Being honest and being unfiltered are two wildly different traits.

Code isn't the only thing that needs tests. Your CI/CD and operational tooling are often littered with rarely exercised code paths. Unless you want a surprise when responding to incidents, you should probably have something exercise those regularly.

I love how the failure modes of the doors in star wars always agree with the situation the main characters are in.

After trying to resist for quite a while, I've slowly slipped back to using GitHub exclusively. The core tech was easily substituted (git and UI), but the integrations and community were not. Nearly everything I did lead straight back to GitHub, making going against the grain uncomfortable.

Of all the logos I've made, I'm particularly proud of getos', it makes me smile everytime I see it ^_^

How would folks feel about: patenting a thing, writing the only implementation as GPLv3+, and giving full rights to the patent for any GPLv3+ licensed implementation. Then using the patent to block non-free implementations and selling individual dual-licenses for non-GPL use as a way of supporting the project.

“A good rule of thumb for any relationship is to leave three unimportant things unsaid each day” — Kim Scott

Maybe a variation that only required a paid license for _commercial_ usage. You can use it for your own stuff, but if you make money from it you have to pay for a license.

How would folks feel about a variation of the GPL that didn't include the right to run the software? The source code would be available, you could study/modify/share the source code, and could run the software to _validate_ your changes only. Using the software for any real work would require a paid license. Folks sharing modifications would do so under the same license. They could chose to either distribute their patches for free, or also charge for the right to run the patch.

I feel that focusing only on the right to run actually _discourages_ open source contributions by placing the maintenance burden at the feet of the project maintainers. Without a community that values the other rights, there is a high cost to a project owner when open sourcing. It's often easier to keep software closed source than to deal with the maintenance burden of giving everyone the right to run without anyone else having the desire to study and change.

Freedom respecting software is about the right to run, study, change, and redistribute software. I feel that the Open Source community is focused on the first point, the right to run, but the others are IMO more important. The right to study gives humanity the ability to learn and grow together. The right to change allows users to customize software to their needs. The right to redistribute allows you to share the cool new stuff you build with your friends.

The more I build, the more I see real dev-time and operational value in breaking problem domains apart into separate process spaces (and code bases!) and coordinating w/ IPC. Going back to monolithic development for end user applications is painful. I feel like bash is the only mainstream language designed for shipping to end users that does a pretty good job of breaking problems up across process boundaries and coordinating IPC. is moving to!

Photo is of the _entire_ app after migration (other than the svg template in badge.js).

See it live at:

For both the Sony WH1000XM3 and Bose QC35 noise cancelling headphones, all of these controls for music (pause/play/skip/back/etc). All I want is mute/unmute for calls. Why is this not a thing?

Just finished binge watching the Twilight Saga, AMA

I wish node_modules played nicely with git bisect... `rm -rf node_modules && npm install && npm test` on every step is time consuming and exhausting.

Show more

Fosstodon is a Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.