Whitestrake

While it doesn't address your request not to link them in the first place... For anyone looking to bypass the paywalls when they are linked: you can copy the article's title and search Google for `site:wsj.com [title]`.

I would have assumed that people wouldn't turn on their Strava to track their military activity, either, but here we are.

Is writing "plain old JS in a text editor" really that rare nowadays?

Honest question - I've only done a few websites, some with basic JS functionality and a few more advanced (for a website, that is) Go apps now - but never really felt the urge or need to reach for the "modern JS scene", so I'm unsure just how prevalent that kind of setup is.

Firefox likewise has toggles for disabling autoplay in background tabs (on by default) and disabling autoplay completely (off by default).

Both are commonly used, although "end-to-end" is correct as it indicates a compound adjective - a phrase acting as a single adjective affecting the noun ("encryption") that follows it.

I use vscode as a Golang IDE. It's pretty comprehensive with the extension that integrates the Go toolchain.

I tried Gogland EAP for a while, and liked it a bit better, but now it's a paid product, I'm happy with vscode (which has 95% of the features I use and 0% of the price).

It might indicate this well in text, but in speech it'll be "the Tesla suit", which I could reasonably believe to be one of Elon's crazy ideas.

It's a simple misconception to correct, though.

For a minute, I thought your comment had simply trailed off without finishing your thought.

Then I realised it wasn't "Microsoft Skype", but rather, "before Microsoft, Skype had..."

One thing that might explain this is that your phone could be pulling data from your computer, rather than your computer trying to connect to your phone to push data to it.

For each individual video, it is a onetime CPU cost, but not a onetime bandwidth cost.

For ongoing operation of the platform, at scale, you might argue that it's an ongoing CPU cost as more and more videos are added constantly, but the bandwidth to distribute those videos goes up at an equal rate on average.

I don't know any actual numbers, but it seems very plausible to me that a vast increase in CPU cost for a minor decrease of bandwidth cost could still be a welcome trade-off.

If you're making an argument that availability of CPU power at that scale is a concern, it seems like YouTube has the option of Google's cloud services as an excellent candidate for massive, interruptible compute power.

If everyone waited a day or two before patching, this bug would simply be opened a day or two later than it was.

This was my understanding too. Their Sources page[1] indicates that they run a crawler called DuckDuckBot (implying some indexing takes place), and have community maintained/crowd-sourced data as well.

[1] https://duck.co/help/results/sources

It seems that the fallacy of characterizing a large community (e.g. reddit, HN) as a single entity capable of things like hypocrisy is becoming more and more commonplace.

For comparison, my Samsung phones have had CPU underclocking in the low power modes. I'm not sure if that's true of all Androids or not.

Other than:

1. Allow performance to degrade

2. Allow longevity to degrade

3. Allow the battery to be replaced

4. Some revolutionary battery technology that doesn't degrade??

What solutions are you thinking of?

It's still called that.

I access them on my phone now.

Honest question:

Is a license violation not equivalent to unlicensed use of code?

I mean, if you don't meet the terms of a license, you're not eligible to use the code under that license. That means you have no license to the code, and therefore are in breach of copyright, no?

How is that different from just using someone else's code outright - you're breaching copyright and you're not licensed, no?

Would a trial to determine theft of property normally be called a "theft trial"?

I assumed that if that were the case, it would follow logically that an "intellectual theft trial" would be a trial to determine theft of intellectual property. I suppose it might be strange if the former is not common vernacular.

One option would be paying for a VPS on AWS or Linode or DigitalOcean or Vultr or any number of similar providers - pick the lowest spec machine, raw network throughput is not very hardware dependent - and set the VPN up yourself.

Streisand is pretty useful for this purpose.

https://github.com/StreisandEffect/streisand

I get chills when I listen to some music - I thought that was universal, or at least commonplace. Just how unique is getting chills supposed to be that it might be a marker for a "unique" brain?

> Now, when the company controlling the upstream project is chafging for the same functionality your patches provide...

It's important to correct this statement, which is either disingenuous or just incorrect.

Light Code Labs is not charging its users for the functionality of the Caddy server. They are charging its users to provide pre-compiled binaries with optional customization in the form of a selection of plugins and server types.

Don't conflate binaries distributed under EULA via the build server at caddyserver.com with the actual functionality of the (still 100% free) software. You're welcome to (not) contribute and (not) benefit, at your leisure.

As the actual post linked by OP states, the maintainers tried support contracts. Nobody bought them, so it wasn't sustainable. Their options were to look for other solutions or stop maintaining the project. You may or may not prefer that they abandoned it instead, but they made a choice.

To compile without the `Caddy-Sponsors` header, include this line before the plugin comment:

    sed -ie '/Header().Set("Caddy-Sponsors/d' ../caddyhttp/httpserver/server.go

> That said, the unalterable Caddy-Sponsors HTTP header feels bad, and cheapens my overall impression of Caddy as a quality product.

Hit the nail on the head. There's lots of reasons why this is a non-problem, intellectually speaking, but none of the arguments for this remove the bad taste in my mouth, emotionally speaking. The other news doesn't bother me, but the header... disappoints me.

Well, everyone's opinion is valid and useful as feedback.

The good part is, if you can't justify the price, surely you can justify the time to write a bash script to compile it yourself? Further up this comments page is one fantastic example. There's still plenty of options, really, not much has changed.

Yeah, they could have got away with waiting, maybe even a few days for everything to settle before making contact.

But they're here in this thread, paying attention to the discussion, and people have wasted no time in making the fork in the first place.

At the very least, I think the "absolutely devoid of class" comment is uncalled for. I don't think it's unreasonable, not even in terms of time frame, even if I disagree with the manner in which it was done.

> Well, what do you think their next step is if they refuse?

A valid point, and one we both know the answer to - I won't try to argue otherwise.

While I think their statement on the issue page was not handled very well, and I would have tried to avoid the implicit threat... Do you think they should have just left it alone without saying anything once they were made aware of it?

> The authors are also wasting no time in going after forks[1] to complain about trademark infringement, so if you want to distribute your own patched Caddy builds you can expect to hear from their lawyers. Absolutely devoid of class.

This in particular doesn't seem fair. Trademark really requires trademark holders to make active efforts to preserve their trademarks as soon as they're aware of potential breaches, or they invite risk. And this is a simple request in the fork's issues page - no lawyers are involved yet, as far as I can tell.

I think your outburst might be rooted in a misunderstanding.

As stated in a few other places in this thread, the software remains 100% free, including for commercial purposes.

In order to make use of the build server at caddyserver.com, you need to have either a personal or commercial license. The build server provides precompiled binaries with your customized selection of plugins included.

The use of the build server is in no way necessary for the deployment of Caddy in any circumstance.

> Does anyone know if there's significant pain in maintaining a docker image that compiles source code like Caddy on rebuild?

It's insignificant. Multi-stage Dockerfiles mean you can build from the Golang image, pull mholt/caddy, compile to a binary, then distribute the result in a tiny Alpine image.

I believe the maintainer of the current most popular Caddy image will be going source-compiled, too, so you might not even need to roll your own Dockerfile.

I'm not sure I agree with you there.

The most popular Docker image for Caddy, for example, should soon (if it's not already) be compiled from source, rather than from the build server. That means it will remain free to use, and I personally don't have to make a single change.

If this has impacted you negatively to the point where setting up nginx is an easier option, well - that's the beauty of choice!