From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 20 Feb 2025, Salvador Mirzo wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Wed, 20 Feb 2025, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> wrote:   
   >>>> In comp.misc, Computer Nerd Kev  wrote:   
   >>>>> Indeed, so long as you block all FB's scripts and images on   
   >>>>> otherwise unrelated websites. Although I don't tend to make close   
   >>>>> friends so I don't need to worry about controlling their FB usage.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Doesn't stop people from posting about you on FB. (Or worse, posting   
   >>>> photos of you on there.)   
   >>>   
   >>> What I don't tell, they can't post, and the same with what they   
   >>> don't photograph. Although I guess that does leave a bit of an   
   >>> information vacuum there which some nutcase could exploit to make   
   >>> up missing personal info/photos on me if they so desired.   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Quite mysteriously, all sorts of otherwise respectable open-source   
   >>>>> software developers are happy to use GitHub even though it's owned   
   >>>>> by M$. So even having ditched their software long ago, M$ are now   
   >>>>> very hard to avoid online if, ironically, you want to use, and   
   >>>>> especially work on, open-source software. I find that truely   
   >>>>> unfathomable, but others barely seem to see my problem with it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Many, I suspect, started using Github before Microsoft bought them in   
   >>>> 2018.   
   >>>   
   >>> For software projects I use, many more seem to have moved to there   
   >>> since 2018 than before. You'd think they like the M$ acquisition.   
   >>> Occasionally I object and am ignored.   
   >>   
   >> You have been heard! I will not be hosting my stuff on github. On the   
   >> other hand, I have nothing interesting to host, so perhaps a moot   
   >> point. ;) My home made scripts and little utilities live on my laptop   
   >> and sometimes on my server, and are shared upon request.   
   >   
   > I think most little scripts should be documented (with a manual) and put   
   > online.  It will make it easier for others to use and it will certainly   
   > encourage others to improve it and share the improvement.  So you could   
   > see your little script turn into a nice polished program simply because   
   > someone saw the idea and knew what to do to make it a lot better.  Could   
   > be a good source of joy.   
      
   You have a point! Sigh... so much one wants to do, so little time. =( Let   
   met tell you about my little scripts. I have my old backup script   
   utilizing rsync and replicating over tor, so it can go through firewalls,   
   and uses a hidden service for a permanent global address, so it is not   
   dependent on DNS or domain names. I once had delusions of grandeur and   
   thought about rewriting a small part of tor to remove all hops since I do   
   not need anonymity for that use case.   
      
   I have my calendar sync scripts. They pull in ics from corporate calendar   
   and converts it to remind format.   
      
   Then I have a slightly rewritten leafnode that pulls down usenet articles   
   and stores them in Maildir format so I can read and write offline news in   
   my favourite email client alpine.   
      
   I also have some custom rss2email scripts, and a script that allows me to   
   take any url in an email, and fetch the page and email it to me.   
      
   Now... do you seriously think anyone would ever be interested in that? ;)   
      
   > One time I wrote a function---just a function---and added to some   
   > archive online.  This was a pretty niche programming language.  Years   
   > later, I looked it up---I was still called the author of the function,   
   > but the code was completely rewritten, with much more expertise   
   > knowledge.  I thought it was ironic that my name was still there.  We   
   > value the pioneer perhaps too much.   
      
   This is very inspirational! Thank you!   
      
   >>>> Lately I've been seeing people advocating for a switch to   
   >>>> Codeberg.   
   >>>   
   >>> I don't know about Codeberg, but there have been lots of   
   >>> alternatives all along. Tons of projects switched from SourceForge   
   >>> to GitHub. Many projects have their own websites too, so why not   
   >>> self-host? GitHub do offer a lot of extra features for free, but   
   >>> that's dealing with the devil IMHO. Especially as the more tied in   
   >>> to GitHub-specific systems a project gets, the less practical it is   
   >>> to move away if M$ get more greedy later on.   
   >>   
   >> I have heard about gitea. It seems as if it allows you to setup   
   >> graphical git hosting yourself. I personally use a fossil repository   
   >> accessible only over ssh. I don't use any of the wiki/ticket/chat   
   >> functionality included in it.   
   >   
   > There's Forgejo, too.  It looks very good.  Like in Github, you can   
   > disable all such modules---wiki, ticket system et cetera.   
   >   
      
   Thank you. Will check out, haven't heard about it!   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)