Even so, it does not follow that this community should provide that commercialization venue. If you want me involved in solving your business problems or monetization strategy, we should discuss terms and rates first.

Sounds like a reasonable set of options!

If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies.

So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted? Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?

You seem to be vastly in the minority.

Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion because I don’t think “allow all things I like and ban everything I don’t” makes for good governance ;)

So a more restrictive rule?

More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you are involved or associated).

Thank your for replying, this is encouraging and sounds like moderation of this community is shaping up.

Whichever side the ruling falls I think that feedback channel would be very good. Just having a way for a submitter to ask from mod(s) why the submission was targeted might be the difference between them turning into a great contributor vs either just leaving or starting to play circumvention games (in especially bad cases turning into antagonistic trolls). Speaking from how I’ve seen those dynamics play out in other communities.

deleted by creator

Thank you for thoughtful engagement!

I think that becomes even more problematic. Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I’m responsible for? Besides, this just lead to submarining (“viral marketing” is an entire industry!) and people pretending to “have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?” or being “just a happy customer”… And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.

Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not “written with help by AI”, obv).

Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.

And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of “which provider is best right now and what do you use?” or “Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y”.

While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).

I would like some clarity on general apparent self-promotion of open source projects as well. As in, points 1-4 don’t apply and 5 depends on your definition of “advertisement”.

I’m bringing this up because I (once) previously attempted to share a project¹ I maintain on here. I did take some effort to include some context and discussion points for selfhosters in order to make it more tailored and stay safe on Rule 3. It was quickly removed by mod. I tried reaching out to one of the mods to try to understand what was wrong. They were friendly and said they weren’t involved and would forward to the relevant people and since then I haven’t heard back. It would be very helpful to be able to get some feedback on why submission was removed so we can learn how future submission attempt could be improved (or abandoned).

¹: FLOSS, no commercial or otherwise proprietary parts or relations, no slop or clank in the process

Let’s not forget that Win7 was almost 25% as responsive as Win2k3, which could even hold a candle to GNOME.

You still need to use a privacy-centric browser

Check out Konform Browser. Least leaky one out there.

A dedicated Forgejo instance f.example.com.

For a small set of trusted “base” images (e.g. docker.io/alpine and docker.io/debian): A Forgejo Action on separate small runner, scheduled on cron to sync images to f.example.com/dockerio/ using skopeo copy.

Then all other runners have their docker/podman configuration changed to use that internal forgejo container registry instead of docker.io.

Other images are built from source in the Forgejo Actions CI. Not everything needs to be (or even should) be fully automated right off. You can keep some workflows manual while starting out and then increase automation as you tighten up your setup and get more confident in it. Follow the usual best practices around security and keep permissions scoped, giving them out only as needed.

Git repos are mirrored as Forgejo repo mirrors, forked if relevant, then built with Forgejo Actions and published to f.example.com/whatever/. Rarely but sometimes is it worth spending time on reusing existing Github Workflows from upstreams. More often I find it easier to just reuse my own workflows.

This way, runners can be kept fully offline and built by only accessing internal resources:

• apt/apk repo mirror or proxy
• synced base container images
• synced git sources

Same idea for npm or pypi packages etc.

Set up renovate¹ and iterate on its configuration to reduce insanity. Look in forgejo and codeberg infra repos for examples of how to automate rebasing of forked repo onto mirrors.

I would previously achieve the same thing by wiring together more targeted services and that’s still viable but Forgejo makes it easy if you want it all in one box. Just add TLS.

¹: Or anyone have anything better that’s straightforward to integrate? I’m not a huge fan of all the npm modules it pulls in or its github-centric perspective. Giving the same treatment to renovate itself here was a little bit more effort and digging than I think should really be necessary.

So how is mentioning Vivaldi bad?

I would guess they were probably thinking more about your Zen Browser reference¹, and your comment on Mullvad Browser. Both are misinfo and I would agree it’s good to do a little DD on your own before posting hearsay. Even with the disclaimers it’s contributing to spreading and giving credibility to those claims.

¹: Perhaps the least inspiring major FF fork from a privacy perspective… https://codeberg.org/dialhome-study/browser-network-insights

deleted by creator

The Lemmy community is broadly 50:50 on their support for said calls for the violence.

1. There’s astroturfing. Careful with judging community vibes by obviously votes but also comments.

2. There is more to “The Lemmy community” than what’s on display on .ml.

I also believe nobody here is sending threats.

I wouldn’t be so sure of your tribe. 19 users so far upvoted a comment with among other concerning bits:

if you’re anti this bullshit “law” then you are also pro physically harming poor FOSS “contributors”.

You missed this option:

• Ignore the feature and don’t use it.

systemd is quite modular. For example, if you abhor systemd-resolved (not at unreasonable stance) it’s NBD to disable it.

Recently (<1 year?) I frequently see the notion that software is “tainted” by having been touched by Bad. I find this a bit silly. Especially if it’s from a user who’s not even spending time in the codebase.

Are you keeping at default window size, or resizing? If latter, it is expected. This is a gotcha when using tiling window managers as they often force a window size that may give you off. TB should otherwise start with static fixed window size. Enabling “Letterboxing” feature can help alleviate this somewhat.

On PG: Also been seeing weird vibes and some inexplicable moderation comms and actions when looking closer. Their “recommendations” and “guides” also raise eyebrows. Something is very strange there.

Or further favourable: Konform Browser.

Tor Browser and Mullvad Browser also worthy mentions.

Cool. But…, could you name those explicitly?

Thanks for checking out! Not in the readme, because it would be a PITA to keep that up to date over time, especially when rewriting for new context each time. They are already covered in release notes and commit log¹ for the curious. You can also look under patches/kon in the source git repo.

This comes to mind.

Could you please explain why anyone should consider Konform Browser over it?

Am engineer not a salesperson or influencer. I guess that means at this early stage it’s primarily targeting the audience who are able/willing to make sense of and contextualize the given material themselves, or willing to take a leap of faith. The pros/cons vs other browsers is something I hope to leave to other users to talk about and share around. Would be cool to hear your thoughts, for example! Maybe this is relevant for some, though.

Also, pull requests attempting to improve the documentation are very much welcome. Would be great to get more contributors involved and one doesn’t have to be deeply technical to write good docs.

¹: Can click the commit hash for a release under /releases and then xxx commits to list commits for specific release

What an atrocious comment choice.

Update: Readme has been updated to be less out of date and that diff list is now more closely resembling current state of differences. In particular, local full-page translations is supported feature in Konform Browser, unlike the readme previously stated.