 days ago by [email protected] to c/programming

Martin Kleppmann sets out a vision: "In local-first software, the availability of another computer should never prevent you from working."

He describes the evolution of how to classify local-first software, how it differs from offline-first, and proposes a bold future where data sync servers are a commodity working in tandem with peer-to-peer sync, freeing both developers and users from lock-in concerns.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

It's convenient until you want to upgrade the distro.

25
submitted 5 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
35
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
47
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/rust
23
SimCity 2000 Music: 10012 (www.youtube.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
25
The GlobalTalk Network (www.youtube.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Hmm wasn't there some kerfuffle recently about how the kernel was going to start self-issuing CVEs en masse? Is this the result of that plan?

39
Passkeys: A Shattered Dream (fy.blackhats.net.au)
submitted 1 month ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
39
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
80
submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/rust
11
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
39
submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
30
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
[-] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago

That is the discussion. Microsoft is pretending by making it the upgrade path for two products which actually are local, and hoping users won't notice.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

Honestly I'm glad they highlighted the telemetry. I went through the local report about what's included and while it's not an upsetting level of detail, it's more comprehensive than I would have opted in to if asked.

Still, as sibling points out it's in a completely different league from slurping up your IMAP creds, something which has always been local-only data. This is the second time I know of recently where MS has trampled on this kind of local-only expectation - the other was Edge defaulting to sending the contents of textboxes you're filling out on webpages to the MS cloud for spelling and grammar checks. Thunderbird is still a sound recommendation, and unlike Microsoft, I trust that if I uncheck the telemetry box they're not going to try to get me some other way.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Sitting there watching with satisfaction as MSDOS 6.22 DEFRAG.EXE did its thing.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

Not necessarily in the fediverse world. If server costs are being covered by donations from 4% of users, a volunteer admin will probably be quite happy whereas a commercial operator will undoubtedly think "damn I have 96% freeloaders, that's leaving money on the table".

[-] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Lots of previous discussion on this thread: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/578847

[-] [email protected] 28 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ask yourself, in three years from now will you be thinking "it's so nice how Meta lets me follow and interact with their enormous userbase for free, without advertising, using my own open source server and frontend"?

Remember that's the basic expectation today for a participant in the fediverse. If this feels implausible, doing anything else is very incompatible with the fediverse's existing values.

The problem isn't just that it's Meta, it's any situation where a much larger actor comes in with different motivations. Today we have a small number of users whose servers are almost exclusively run on a "community service" model. Meta is an advertising business. They are much bigger and will define the fediverse if allowed in. If we allow them to connect, it should be much later after organic growth which means we can assimilate them properly and deflect any bad behaviour.

What might happen if Meta throws their weight around? I can predict at least three outcomes

  • Proprietary variations to ActivityPub, probably starting with something that seems "understandable" like moderation reasons.
  • Certain new features get centralised on Meta's servers only (e.g. search) claiming that it's for efficiency in the distributed environment.
  • Claiming spam problems, require individual instance operators or their users to verify themselves with Meta to enable federation.

The question in my mind is whether their intention is to destroy the competition, or keep the fediverse alive as a way to claim that they are not a technical monopoly that needs to be broken up by regulators, in the same way that Google provides most of the funding for Firefox.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Thanks for all the work on the instance!

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

Yes. The interaction with the Rust Foundation is described in the linked RFC.

The Council is responsible for establishing the process for selecting Project directors. The Project directors are the mechanism by which the Rust Project's interests are reflected on the Rust Foundation board.

The Council delegates a purview to the Project directors to represent the Project's interests on the Foundation Board and to make certain decisions on Foundation-related matters. The exact boundaries of that purview are out of scope for this RFC.

view more: next ›

thomask

joined 1 year ago
MODERATOR OF