Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the “standard” itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.

There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, …etc involved.

Anyway, we can’t backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes “open” on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.

The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using “publicly available and sharable” instead (maybe there is a better name for it).

ISO standards for example are technically “open”. But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple “open” standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans ^[archived] on top.

IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.

@FizzyOrange@programming.dev

BTW, the snippet I pointed to, and the whole match block, is not incoherent. It’s useless.

Alright. Explain this snippet and what you think it achieves:

tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || -> Result { Ok(walkdir) })

Post the original code to !rust@programming.dev and point to where you got stock, because that AI output is nonsensical to the point where I’m not sure what excited you about it. A self-contained example would be ideal, otherwise, include the crates you’re using (or the use statements).

Federation is irrelevant. Matrix is federated, yet most communities and users would lose communication if matrix.org got offline.

With, transport-only distributablity, which i think is what radicale offers, availability would depend on the peers. That means probably less availability than a big service host.

Distributed transport and storage would fix this. a la something like Tahoe-LAFS or (old) Freenet/Hyphanet. And no, IPFS is not an option because it’s generally a meme, and is pull-based, and have availability/longevity problems with metadata alone. iroh claims to be less of a meme, but I don’t know if they fixed any of the big design (or rather lack of design) problems.

At the end of the day, people can live with GitHub/GitLab/… going down for a few minutes every other week, or 1-2 hours every other month, as the benefits outweigh the occasional inconvenience by a big margin.

And git itself is distributed anyway. So it’s not like anyone was cut from committing work locally or pushing commits to a mirror.

I guess waiting on CI runs would be the most relevant inconvenience. But that’s not a distributable part of any service/implementation that exists, or can exist without being quickly gravely abused.

Definitely don’t use axum, which provides a simple interface for routes by using derived traits. Their release cycle is way shorter, which makes them more dangerous, and they’re part of the same github user as tokio, which means they’re shilling their own product.

this but (semi)-unironucally

Keep (Neo)Vim out of this.

Yesterday I was browsing /r/programming

:tabclose

You just referenced two languages that don’t have proper sum types. lol.

Also mentioning Microsoft tech while a certain world event is taking place right now. lol.

Gitorious-ed too fast.
Let’s see if you’ll get a team around federation now.

What’s needed is renewed ethos, not just fresh blood.

What’s needed is people who actually like the projects, on the technical level, and use them daily. Not people who are just trying to maintain an open-source “portfolio” they can showcase in pursuit of landing big corpo job.

A “portfolio” which also needs to, in their mind, project certain culture war prioritizations and positionings that are fully inline with the ones corpos are projecting.

It will be interesting to see how much of the facade of morality will remain if these corpo projections change, or when the corpo priorities and positionings, by design, don’t care, at best, about little unimportant stuff like American-uniparty-assisted genocide! We got to see murmurs of that in the last few months.

Will the facade be exposed, or will it simply change face? What if a job was on the line?

I’m reminded of a certain person with the initials S.K, who was a Rust official, and a pretend Windows-user in hopes of landing a Microsoft job (he pretty much said as much). He was also a big culture-war-style moral posturer. And a post-open-source world hypothesiser.

Was it weird for such a supposed moral “progressive” to be a big nu-Microsoft admirer? and one who used his position to push for the idea that anyone who maintained a classical open-source/free-software position towards Microsoft is a fanatic? No, it wasn’t. He was one of many after all.

All these things go hand in hand. And if you think this is a derailing comment that went way off the rails, then I hope you maintain the same position about the effects of all this on the open-source and free-software world itself.

While pure Python code should work unchanged, code written in other languages or using the CPython C API may not. The GIL was implicitly protecting a lot of thread-unsafe C, C++, Cython, Fortran, etc. code - and now it no longer does. Which may lead to all sorts of fun outcomes (crashes, intermittent incorrect behavior, etc.).

:tabclose

The Rust hype at least makes sense.

In technical context, yes. I’m a Rustacean myself.
In business/marketing context, …

It’s not you who needs it.
It’s for buzzword chasers and cost cutters.

Rust (=> fast and hip)
Shared (=> outsourced)
AI generated (=> robot devs)

Get it?

Yeah, sorry. My comment was maybe too curt.

My thoughts are similar to those shared by @Domi in a top comment. If an API user is expected to be wary enough to check for such a header, then they would also be wary enough to check the response of an endpoint dedicated to communicating such deprecation info, or wary enough to notice API requests being redirected to a path indicating deprecation.

I mentioned Zapier or Clearbit as examples of doing it in what I humbly consider the wrong way, but still a way that doesn’t bloat the HTTP standard.

Proper HTTP implementations in proper languages utilize header-name enums for strict checking/matching, and for performance by e.g. skipping unnecessary string allocations, not keeping known strings around, …etc. Every standard header name will have to added as a variant to such enums, and its string representation as a constant/static.

Not sure how you thought that shares equivalency with random JSON field names.

Weak use-case.
Wrong solution (IMHO).

If one must use a header for this, how Zapier or Clearbit do it, as mentioned in appendix A.2, is the way to go.

Bloating HTTP and its implementations for REST-specific use-cases shouldn’t be generally accepted.

There is a YouTube video in Servo’s homepage.
The first minutes of that video answer your question.

A reminder that the Servo project has resumed active development since the start of 2023, and is making good progress every month.

If you’re looking for a serious in-progress effort to create a new open, safe, performant, independent, and fully-featured web engine, that’s the one you should be keeping an eye on.

It won’t be easy trying to catch up to continuously evolving and changing web standards, but that’s the only effort with a chance.