donetick.com

I know someone who’s literally making that right now. Remind me in a week, I’ll send you the link. He’ll probably be done by then.

Edit: donetick.com

For XMPP, have you looked into using snikket? It does most things you’d want out of the box without having to setup extensions yourself.

Which sites or apps does it not pop up? It is rare for it not to pop up for me.

Here is a docker compose: https://snikket.org/service/resources/docker-compose.yml

You only two configuration options in the config file: domain and email.

I’ve been wanting to do this exact thing. I already have wireguard setup. Please update us if you do this.

This makes matrix even less attractive to me lol. But you’re right, that’s a very good point.

cumbersome to parse

Parsers have already existed for so long in every major language. Why need to worry about parsing?

And why need to worry about transports working differently if they achieve the same thing? They seem similarly convenient if I understood what you said correctly

Why is JSON better than XML? It’s more modern, sure, but from technical perspective it is not objectively better right? Not something worth switching protocols for.

You mention XMPP has transports as opposed to Matrix bridges. I thought they give you roughly the same outcome. What’s the difference?

I have two arguments: first, it’s not true that the OSI coined the term. But more importantly, it isn’t even important if it was true. What matters is the context in which the open source movement emerged, and how people who use the term think of it.

The open source / free software movement was born in universities who primarily wanted to erase the barriers on collaboration between them, and wanted to follow an open model. They grew frustrated of the proprietary and opaque model of software written by major corporations. They could not use it. So they decided to write their own free software and combine their efforts to not rely on corporate or proprietary software.

Back then, corporations were uninterested in open source. In fact they were hostile to it and wanted it to die. The issue that we deal with today of corporations leeching on open source did not exist, so the fact that the movement did not specifically fight this does not mean they’re okay with it. The corporate hostility took a different form and that’s what they combatted.

On OSI coining the term, the OSI themselves claim it was coined by Christine Peterson. They do not claim that they founded the term, nor that the founder had an affiliation with them: https://opensource.org/history

with strong copyleft licenses, businesses must give back, namely when expanding the program

A user is required to make the source open only if they create a derivative work of the copyleft licensed work, and only if said work was distributed to users. And if I remember correctly, it is only required to open the source to the users it was distributed to.

They do not have to do any profit sharing or donation. They are not even required to make the code open source if they merely use this program, or they interface with it. They are not required to do anything if they only use it internally.

no, thats also the open source definition

Correction: the definition of open source by a specific organization, the OSI.

I don’t remember voting or appointing the OSI as our legitimate representative. But you know who did? Corporations like Amazon, Google, Bloomberg, and many of them: https://opensource.org/sponsors

I do not subscribe to a definition from such an organization, just because it has open source in the name.

I am pretty sure that if you ask most open source developers if they are happy about corporations profitting off their software without giving back, they would say no.

The FSF and OSI do not allow licenses that limit corporate leech or restrict profiting of software without giving back.

That’s the FSF definition. Most users and developers of open source do not care at all about that, and certainly do not care about protecting corporate right to use their software without giving back.

To many of them, open source is about transparency, community driven development, open contribution model, forkability, etc.

it is not FOSS

If you take the OSI or FSF definition, sure. Not all of us take that definition.

For many people, the appeal of open source has nothing to do with how easy it is for corporations. It is about transparency, the ability to contribute, and the community driven product as a result. It is about the ability to pick up the project if the original developer stops using it, even decades later. It’s about the ease of interfacing with said software.

Again, you may quote the FSF, but there are too many users of open source, as well as developers, who got into it for the reasons I stated. I can assure you that they are not doing it so that corporations can profit off their software without giving back.

Been using them for over a year now. I’m not a proud or loyal customer, but it’s a very generous free tier and I haven’t regretted it.

It’s futile. You are no match against a multi national corporation.

Not just the pricing, but also the low footprint, tiny size and fanlessness.

Be careful that sometimes these providers will shut you down for hosting media servers. Even if your content is not illegally obtained.