pemptago

It's easy-- if you install on a single drive. If you want home on a separate drive, encryption is not so easy, and you have to learn about cryptsetup, crypttab, etc. Quite a steep learning curve compared to the installer. I do hope distros provide better coverage of this in the future. Having home on a separate drive and encrypted is just good practice.

Every few updates my Pop_OS! suspend would break (sleep and not wake, or sleep and wake immediately). I could never figure it out beyond knowing NVIDIA was the source. Worked around it by swapping my graphics card to a comparable AMD card-- now my machine sleeps like a baby.

After several failed hotfixes, Blizzard ended the pandemic by performing a hard reset, and a later patch prevented companions from contracting Corrupted Blood entirely.

Note to the future: next pandemic, try a hard reset.

Seriously though, it's wild they couldn't hotfix it.

Can't easily verify on mobile, but iirc last time I inspected the html that site had a google tracker and there's a commented line acknowledging the irony and challenges you to fight them. I could have it mistaken with another, similar site, though.

Edit: Sorry for the misinformation. The site was https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ which contained the html:

<!--  yes, I know...wanna fight about it?  -->
<script async="" src="//www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js">

Bonus points for purchasing on bandcamp fridays (more money goes to the artists). Two left in 2025: Oct 3 and Dec 5.

I could see that. I have a few projects I'd love to explore in VR, but I'm glad giving Zuck access to our pupil dilation data never took off. I wonder if VR would be better off if oculus stayed independent. Sure it got a lot of funding and dev, but that happening under meta's control really lost its appeal-- for me anyways. I still hope open source projects like simulavr will take off one day.

Metaverse and VR such a colossal failure it's not even remembered as bullshit they were trying to sell us.

Surely there's an outlier. A record-breaking "oldest" dog older than-- Nope

My username comes from "pemptagonist," the fifth most important character in a play (after protagonist, deuteragonist, etc). I thought it was funny, but maybe there's something in that because I don't trust my luck one bit.

Maybe, but if so, I bet it's negligible. When it comes to discovery, there's so many places I'd look for FOSS projects before going GH. Except maybe to check awesome-lists, but you don't have to be on GH to be linked on one (and I've seen them popping up on Codeberg). GH's design in general doesn't seem to promote stumbling across new projects. Even if I'm wrong, one could always mirror on GH.

As for contributing, if someone is willing to go though the trouble to contribute, I'd hope they'd go through the trouble of signing up on a new platform. Maybe there's a non-zero number of contributors who would not, and that's an unacceptable for some projects. There's also potential for more contributors if they trust a project is living FOSS principles and less at-risk of vender lock-in. The fosstodon thread shows people care about where a project lives. The arguments in favor of staying on GH seemed mostly inertia-based.

You're right. I don't mean to minimize the effort required. The effort required is a big part of the argument in favor of moving, or at least aspiring to move to a platform with more open and interoperable values. I can't imagine MS will make that transition any easier as time goes on despite forgejo and others best efforts. I've no problem with an OSS projects using GH but I'd hope they'd take the risk more seriously in a discussion about it.

Edit: I also don't think the effort is wasted or insurmountable. Regarding broken links, I've stumbled across many projects that have changed their GH repo to a mirror and link to their new platform. And RE logistical v philosophical reasons, I consider avoiding vender lock-in to be risk management and part of a project's long-term logistics.

I agree, and I can forgive OSS projects still using it, but if they're inviting a discussion about it I'd hope they'd be more sensitive that:

1. github is not static
2. being on a Microsoft platform carries a significant risk (embrace, extend, extinguish).
3. There are plenty of successful OSS hosted elsewhere and each one helps the whole system grow.