Still looking forward to getting the stuff off my teeth.

I needed 15 trays so just 30 weeks. Not that bad.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41994255

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I do not live that far from an Amtrak station but there is only one train a day, it takes forever, and does not go anywhere that I am typically traveling.

The train moved at a frustratingly slow speed (< 10 mph) for probably 30% of the trip, but aside from that I liked the more relaxed atmosphere of the travel and it was overall more comfortable.

The train itself was a bit bumpier than I expected and the wifi was not very good. Those things and the slow speed would mean I could not imagine taking a much longer trip than this one. With the extra time and hassle of dealing with an airport, this one balanced out as probably only being slightly slower travel but it was less expensive and more relaxed. If it were Seattle to San Francisco, as an example, the slowness would be too much for me. The comfort and amenities like wifi and food would have to be a lot better than they are.

It provides client and server API. The latter is used by Gerrit for its server. https://www.gerritcodereview.com

Not sure what the Java to WASM story is if that is a requirement for what they need.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41733207

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Reading this article and the comments here ... I do not want to think, other than being glad it was too expensive to consider.

My point, since you replied to my post, was simply that prior to GitHub, none of the other sites for OSS were trying to achieve the same goal. The goal was to establish a specific OSS community for a set of projects. SourceForge was a bit of an outlier in that a lot of projects used their distribution network, if they were not part of a foundation like Apache or Eclipse that had extensive mirrors setup.

SourceForge was never the main development and collaboration site for any of the major efforts happening around OSS.

The thought from the original growth of OSS was that it would be more about the community than the code. So OSS would be a series of communities that would each have their own "identity" for their community. There were big OSS foundations like Apache and Eclipse. Sun had several like java.net, OpenOffice.org and netbeans.org. Gnome had their own place etc.

Like Sun, other enterprises like HP, Oracle and IBM were setting up their own communities for their projects and to collaborate with partners.

And then as the post touches on there were sites like SourceForge, Tigris.org, Google Code and Microsoft had something too (CodePlex?). These sites were places projects might spin up if they did not belong at one of the other foundations and wanted a place to host their code for free. Of these SourceForge was often used for distribution of binaries due to its vast mirror network and often that was all that was hosted there and the project was elsewhere.

Anyway, until GitHub sprang up and started to consolidate all the OSS in one place, I do not think anyone else was even really trying to do this. Obviously the rise of git played a big role in this. This change fueled the growth of OSS but it did kind of come at the cost of losing out on some of the community aspects that existed before in the mailing lists and forums of these other places. Now collaboration all happens in PR's and Issue and is often just between a small handful of people.

Other than this problem, Pi-Hole has always been great

The RAM being part of the chip seems like a limiter to scaling up to a server model with a lot of cores and RAM in a single blade.

Not saying this is not all doable just that it probably requires design and investment they otherwise do not have any desire to do.

I am not saying this was perfect or even better. Just that the side effects were different. Probably a lot of people did not bother contributing because the barrier was too high, but overall I think it created healthier community dynamics and it was not uncommon to see people begin as users asking questions, and evolve into users answering questions and eventually contributing to the development.

The large OSS project I contributed to thankfully had other contributors that were good role models for these behaviors and it helped seeing them disengage to do other things for a while.

These are hard problems.

I am not sure what to do about the burnout problem. The way he described it is very on point though. Since everyone working on the project is overloaded there is a great feeling of things only get done if you do them.

Most of my open source work was in the pre-GitHub days when we used mailing lists, not pull requests, to build community. I do think there was something better about that for the project itself as it encouraged a lot more discussion and community building. PR's and Issues become silos and are not great for general discussion. I think they also encourage drive-by contributions which honestly are intoxicating initially but once you see people are not coming back become defeating.