~tuxpup

Recent activity

Re: Discuss: proposed changes to the SourceHut terms of service 3 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

I started by reading the diff linked at the top of your email, then the rest 
of your email.

This:
> The short of it is that all public projects would be required to use
> licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation, Open Source
> Initiative, or Creative Commons, within 90 days of appearing on sr.ht.
> These changes, if we moved forward with them, would be announced 90 days
> in advance to give you ample time to deal with the changes as necessary
> for your projects.

was alarming to me initially. Mentally, I consider unlisted repositories 
"public" but I most frequently use them when I haven't done the legwork to 
make sure licensing is in order and I'm seeking limited feedback from a small

Re: sr.ht wikis aren't 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:14:06 AM EDT Noah Pederson wrote:
> This is my understanding too. I believe part of the point of a 'wiki', back
> when the idea was first created was to allow for quick, direct edits to the
> page. By that definition, man.sr.ht doesn't meet the definition, but
> GitHub's wiki pages do.

Interesting! I just understood it as edited by the community, not so much as 
specifying how the editing should occur.

Thanks for clarifying. (And if OP is still reading... why did you link us to 
an amazon book instead of adding a sentence like this, if this is what you had 
in mind?)

Re: sr.ht wikis aren't 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 10:45:44 AM EDT Drew DeVault wrote:
> Such a feature is planned for man.sr.ht, so I think it qualifies, or at
> least can be forgiven for being an incomplete alpha-quality project.

And isn't editing possible today via git send-email? Even wikipedia has access 
controls... that doesn't seem to pull it into "not a wiki" territory.

Re: sr.ht wikis aren't 4 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 10:28:18 AM EDT Colby Russell wrote:
> On 5/6/20 8:48 AM, Drew DeVault wrote:
> > Would you care to explain
> > what you believe
> > to be the qualifications
> 
> It sounds already like writing anything will be time wasted, so I won't.
> 
> Here are some links instead:
> 
> *
> <https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D020171499X#The_Wiki_Way:_Quick_Co
> llaboration_on_the_Web> * <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wiki#Etymology>

[PATCH] Mention the new GPLv3 official proton SMTP/IMAP bridge. 5 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

Mentioning this seems more appealing now that it's FOSS.

---
 index.html | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 4e0acf3..ba7d1f3 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -341,12 +341,17 @@
    </div>
    <p>
      <strong>Notice</strong>: Use of IMAP and SMTP with Protonmail requires
[message trimmed]

Re: [PATCH git-send-email.io] Add link to ProtonMail Bridge 5 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

On Friday, February 7, 2020 10:59:56 AM EDT Steven Peguero wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 6, 2020, at 14:45, Drew DeVault wrote:
> > Not going to add this. I don't encourage the use of proprietary
> > software.
> 
> Good call. We shouldn’t make exceptions for such a service.

It may now be worth reconsidering this addition; the software in question is 
now available under GPLv3: https://github.com/ProtonMail/proton-bridge

Re: API for submitting secrets to builds.sr.ht 5 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Thursday, March 26, 2020 9:22:05 AM EDT Drew DeVault wrote:
> > 2. 100% FLOSS
> 
> Note that this has no bearing on whether or not sr.ht is FLOSS, I have
> already committed that sr.ht is and always will be 100% FLOSS.

Thank you for that, by the way. And thank you also for hosting an instance for 
such a modest cost. I could host this myself, but I like the service you 
provide and I want to support you directly.

You've displaced a couple of things that I used but had been mildly 
uncomfortable with for a while and given me a good new default that I like.

This might be offtopic, but here are the remaining reasons I use other forges:

Re: Your Thoughts on my Rebuttal 6 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

On Friday, March 20, 2020 12:25:30 AM EDT Programmer@verisimilitudes.net 
wrote:
> Well, I suppose it's clear I won't get any thoughts from you, Drew Devault,
> as I'm being ignored so.

In your rebuttal, you at turns called him a "fanatic", "ridiculous", 
"purposefully misleading", "boring" and you say that he betrays a "fundamental 
lack of understanding" of "abstractions."

Why on earth would you then want a response? When I hold someone in such low 
regard, I do my level best to ignore them, not make them talk more! While I'm 
curious as to what could possibly motivate that, that's not why I'm replying.

You say:

Re: Blobs status on Pine64 laptops [Re: Fucking laptops] 6 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/public-inbox

Pinebook Pro also needs keyboard and trackpad firmware blobs, and they have 
been unable to open those (yet).

Folks have asked or source code to those blobs, and Pine64 cannot make it 
available so far.

On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 9:52:45 AM EST Arti Zirk wrote:
> Just to clarify
> 
> Older Pinebook with Allwinner 64 SoC do not use any blobs[1]. 3D and
> video decode acceleration is supported by mainline Linux(>=5.2) and
> Mesa(>=19.1) via Credus and Lima projects.
> 
> Pinebook Pro with RockChip RK3399 is in a similar position[1][2]. Since

Re: Supporting user groups/organizations on SourceHut 7 months ago

From Geoff Beier to ~sircmpwn/sr.ht-discuss

On Friday, February 14, 2020 11:36:25 AM EST Greg B wrote:
> Knowing whether something is owned by a group or an individual tells
> me nothing of interest about that thing. It provides me effectively
> zero context. It seems useful only if I need to make decisions based
> on it, but I don't see it informing many decisions other than what
> branch to take in code.
> 
> But I am left with the question I started with. To whom does this
> implementation detail matter? The only answer I can come up with (this
> is explicitly not equivalent to claiming that it's the only answer) is
> that it matters to implementers, but not much to others. So I'm left
> with my second question. What am I missing here that makes it
> important to me as not-a-developer-of-SourceHut?