Pika

further more the opencollective project hasn’t seen an expense report for development since july of 2024 only domain renewals. so it’s not like they are working behind the scenes and just haven’t pushed anything to the gitlab (which also hasent seen any real development activity since july 2024)

edit: I just saw this on their blog.

Personally I will not do any more work on Manyverse. And my impression is no one else is planning to either. At most I might do a patch release (no features/big bug fixes) to wrap up a grant. The codebase could maybe keep living in a fork where the backend is swapped out with some other protocol, but this is a big project which would probably lose backwards compatibility with the current SSB main network, and I don’t think this is very likely to happen. Personally if I’d work on a P2P app now it’d probably be a (comparatively) “smaller” project, like a chat app or similar, using a newer protocol.

so it sounds like the project is essentially dead

I always make a ~/.local/{bin,opt,share} if the distro lacks it. and a ~/bot that I use for my development stuff

From a company POV it’s probally meant to try and encourage you to let a friend know, but it seems that the page in this case might change upon login because it says to sign in to see your deals if you are an existing member. I don’t have it though so I can’t confirm that so I’m running off assumptions based off what the “eligibility” area says

maybe they updated it, for me it says first 12 months and then specifies “new customers only” under the “who’s eligible for this plan” section on the deal page. It also doesn’t give a link to login anymore and informs existing customers to sign in to see their own specialized deal

I’m just chiming in to say that while the documentation gives you information on how to do external access, there are multiple issues open on the github about unauthenticated endpoints that if you know what is on the server already, you can confirm that it’s there

So I wouldn’t use a standard naming convention because using that knowledge, someone who cares could use common names that could be on the server, followed by common standards of formats they would be in, and be able to confirm it’s their via the end points.

Firmly agree, I think their primary issue is it’s hard to find a game that they refuse that would be a decent game to back that type of cause. This is just due to the nature of the games that get rejected on Steam. They’re the controversial leaning style games.

This one in particular for sure isn’t a good choice, because of the underage controversy but, all of these style games are also going to have a pretty vocal and not so small group against this type of effort.

I have to disagree to be honest. Not because I think that they should allow a naked guy with a young girl(gross), but because in the time that it took for steam to review the game and give a verdict, they had already changed it on their own to be a different model.

For them to refuse re-submission of the game is pretty dumb, considering that the offending content(if that is what it was) had already been fixed in the release build and steam was operating under old information.

If they haden’t already changed it for the release candidate I would be fully on board, but clearly they saw wrong in it as well which was why they had changed it prior to steams decision.

Steam forced an early release build of the game way earlier than they normally asked for, which meant it was exactly that, a pre-release build, meaning it had not gone through the proper channels for vetting or checking to make sure that what they wanted to publish was a final product. Then when requested for a review of the actual final build, steam refused. This combined with the fact that the only storefront that blocked the release was steam, I definitely think steam is the bad guy here.

BEING SAID, this might not be the reason anyway, reading the struggles of this games development process, steam had already posted concern about the live action portions of the game, so I’m expecting it might have been a combination of the nudity aspect of the game (even if not intended to arouse) and the live action portions. I assume steam was already looking for a reason to block this release, and when they were given one they just went with it.

yea but he wouldn’t need to handle that, I do all his setup, he just has to click the shortcut that opens the game just like he does currently.

We all have been there. First technical build I struggled for 45 minutes trying to figure out why I was getting a zero display whatsoever only to find out that I plugged that damn HDMI cable into the wrong port, and the board had disabled everything including post and splash from using the motherboards port

you arent the only one. I had suck a painful onboarding process with next cloud from the docker setup to the speed of it to the UI that I just gave up and decided to use a combination of immich and syncthing instead.

My grandfather’s reason for it. “It will be too different from my current system”

… the only thing he does is the web browser, and bookworm deluxe which i have confirmed does work via wine. I was recommending him install an OS called q4os, which I have on my laptop, I showed him the side by side comparison of q4os vs windows. For a point of reference this is what q4os looks like

I think he is too scared of change.

Fair, the first thing I teach anyone who gets a dualboot up and running, is how to install boot repair disk on a flash drive and how to run the system repair on it(easy enough since it autoruns). It fixes most basic BS that windows can do to a Linux install

I guess that really depends on the equipment though, some devices when you turn it on for the first time will automatically enter pairing mode, so all that had to be done is click it in the bluetooth menu, but it might not auto enter pairing mode when you turn it on after. So it’s unlikely the user ever knew they were pairing it, and just clicked through the prompts like many do

I somewhat agree with their mentality on post 2022 Debian since they had changed the default and made it harder to disable non-free from the start but, from what I understood by reading the FAQ page, even prior to bookworm it wasn’t endorsed due to having the toggle in the first place, which I find super weird.

It didn’t until 2022 or so, it’s had a toggle that can be turned on or off for non-free repo’s for as long as I can remember but, starting around 2022 they changed the default to allow for non-free (and also apparently made it a pain in the butt for the live install to disable it because its a boot param now instead of a toggle)

They actually explain why they don’t endorse Debian in the link the person above you added. Apparently since you /can/ enable the non-free repos in the installer, it doesn’t classify as 100% free. I don’t agree with the statement and find it weird, but that’s how they defined it.

It’s not just by default it seems, they excluded Debian because it had a toggle to be able to choose to add it during install(pre-2022), so it seems that their criteria is any type of affiliation with non-free software

ooo thats a cool website. Just for the funnies I just threw the top 35 (as shown by fediverse observer) into it.

this entire thing has made me really rethink whether I want to swap to the new repo or not.

Why was there no communication about it. The gplay repo maintainer wasn’t informed of anything, no public notice to anyone was given, just a transfer of the repo and a status issue here explaining it.

Obviously the act is genuine as they were able to keep the original keys but like, this entire system seemed really sketchy.

I’m also not happy with the fact that it seems the first thing they added was removing checksums, but that might be a temp thing.

I also just noticed that it looks like they removed the entire public key for it, which if they had the original private keys using the existing public keys shouldn’t be an issue right?

One of my drives crippled itself a few days back, not sure what caused it. Wasn’t able to be resolved without a host restart which was unfortunate. SMART isn’t failing and has been working fine, so I’m chalking it down to a weird Proxmox bug or something.

For sure expected I was going to need to do a rollback on an entire drive after that restart though. Still may have to if it reoccurs.