Going back to Konversation for GUI stuffs. DCC file send/receive is kinda important to me. For everything else, including a lot of Matrix usage, WeeChat is still the Kewlist :p
Honorable mention goes to Halloy, which I think looks really good, supports tiling, and says it supports DCC Send - I don't mind manipulating config files by hand, and I might check it out with a FlatPak, but if I'm sufficiently impressed it looks like I'll have to build the .deb and SlackBuild myself, ... Well? Somebody's got to! Right?
As the saying goes, "Real BOFH use tar and rsync!"
The blog article is an excellent treatment of using tar along with SSH to effect a reliable backup plan and schedule.
Another couple of great fav GoTo solutions of mine have always been Duplicity and Duply for those not comfortable rolling their own scripts w/SSH, tar, and/or rsync :batman:
Thank you very much for sharing this @nixCraft !!!
Thanks Evan, there's a bit to digest there, some of which I agree with, and some of which I don't, between what both you and the OtherEvan had to offer.
It's good to get this stuff right out in the open, especially as the Fediverse is currently undergoing yet another paradigmatic shifts, perhaps an evolutionary step, but certainly, a complete game changer from much of the perspective offered in the Evan <==> Evan Essays ;)
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
This had to be addressed, with so many people piling on and choosing that the OSI model was replaced by TCP/IP because it worked better and increased in popularity
DARPA Logo Defense Advanced Projects Administration
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
I come home to find my feeds/streams flooded with vitriolic politicial drivel emanating from a group to which I belong that states emphatically that it doesn't tolerate off-topic traffic.
The stated purpose of this Fediverse group on my home Friendica server is stated as follows:
This is a Friendica group dedicated to #Fediverse news. What are the advantages of a group over a hashtag?Groups can do things that hashtags can't. For example, groups:
are moderated
can re-share content
can speak as a group
Joining and contributing to a Friendica group is easy. To share your posts to @Fediverse News, follow these steps:
The @Fediverse News group will then re-share your post
This is an actively moderated group. Be sure to stay on topic, or your posts will be removed.
As per the instructions for this Friendica / Fediverse group, I'm notifying the moderation team by CC'ing the following address with this complaint and request to remove the vicious hate that's been spewing into the group here all day long while I've been away working:
People who sign up for a Fediverse News site should not be subjected to hatred being fomented, propagated, and bantered about with respect to unrelated matters, such as (abominable) off-topic, political vitriol.
) Posting announcements concerning the onboarding and subesquent federating nature of a public figure's account on threads.net is a relevant matter to the Fediverse, Fediverse Technology, and Fediverse News.
) acerbic comentary, name calling, ad hominem, and libel, as has consumed the group today, is not - those posts are a cause of severe harm and should most certainly, IMO be removed as per the terms/rules quoted above.
) The level of cacophony and pejorative hate speech permitted to continue throughout the day today is shameful. This is not the place to engage or encourage such juvenile behavior, let alone permit it to foment and spread across the Fediverse as it has today!
Moderation Team: Thank you, in advance, for taking your time to address and resolve this matter, returning this group to the decorum it usually enjoys with people conversing and observing the principles of civil discourse.
I'm writing you because I came across your blog site and thought you may be able to leverage the Fediverse in conjunction with your WordPress site's publishing horsepower.
As a #FOSS advocate with great enthusiasm for mass #Fediverse adoption, I'd like to suggest a couple of things for you to consider, and the following treatment can also benefit others who also have bridged over to the Fediverse that already have a WordPress installation, or have been looking to deploy one.
First, that you think about establishing a Fediverse account other than that of a stock Mastodon instance. Sure, keep your @Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social account, just create another account for yourself on a platform that will afford you more options that can facilitate your creative freedom (let's not dissect that word, lolz) to publish posts that are in excess of a paltry 500 characters, along with things like Markup capabilities, Etc. Just a thought. ...
This leads into the next suggestion, ...
Second, why not make that account your existing WordPress blog, where you already have a permanent, branded presence and readership? Let's supercharge your WordPress site by making it a full and complete publishing platform completely integrated with the Fediverse.
There's a couple of methodologies, but generally speaking, once you install the ActivityPub plugin any future blog posts are on the Fediverse as well as any other distribution channels you may already have (say, by virtue of having installed the JetPack Social plugin that propagates into the deprecated silo networks).
One method I can recommend is to follow this basic procedure to popularize your blog posts and gain followers - just like you probably have been with the mastodon.social account you already have:
) If you've already created a new account on a more feature complete platform that's better suited for long form posting, inline images, Etc., like #Friendica, #Socialhome, any #Misskey or #Pleroma family fork platform, #Hubzilla, or #Mitra (They all have excellent Markdown support too); simply follow your #WordPress user account @<username>@terikanefield.com. If not, then simply follow your WordPress Fediverse user account from your existing masto account - which you should do anyway since I gather you have some respectable measure of followers.
2.) Everytime you publish a new news article / blog post on your WordPress site, you'll see it in your stream on your fediverse accounts.
3.) Boost each article from those accounts, your followers will see what you boost in their streams.
4.) encourage them to boost as well and/or comment - you'll see those comments in the reply section of each article on your WordPress site - Awesome!
5.) Now that you have followers of your WordPress user's Fediverse account you should be able to garner more direct interaction on your WordPress site, instead of having to post links to those posts from your mastodon.social account.
) From your @<username>@terikanefield.com account at your WordPress site, you can now directly interact with your followers, even those who post replies/comments to your articles, whether or not they are a follower of yours.
I'm taking the time to write because I see that you have a relatively decent circulation and engagement between readers and your blog articles, and the more people that see you engaging with others in the Fediverse directly from your WordPress site, the more people are encouraged to Join the Fediverse.
I am, as stated in my profile and also leading in to this, a FOSS and Privacy Advocate.
So here's a couple of links, one to the plugin itself - it's easy to install and deploy. Another older one that's still relevant that shows you how to do the install, and I think that's about it. We'll see ;)
HowTo with Video - Really simple, easy install, right from your WordPress admin panel
JetPac Social - I'm definitely not a fan of this kind of engagement (with the privacy mining, deprecated, monolithic silo networks), but you do you - it can afford you with even greater reach through syndication, and if you write about the Fediverse, well, ... So much the better!
You should also consider following the magnanimous @pfefferle - one of the primary authors of the #ActivityPub_Plugin.
@mike 's contributions to #FOSS and #DeSoc go back much further than just the #ActivityPub portions of the Fediverse, well over a decade in fact, as the creator of #Mistpark, now #Friendica, and also #Zot6 and #Nomad, which promises to be a show changer for identity in the world of Social communications.
More than anything, the following isn't any sort of treatise on threads itself. In fact, Threads is largely irrelevant - this is an impeachment on the state of the (deprecated, monolithic silo) mentality that is somewhat pervasive in the Fediverse: That you switch one Satan for another Satan. You swap out #Sunnyvale_Syndrome silos managed by people who in no way have your best interests in mind for some masto admin you don't know anything about, regardless of their stated mission.
You're not consulted, at all, about blocks and mutes of remote users and domains (instances) that you may or may not have interests in following, connecting with, or otherwise engage. Such is indeed the prerogative of the instance admin and their so-called staff members, and truth be told, all without due consideration of your particular feelings.
A couple of notions, ...
First, Fediverse development is in a state where you can choose to migrate your account elsewhere - well, not really the history of your posts, includng graphics, etc., intact, but certainly, your follows and followers lists. Masto no longer can monopolize on keeping you put and under the thumb of what could very well be eventually revealed as some, immature, juvenile, tyrannical despot who wears the clothes of some benevolent dictator as their disguise.
Next, even with respect to the most feature complete platforms, you easily can self-host the most comprehensive amongst those - if you can install a WordPress Website, then you can install a Hubzilla or Friendica Server. You can invite your friends and family, or just leave it as a single-user instance.
If you do that, no one can tell you what is appropriate - it's your world. You make your own rules. you decide what and who you want to see and allow through your machine - Want Threads? kewl. Don't want to interact with the big bad zuckerberg wolf? Kewl - block it. It's your world.
Similarly, and I cover this often, there's no real community in selecting an existing server to join. Sure, you can choose to only watch the "local" stream, revealing just how limited and how little in common you share with most of those folks, or you can build your own streams by following the things that interest you and allow people to connect with you on your own terms. The community you have, is always ultimately going to be the community you build for yourself - not some recommended antennae designed by some admin on a Misskey fork that purports to know what you want.
Some added benefits of Hubzilla and Friendica instances are built in interoperability with other Fediverse network protocols. No, Threads is not one of those. Threads is ActivityPub. I'm talking about native communication between your account and Bluesky, or Diaspora - two very vibrant and active networks of Fediverse instances that don't even speak the same language as the old, feature starved masto platform.
I'll also post real quick, just a mention (with links this time, I've been asked to always do this) of single-user-by-design Fediverse platforms you might find quite to your liking. They vary in features and even the bells and whistles that their respective developers felt that they wanted to address, but the basic functionality is there - again, you decide for yourself what sort of community you want and what kind of blocks or mutes at the domain or user level you're interested in.
Now, let me just say, smolweb, instead of single-user Fediverse platforms, because as suitable as they are for self-hosting (often in your home on an old laptop or Raspberry Pi) as single-user instances, that doesn't have to strictly be the case with some of these:
I'm going to keep this short enough to put the emphasis on the boost of my previous post below - the important concept being that in coming to the Fediverse, it is you, who should be in charge of what and who you interact with, and not somebody else who (as evidenced recently) will pull the rug out from under you and tell you what you can and cannot do, who you can and cannot talk to, or worse than all of that, ... Will judge you.
You shouldn't take that kind of shit from anybody. You be you. You're fine just the way you are :)
> On any online space, you should consider who you give power to. Who has the control over who you choose to associate with?
I concur 100% with this assertion.
> All that the instances who sign the fedipact are doing is signalling to some of us that somewhere is safe for folk who don't want to engage with Facebook at all.
I don't think that's all, and actually, What those instances may (inadvertently) be signalling is that they will take it upon themselves to remove the Freedom of Association from the user themselves, without prior expectation or consultation.
I don't know where "Freedom of Speech" entered the conversation, but the notion of "Freedom of Association" has indeed been taken from those who have chosen to excercise those privileges belonging to the users themselves. Waking up and realizing that you can no longer communicate and share recipes with grandma, without evern having been consulted, is an affront to the Freedom of Association - it's inclusive of an even larger issue surrounding the reasons that *smolweb and single-user and self-hosted platforms are protective of such principles Freedom of Association.
Further, it serves to create an environment (especially when so many platforms now support migration ingress) where one's Fediverse accounts are considered ever more transient, as the realization that having an account on a silo based Fediverse instance is the antipathy of #Fediverse and #DeSoc philosophies.
It also erodes the trust between the average user and administrators that you thought you could entrust with respecting your freedom of association with.
> This is a Freedom of Association issue, ...
it is indeed, and a betrayal of trust for anyone who realizes that it is the overreach by someone else to decide that you should not have the Freedom of Association that likely brought most folks to the Fediverse in the first place.
I did a little non-scientific, anecdotal survey by contacting people I know on many of the instances that arbitrarily decided to remove those freedoms from their users overnight, and discovered that many have already migrated to other instances, or are contemplating it - the interesting thing? Many of my acquaintances had already decided to, or even configured their accounts to block #Threads; but to have someone else tell them what they're allowed, or not allowed to do, is a violation of someone's freedom to choose for themselves by despot personalities who dismiss the relevance of a right to choose for oneself.
It's a simple matter, to block instances, at the domain level, from one's own user account, and on most Fediverse platforms, there's actually an announcement utility (usually only used to beg for donations) whereby administrative staff can inform their user base of their own ability to control how they themselves choose to exercise their own preferences with respect to #Freedom_of_Association.
Ironically, when perusing the stats, it's the very largest (deprecated, monolithic silo oriented) Fediverse instances (in terms of the # of user accounts and MAU) that have chosen NOT to trample upon the individual user's Freedom to Associate with whom they themselves decide.
NOTE to Fediverse instance admins: Please take under consideration the trust that has been placed in you with respect to the freedoms all individuals are entitled to determine for themselves - reach out to your user base, deploy surveys, collect votes, whatever, but please don't just decide for someone else what you decide is good for people who are NOT YOU.
Subjugation and assimilation into the Borg Collective goes both ways folks.
This was my #Stanley_cooker and oven. I even managed to make a couple of cakes in there - now that's a challenge, but once you develop an intimate understanding of working the firebox and valves to maintain the temps you want in the oven, all things are possible.
But it still took about 45 minutes to get a fire going and the stove top hot enough to cook a skillet of 🥓 bacon & 🐣🥚 eggs
Be sure to check the Link below in the link that @jeze left and sign up!
Pretty kewl, IMO. Thanks for sharing Elley :) it looks really nice and I created an account for myself. Seamless federation with the others too - very nice :)
@ben If I read everything correctly, you indicated that it should be able to recognize WordPress sites that have the ActivityPub plugin installed, but I didn't try to plug any of those in.
It is reminiscent of Share to Any and a couple of others that used to aggregate almost all of the available share points in the old monolithic social spaces, like del.icio.us, Diigo, and the thirty or so others supported by that plugin.
I'm looking forward to seeing how your effort progresses though, and it would be kewl if you could post an Atom or RSS feed link to make that easy in the meantime, although I'll follow you now and hope not to miss any milestones :)
I did plugin many Fediverse platforms such as various Friendica, Mitra, Misskey, Iceshrimp, Hubzilla, Diaspora, Akkoma, Lemmy, Takahe, and Pleroma sites, but none of those were found.
masto is obviously low lying fruit, but the real measure, IMO, is breaking out into the #Fediverse at large (not just masto). Interesting though, and thoughtful, that you Support Threads and Bluesky. will you be following up soon with nostr as well?
Exciting work there! Thanks for sharing (no pun intended ;) well, maybe a little ).
12 August 2020, off-grid on the living room of my cabin in the wilderness of Humboldt, California.
My rooster waits for me to come outside so he can flog me... Cuz he's one mean assed motherfucker and never learns that Imma just punt him instead.
That is, if my favorite hen, who also waits for me everyday to follow me around and body block him. Yeah, she literally would kick his ass when he tried to attack me.
She would eat yummy veggies from my garden right out of my hand.
Really now, why do people stubbornly adhere to the belief that Government entities require warrants to determine anything about you - like, where you are at this particular moment or the GPS coordinates of your location last Tuesday at 17:42hrs UTC? ... And pretty much anything else you can dream up about yourself: The content of conversations with others, everything you've purchased at anytime, what you are likely to eat for dinner this coming Friday, your medical records; you name it!
All without a warrant, even for local law enforcement.
And why would they bother, when they can just buy it from the#privacy_miningcompaniesthat you already gave it to for free?
A year ago he released the promised algorithm for determining content pushed upon you (if you use twitter).
Perhaps more surprisingly, He admitted that even internally, that the #spaghetti_code comprising it isn't even fully understood internally by their staff. That's more #transparency than was expected.
But now, just a few hours ago, he released the source for #xAI's #Grok chatbot too, under the #Apache_license:
I think, for me, much like EDLIN, it's pretty much always been a matter of knowing that it was the default editor available in every incarnation of #UNIX and #Linux since, ... I dunno, ... 4.2BSD or so?
Perhaps I should say vi, and in DOS I don't really recall when EDIT.COM supplanted #EDLIN, but do feel free to checkout my friend's more modern #FREDLIN in the link above. h/t to @dheadshot for creating a POSIX interpretation of that classic utility from the days when disk drives talked to you and diskettes shimmied...
Also, These #Vim memes are some of the funnest elbows to the ribs of the person sitting next to you we can all enjoy together... unless, unless, Oh my gawd am I on Drugs?
Here's another one for folks to add to their collections, for foshizzles and giggles, of course, and we all can haz #Cheezburgerz! 🍔
Kindest regards, and thank you for some of the very best cookbook style #tuts, #HowTo's, and introspectives for the UNIX / Linux / FOSS world on the Internet :)