quilnux

Our organization dropped trust of Cloudflare and all it's IP address assignments a while back. We don't allow any data from their networks, CDNs, or A-DNS's to be received by our network.

It is just not worth dealing with Cloudflare at all in a business network.

Although a bulk of my career has been in the IT space, I've been a developer for a lot longer. I can tell you, anytime you build software as a means to a "community" it never works out. You don't build software to get a "community", you build software and a "community" will eventually evolve around it organically. A developer should never focus on anything beyond the software itself. When you lose focus of the software you are building, the project will suffer.

That's been my experience. YMMV.

I haven't heard of this distro before. What made it unique?

There is a reason that anyone who cares about forks being private forever, (even if you delete it) should never use or trust a third party. I never use Github. I run my own git server and everyone else should to in my opinion. Github has always been a huge security problem.

But that's just me...

Sadly my data was actually exposed during the hack and I haven't even had AT&T for the last 5 years. So it's pretty bad when I haven't used their service in years. I currently use Ting.

In my opinion, the term "open source" means "the source [code] is open for people to see". You might be able to stretch that to include "and modify" but that is stretching it.

That is all "open source" really means. It's open for people to see/view. Beyond that, is where a license comes in to restrict or give freedom beyond the term of "open source". That is what OSI does. Adds additional requirements within a license. It cannot change the definition of the term "open source" however.

I love how people have this unqualified belief that the OSI somehow owns the rights to define the term "open source". I guess these people don't know that OSI doesn't own any rights to the term "open source" AND when OSI tried to trademark the term, they were rejected. So "open source" doesn't have to mean what OSI says it does. OSI has their own definition of what "open source" means (which I disagree with them on). FUTO and others are well within their right to define "open source" the way they want.

If OSI had the right to define it, then they would be suing FUTO right now. They aren't because they know they can't enforce any definition of "open source".

I wrote an application that sends GPS coordinates to a Web API that plugs into Home Assistant which I use to open and close the garage door when I come home, or leave the house. 2 independent sensors confirm the action completes and if it doesn't, it re-sends the command until it does. Another sensor detects the door from the garage going into the house being opened, which closes the garage door when it was opened from the GPS application.

The application sits on a RPi in the truck powered through the cig lighter plug. I don't know how many hours I spent on it as it was a weekend project I did when I had free time (not every weekend). I can say I got it working in about 4 months though. So however many weekends I had free from that 4 month period is about how long it took. Probably 40-60 hours though.

I might look into a few clients and see if I can't contribute to make them better. I also prefer a TUI/CLI client. I don't use X11 very often personally.

My biggest consideration for Usenet (and one of the arguments that's been made against it when I've talked to people) is people aren't willing to pay for it. That was the reason I decided to ask the question about maybe doing a reset that would allow for the feed to start over to where people could host their own with minimal storage requirements. The current Usenet continuing for those who wanted it, and the newer one for those who want to either host their own, or use a friend's host or something.

So what is the best way to overcome the "I don't want to pay for it" argument when trying to sell people on the idea of using Usenet?

So efforts would be better served in training materials and perhaps software (clients and such) that is easier to use then what is current present today. Am I taking your response correctly?

I guess what I mean is, there is a lot of things that Usenet does because back in the 90's we didn't have a lot of the technology we have today. Today there are more solutions then there was which means Usenet doesn't need to be the host for things like binaries, and the like, which tend to be most of the storage consumption problems that would keep people from self-hosting on the existing network. If we started over, not utilizing binary storage and a few other things, would that not make Usenet a better service with less storage requirements? Or am I just missing it completely?