That's not really true.You came off combative with an attitude right from the start.You got smacked back down repeatedly.Certainly some of it is because of your opinions, but mostly it was because you're a jerk.
I've posted here and had it deleted. So I don't bother.The instance I'm a member of had an unused selfhosting comm, and I started using it. Other people did too. Thanks for the shout out.
Ok, I quibble with much of what you just wrote, but your first line contained a lucid point.
In essence, you propose that a federated monetization scheme would direct the bulk of the pie to the participants and not to the big corporate interests.
Now that's a damned interesting thing to consider.I think its obvious that it would/will go awry. Any time you get non-profits screwing around with money, somebody figures out how to steal it.But if even a bit more went to the participants and paid for infrastructure, that would be a positive thing.
But again ... non-profits and coops never handle money correctly. Watch this get all the way to the goalpost and then swoop, it all gets handled with GooglePay. Its doomed. DOOM.
Ok. I can follow this line of reasoning.If you want to avoid corporate platforms, fediverse doesn't provide as viable an alternative as one might like.This is clear, and makes sense. Thanks for the succinct explanation. At least I see some sense here now.
I'm not entirely sure that it matters.Like, when was it decided that the 'making money' bit needed to be imported from YouTube?
Alright already! I'll work on my upgrade.I'm wondering if I should just build a new docker and then migrate the data instead of upgrading in place. I bet that's the easier thing to do in the end. Sounds safer too. I got backups and all, but ...
Hey, um .... I read your article. Or I tried to.It lost me at the point where I need to give money to somebody else. So, basically right at the start.
To be more specific, your article starts of lamenting that its not convenient enough for me to give money to someone ("content creators", a bullshit term if I've ever heard one) on these federated platforms. "this is a bit of a problem" There's no examination of whether we should be doing this. Its taken as a given that monetization is a positive goal.
So ... I really tried to get there and understand your point, but there's this vast gulf between us.Why would it be bad if nobody makes any money off the fediverse?That sounds good to me.
Netbox is a hell of a package, of which I've essentially only touched the IPAM, and I don't even use it programmatically. I just use the web console to keep track of 4 subnets and about 50 IPs.
It's got a whole virtualization section that I haven't touched, although that would make my device mapping more sensible. I just treat em like they are all real, and only map the physical nics on the hypervisor hosts.
I do keep text notes in Netbox entries, but that's sort of a backup. If its something I'm likely to need to know, I'll have a note in Proxmox. Usually login links for apps hosted there and the like. And of course I've got a folder full of text files with all my deepest secrets.
I'm not real clear what exactly you need to document.Infrastructure documentation starts with an IPAM.A good IPAM can help you document all kinds of stuff.
I'm running it as a Docker container on a Linux VM.I just looked at their latest screenshots, and it appears they've done quite a bit with it since I stood up my copy.It does even more now. I'll have to upgrade.
Read what people are saying. We disagree with your perspective and feel that this issue is justly deserved by Ubi's behavior. Everyone was very, very clear about this. Our take is this is Ubi trying to hide their failure and blame it on an industry slump. So there ya go. Now you understand the article.
That's not really true.You came off combative with an attitude right from the start.You got smacked back down repeatedly.Certainly some of it is because of your opinions, but mostly it was because you're a jerk.