Sickday

As someone with a burned out 9800x3D and an equally useless X870 motherboard, I would personally say to maybe wait for benchmarks, user reviews, and such for whatever CPU AMD puts out in 2027.

A bit surprised there was no discussion about this on any Fediverse instances.

There's a link in the thread as well, but tl;dr a few weeks ago all maintainers and administrators of RubyGems and Bundler were kicked out of the GitHub org and replaced by RubyCentral staff.

Here's another article better explaining the situation https://thenewstack.io/open-source-turmoil-rubygems-maintainers-kicked-off-github/

As far as what DHH has to do with this, the article shared in the actual framework thread goes into better detail.

https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/

About six hours after Ellen broke the news, Ruby Central published their response: Strengthening the Stewardship of RubyGems and Bundler.

A post that feels like AI-generated corporate speak and bears no signature from anyone at Ruby Central willing to take responsibility.

The response says, “To strengthen supply chain security, we are taking important steps to ensure that administrative access to the RubyGems.org, RubyGems, and Bundler is securely managed. This includes both our production systems and GitHub repositories. In the near term we will temporarily hold administrative access to these projects while we finalize new policies that limit commit and organization access rights. This decision was made and approved by the Ruby Central Board as part of our fiduciary responsibility.”

But while Ruby Central has the right to lock down the RubyGems.org Service infrastructure, it never owned the RubyGems GitHub repositories.

DHH ignored Ellen’s post but instead retweeted the Ruby Central announcement with the caption “Ruby Central is making the right moves to ensure the Ruby supply chain is beyond reproach both technically and organisationally.”

A position that seems to stand in stark contrast to his other opinions. For example, he criticised Apple’s control of the App Store and takes the ownership of his own open source projects seriously.

Friendly reminder that seedboxes are definitely worth it. Go for a seedbox if you can afford it

Sure. I wrote the docker-compose file in the repository. Unless something major has changed, it should be pretty straightforward to just clone the repo and then run

$ docker compose up

Time to move to nebula? :)

Really wish I knew about Jellyfin 5 years ago. So much of my money I could've redirected to a seedbox or a decent vpn service. Fuck streaming services

Back to IRC we go...

I'm crushed they left out Let's Get Dirty. Or maybe it was licensing issues.

i'd just go to a local fast food resturant and bring my portable piracy machine

What will they do when entire College campuses lose internet access because half their students are pirating text books

You might have a point if those people had no choice

Yes exactly and I may haved leaned on that a bit to make my point here. I worked at an MSP where 90% of their clients had the exact setup I mentioned, so workers had no choice but to run TeamViewer. The company would refuse any other recommendations specifically because it had already paid for a number of perpetual licenses and (at least at the time) free alternatives were limited. It was really awful even back then (~2015ish).

And for what it's worth, I also agree that TeamViewer is an awful company and the software itself is awful, and of course if you can help it don't fucking use it today lol.

The argument is that anyone still using TeamViewer deserves this, and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted bym this change so it's irrelevant.

That's your argument, and I disagree with it. I've already shared why.

and anyone who isn't isn't actually impacted by this change so it's irrelevant.

This is also wrong. Having the license revoked means the people who had one can't use it at all whether they were using it or not. Let's set aside that you shouldn't advocate or endorse a company selling a product, shitting the bed, then revoking the product from those that already paid for it.

You'd be surprised, but there's tons of small companies and organizations that rely solely on viewing software, some ancient version of Windows Server, and a remote toaster for administration still to this day. Those people are directly impacted by this.

I don't think they deserve a license revocation because I don't think any company should be able to take back a product that a user has purchased for no cited reason. Which is the case here.