Back when the GNU project was starting, among the first things they rewrote as Free Software were:
- text editor / IDE (Emacs)
- assembler, linker, and compiler
- make

IOW, they made tools that they needed to further develop Free Software without relying on proprietary tools.

They wanted their project to be self-hosting.

Nowadays, we have more free software than ever, but we develop it using github and Discord...

@Wolf480pl this is issue with people. People tend to stich with a single solution which everybody uses. There are lots of quailty source "forges" (i.e. Gitlab, Gitea, SourceHut), but people stick with GitHub for a reason that "everybody uses GitHub".

At the moment, when everybody will use open and free forge. Especially when the will be adopted.

1/2

@Wolf480pl
But it is harder instant messagging systems. Every one of them has one issue that makes it harder to use.

IRC - lack of history *on server*. I don't see reason to chat if the history is not saved even for several minutes.

XMPP - it's high entrance point. Too much clients and servers supporting different featuresets.

Matrix - it's pretty young and suffers from it.

RocketChat - AFAIK it was buggy as hell, when last time I was using.

Gitter is very tight coupled with non-free software

Follow

@alexcleac @Wolf480pl network effects are a very real and very dangerous thing.

If only there were some possible way to cap usage of any particular instance at something under a million users, no matter the technology.

@RandomDamage @alexcleac
Well, one way is to make sure your software doesn't scale vertically.

But then, it'd be hard to make a protocol such that no implementation could ever possibly scale vertically.

And even if it was possible, I'd feel bad for designing a protocol this way.

The software is supposed to be a tool in user's hand, not a way for its author to control the users.

@RandomDamage @alexcleac

I could make a protocol with a 10-bit number serving as user id, so that there can't be more than 1024 users on a single domain.

But that'd be stupid and unethical.

@Wolf480pl @alexcleac and ineffective.

I meant for *any* instance of *any* protocol to max out at a million users, even e-mail.

Not possible, of course, but it would be so much healthier than what we've got.

@RandomDamage @alexcleac hm, I know only one mechanism that would allow sth like that to apply to all past and future protocols: law.

Ofc it may be a vefy bad idea, but I think sth like Article 13 but without upload filters could have a similar effect... something that exponentailly increases the probability of getting sued as you gain more users...

@Wolf480pl @alexcleac it might. Of course existing big sites would fight it tooth and claw.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!