Wasm is a virtual machine, just like for example the jvm is, that is designed around only allowing the executed program access to the host runtime via specific apis that are subject to security policies. It does not run arbitrary software, but rather only software built to target specifically wasm.

The software this post is about is just bundling a wasm runtime with other software for convenience.

I'm currently in the process of removing cpu.max from our clusters, to allow applications to better utilize the available cpu time which currently is just being wasted. We will use cpu weights to make sure that cpu time is fairly allocated during contention, and to not oversubscribe the hosts, but I'm sure that among the thousands of applications that are running on those clusters today, many will be relying on cpu.max to size threadpools etc.

On the one hand, we do want applications to use the available cpu time, but at the same time they need to not kill themselves by running out of memory.

Making your circuit breaker state global seems like it would just exacerbate the problem. Failures are often partial in the real world.

I do agree that GitHub could do more to highlight forks and their relationship to one another. But I don't think the current way - having an open pull request - is the only way to do that.

As a former maintainer, I am very in favor of this move. After having spent 10 years or so being hounded with "Any update on this?" and "Can we get this merged?", I don't think I would ever do it again as long as there aren't controls in place to be able to set the expectation that the code is free to do with as you will, and please go ahead and fork if you want it to do something different.

Any fundamental reason you can't allow/block individual ports, or just a design choice?

1. It's a lot of work to maintain an open source project accepting community contributions. Absolutely true, but that's not what's being asked for. Providing a tarball under an open source license doesn't add any significant work. 2. No one has asked for the Kagi backends to be open sourced, so why is the browser different? Obviously because I run the browser on my machine. Your backend runs on your machine. 3. We need to protect our IP. Then release it under a copyleft license. Or if you absolutely must, release your proprietary bit under a non-open source license. 4. You don't need the source because we send 0 telemetry, which you can verify using a network proxy. That's hardly the only thing to be worried about with a binary blob. Even if you kept the code completely closed source, by just releasing a tarball with the source under a proprietary license, I can build my own binary from source and eliminate this threat.

I'm not sure if there is a term for what you are describing. Perhaps "community driven project".

Now for the people who were operating Bitbucket, I'm sure it's a relief.

Is it just that there's no market for it and that the cost of it would just be too high? If money was not an issue, would there still be technical reasons that this is impossible?