I find it a bit ridiculous to see that people or whole teams don't want to use JJ (or any tool, for that matter) because in essence they hired a "support intern" (read: AI assistant) who doesn't know or want to use it.
This is meant just for computers, right? A quick check of the readme showed that devices must run this or that commands, which seems difficult to do on an smartphone. I guess the ngrok-like setup would be the way to go for that case, given the increasing prevalence of phones and tablets as the single form of computing for lots of people
I've been thinking a lot about this case specifically. And you are right, phones are largely not supported right now - I've been researching how to make that happen. One case I've found that works for me currently is running connet via Termux - and I've made the necessary changes to support that.
Native iOS/Android clients, if possible, will probably be the next things I'll work on. At minimum they should enable you to run a "source" (e.g. a consumer of an exposed service), but ideally it will be the whole deal.
Growth at any cost. Once growth is unable to increase the wealth of the shareholders the money has to be diverted from elsewhere, via cuts. Money gotta keep flowing upwards.
But the second was always the case, windows and everything else is getting shittier so fast it would require a prompt explanation if we didn't have one.
I'd like to take the opportunity to mention a tiny very useful app that allows opening a WhatsApp chat directly with any number, without having to register it first as a contact. Great for vacations or similar situations where a quick one-time chat is needed with somebody:
Ah, this is handy, as Europe (even more than the UK somehow) seems to love engaging in customer service via WhatsApp. On the continent I end up having to use it to manage bookings for Hotels and restaurants. I removed my profile picture because of this.
In fact that's simply what the app does. It's just a handy way to have it on the phone as a shortcut and not having to remember the details of how to do it. Although with the sibling comments about Whatsapp itself allowing to do all this, the helper app seems less useful now.
Correction, in case you're interested: Whatsapp does (and has always done) allow local file backups. I know because they are just there on the storage:
Android/media/com.whatsapp/WhatsApp/Backups/
I also know because for many years I was VERY cloud-averse so for several iterations of smartphone purchases I did migrate my chat backups between phones (plain copy-paste of files with a computer) without issues.
To add a datapoint I can share mine: it's me who would be in a position to bootstrap the change in my circles, but I wouldn't use or recommend Signal as Whatsapp replacement until the core features are on parity, including history backups, which have always been a lagging userstory for Signal.
I think they have different (and somewhat opposing, even) targets, Signal wants to be extremely privacy protecting, and it's a disservice to their goals to sell them as a replacement for WhatsApp, because they're not.
MBAs only are capable of performing Excel-driven-Development. Or like I saw the other day on HN, en-sheet-ification.
If the chart doesn't go up, then some execs who have never even played a game start to cry and design labor cuts so the numbers get makeup and start looking better.
Does this hook up with promotion of the EUPL [1] as a preferred license for software? Does it even make more sense for european FOSS authors over the GPL family?
The EUPL is a fine license, especially if your goal is wide compatibility with other copyleft licenses. However, that compatibility also weakens its own copyleft, which could be surprising if you just read the main text.
Also, the GPL is not as short and has more explicit wording for how it behaves in common situations (like the P2P copying stuff, for example), and it allows certain additional restrictions and exceptions (like what the LGPL is). It's just more well thought-out in my opinion.
Edit: Reading it again, I also just remembered that the EUPL's warranty disclaimer is a lot weaker than usual licenses, and weirdly also asserts the program is a “work in progress”.
> However, that compatibility also weakens its own copyleft
Keep in mind that within EU the GPL's copyleft is as strong as EUPL's or LGPL while at the same time EUPL takes into account network access like AGPL. In practice though, software is distributed outside of the EU and while GPL relies on local laws to "maximize" its copyleftness, EUPL specifically refers to either the EU country of the developer or Belgium if the developers from outside the EU, where the laws do not distinguish between static or dynamic linking (check "More details on the case of linking" from [0] about license compatibility). Also FWIW while FSF suggests that "license hopping" (i.e. changing to some compatible licenses from EUPL to something else) weakens the copyleft, a European Commision lawyer who worked on EUPL has commented doing so would be copyright infringement because the purpose of the compatibility list in EUPL is for interoperability (so that multiple projects with different licenses can coexist) and the purpose would matter in court.
Though in practice since software is often distributed outside of EU, e.g. to US where (it seems) such distinction does exist, people do respect (L)GPL's dynamic vs static linking requirements and from a worldwide perspective EUPL is something like LGPL with a dash of AGPL (making some program functionality available even remotely is considered as distribution). Or in other words, EUPL is basically AGPL within the limitations of EU law.
That depends on your interpretation of what a “derivative work” constitutes, which the EUPL delegates to copyright law. For the GPL, it includes other programs linked to the work (which is how it affects other projects using the work as a library). If this definition held true for the EUPL as well, it would behave the same way. (By the way, I don't really like describing copyleft as “viral”, because that implies the GPL (and similar licenses) are like infectious diseases.)
However, the compatibility clause allows relicensing to other licenses that are explicitly weaker in their copyleft, which is what I meant with the quoted sentence.
Another comment just made me aware though that apparently, copyleft extending to other programs linking with the work is just not a thing in the EU? I'll have to read more into the details of that.
reply