https://github.com/kanidm/kanidm

But the choice of Baidu Pan is indeed questionable: You need a Chinese phone number in order to sign up, which is out of reach for many expats living overseas. I don't get why they can’t just mirror it on a university server.

I am now very curious how you arrived at this conclusion. Did you make use of any LLM? If so, which model and what prompt did you use?

Basically mosh attempts to synchronize the state of the terminal which is made up of character cells. It sounds simple until you realize that unicode and fancy escape sequences exist, and the behavior of the client and the server must match otherwise you get weird misalignments that are difficult to debug:

- Unicode 9+ changed character width computation a lot, but macOS `wcwidth` still follows the old algorithm. Let's patch it: https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/pull/1289

- There is no support for strike-through and dimmed styles. Let's patch it: https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/pull/1059

- What about underline/undercurl? Let's patch it: https://github.com/jdrouhard/mosh/commit/aff5e1c3db9f061deb2...

- Some emojis don't take up two cells as expected? Again, let's patch it: https://github.com/jdrouhard/mosh/commit/b31161ab311c7b6e306...

- ...

You really need those patches to have a good experience, and popular mosh clients like Blink on iOS incorporate them in their builds. However, things look wonky if you don't use the corresponding server builds, and you don't want to dig through layers of abstractions to find out why selecting lines in a specific file in neovim causes everything to become a jumbled mess every so often.

There is no end in sight for those patched to be merged upstream, no end in sight for distros to ship new versions, and no end in sight for protocol changes to make state synchronization more resilient. So, back to SSH we go...

Edit: Fixed wrong link for underline/undercurl patch

> I am responsible for approving SSL certificates for my company. [...] I review and approve each cert. What started out as a quarterly or semi-monthly task has become a monthly-to-weekly task depending on when our certs are expiring.

I don't get the security need for manually approving renewals, and the author makes no attempt to justify this either. It may make sense for some manual process to be in place for initial issuances, as certificates are permanently added to a publicly-available ledger. And to take a step back, do you need public certs to begin with? Can you not have an internal CA? Again, the author makes no attempt to justify this, or demonstrate understanding in the post.

> email-based validation may as well not exist when we need to update a certificate for test.lab.corp.example.com because there is no webmaster@test.lab.corp.example.com.

I know that this is an example, but as a developer it would be a pain to have to go through a manual, multi-day process for my `test.lab.corp.example.com` to work. And the rest of the post seems to imply that this is actually the case at OP's org.

> Which resource-starved team will manage the client and the infrastructure it needs? It will need time to undergo code review and/or supplier review if it’s sold by a company. There will be a requirement for secrets management. There will be a need for monitoring and alerting. It’s not as painless as the certificate approval workflow I have now.

There are additional costs and new processes to be made, yes, but even from a non-technical POV this appears to be a good time to lead and take ownership.

> Any platforms that offer or include certificate management bundled with the actual services we pay for will win our business by default. [...] What is obvious to me is that my stakeholders and I are hurrying to offload certificate management to our vendors and platforms and not to our CA.

That's okay. If you hate change and don't want to take ownership, pay someone else to take ownership.

However, unlike git, jj bookmarks are pinned to change IDs instead of immutable commit SHA-1s. This means that stacked PRs just work: Change something in the pr-1 bookmark, and all dependent bookmarks (pr-2, pr-3, ...) are automatically updated. A `jj git push --tracked` later and everything is pushed.

a) Sign up for an account in your forge: Do contributors really want another account? Does your captcha/email verification actually work (I've encountered ones that don't)? There are also forges that require you to ask for an account which is another hurdle.

b) Send an email: Configuring `git send-email` is alien to many contributors and may not even be doable in some corporate environments (OAuth2 with no app passwords allowed). Diverging from this is error-prone and against social norms which the contributor may not even be aware of (until they get flamed in the mailing list). You are also giving up automated CI which is a big part of the contributor feedback loop.

To be clear, going independent does indeed work for small personal projects (do not care much about contributions) as well as established ones (large incentive for new contributors to jump over hoops), and I'm fully aware that a lot of HNers do not see the need for those "niceties" provided by GitHub. But I feel that people often underestimate the barriers that they are putting up.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44692128

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

In other words, you don't need such an Io object upfront: You need it when you want to actually drive its execution and get the result. From this perspective, the Zig approach is actually less flexible than Rust.

[0]: https://docs.rs/tokio/latest/tokio/runtime/struct.Handle.htm...