stevecrox @ stevecrox @kbin.social

Posts

2

Comments

72

Joined

2 yr. ago

Maven has a high learning curve, but once learned it is incredibly simple to use.

That high bar is created by the tool configuration. You can change and hack everything, but you have to understand how Maven works to do so. This generally blocks people from doing really stupid things, because you have to learn how maven works to successfully modify it and in doing so you learn why you shouldn't.

This is the exact weakness of Gradle, the barrier for modification is far lower and the tool is far less rigid. So you get lots of people who are still learning implement all sorts of weird and terrible practice.

The end result is I can usually dust off someone elses old maven project and it will build immediately using "mvn clean install", about half the gradle projects I have been brought in on won't without reverse engineering effort because they have things hard coded all over them. A not small percentage are so mangled they can't be built without the dev who wrote it's machine.

Also you really shouldn't be tinkering with your build pipelines that much. Initial constraints determine the initial solution, then periodically you review them to improve. DevSecOps exists to speed development and ease support it isn't a goal in of itself

Doesn't the fact you have to use a separate mouse tell you the design is poor?

The better approach would be to detect clicks on the left and right of the trackpad as left/right buttons and support two finger right clicking.

I have had a vareity of HP, Dell, etc.. laptops. The trackpads will do gesture stuff but you can clearly feel a left and right button if you push down on the trackpad (e.g. push on left side for left button).

Tesla actually market it as a positive.

Car manufacturers have to setup different manufacturing lines to provide different feature levels. Tesla argue this makes them more expensive. Tesla cars have all features installed, just disabled and the optional extra packages are cheaper compared to their rivals as a result.

To be honest there is a certain logic, if you've ever been in a Ford Focus LX (bottom range) its pretty clear they had to spend quite a bit of money on more basic systems. I honestly thought each LX was sold at a loss

I have a Mac book Pro for work.There is just a lot of random weirdness.

There is no right click, your supposed to do a light two finger touch for right click.If you click too hard it opens the dictionary.

If you plug in a mouse you can get right click, but it isn't consistent in working.

By default scroll is inverted (up is down, down is up), also windows can have scroll bars but they aren't clickable, you have to do a scroll gesture.

Almost every Left control + Button action is now Meta key + button. But not everything, its annoyingly inconsistent also new random shortcuts.

For example lock screen isn't Meta key + l like on Linux or Windows. Its Meta + Shift + Q, shut down is Meta +Left Control + Q.

The keyboard doesn't match the your countries layout, so keys move around and is missing traditional keys like print screen. To do that you press Meta + Shift + 4 to switch the mouse to a screen cut tool and select the area you cut.

I could go on and on, none of it is obvious and I wouldn't say any of it is an improvement at best its just different.

@ergoplato I didn't suggest that.

Personally I don't think its ego. I think you have two issues.

The first is people go through stages learning DevOps. Stage 1 has people deploy a CI because its cool, they build a few basic pipelines and then 90% of people get bored. The 2nd stage is people start extending those pipelines, it results in really complex pipelines requiring lots of unique changes based on the opinion of the writer. You move to the 3rd stage when your asked to recreate/extend for a new project and realise how specific your solutions are.

Learning how to make minor tweaks and hook in a few key points to get what you want takes years. Without that most packagers will want to make big changes upstream which won't go down well.

The second issue, I have met quite a few developers who become highly stressed when the build system is doing something they haven't needed to do or understand.

A really simple example I have a Jenkins function which I tend to slip into release pipelines, it captures the release version and creates a version in Jira.

I normally deploy it first as a test before a few other functions to automate various service management requirements.

Its surprising how many devs will suddenly decide every problem (test failed, code failed review, sharepoint breaks, bad os update, etc..) is due to that function.

For me this little function is a test, if the team don't care I will work to integrate various bits. If they freak out, I'll revert decide if it is worth walking them through the process or walk away.

One of the reasons for the #DevOps movement is developers see building and packaging as #notmyjob.

The task would historically fall on the most junior member of the team, who would make a pigs ear out of it due to complete lack of experience.

This is compounded by the issue that most C/C++ build systems don't really include dependency management.

Linux distributions have all tried to work out those dependency trees but they came up with slightly different solutions. This is why there are a few "root" distributions everything branches from.

That means developers have to learn about a few root distributions to design a deb/rpm/aur package systems to base their release around.

That is a considerable amount of learning in a subject most aren't interested in.

The real question is why don't package maintainers upstream a packaging solution?

This is traditional British food, bangers is slang for Pork Saussage (Cumberland Saussage I am guessing)

Politicians usually don't know anything about the domains they are put in charge of.

Their role is to provide leadership and direction based on the views of the people they represent.

When dealing with domain specific decisions they should refer to subject matter experts to seek advice and understanding of the available options. The ministries/departments exist to provide that advice and support its implementation.

A ministers job is to use the advice provided by their ministry/department to select a path forward that aligns with the direction the minister has set.

A minister ignoring advice of the ministry/department tells the department the leader doesn't respect or value it. This is really bad leadership.

It also means the minister isn't operating from a position of strength or knowledge. This means your more likely to make poor decisions which move you away from your goal.

I am not saying that aren't wider factors, but you expect the ministry/department to account for that as the minister should explain those.

It's explained in the article

They basically made it law so the only regulation was "informed consent", with informed consent you can launch private missions.

Government and private bodies were supposed to come together to come up with sensible rules. No one has done that.

So once the law passes nothing will really change, except government bodies will be required to figure out a framework to qualify private launches

It never quite finds its grove.

Season 1, 2 & 3 all had fantastic premises I would have loved 7 seasons of but were all unrelated and concluded within a season.

Season 4 actually demonstrates the missed opportunity, they deal with the fall out of season 3

For example if you think of the scene set in "A Vulkan Hello", you would have ended up with an Action focussed version of DS9.

You didn't need a spore drive, Jason Isaacs could have stayed the same and we could still have watched scientists struggle to become soliders with the war causing the type of fall out we see in Season 4.

Try to do it and get back to me.

For extra fun try to do it in cloud and server, you'll realise some stuffis server only, some cloud only and the docs don't tell you which one is true

Clearly you haven't used Kbin.

KBin's have two distinct views "Threads" (Reddit Style) and "Microblogs" (Twitter), the default view is "Threads". You won't see posts in the Thread view and you won't see Articles/Threads in the Microblog view

Its an option similar to Top/Hot/Newest its existence doesn't hurt

Maybe I am old but I don't understand the NEED for a mobile application.

The kbin website works well on desktop and mobile web browsers with no render issues. The lemmy mobile apps all seem to be "alpha" quality.

Why is a buggy app better thana working website?

I choose an application or website based on which one works best. For example I browse Amazon via the web browser on the phone since the mobile application takes 2-5 seconds to load.

If your goal is to advertise the fediverse You should have used 'kbin'.

People can go directly to "lemmy.ml" but the site might disappear due to Mali re-establishing ownership of .ml domains, also its run by a tankie which will upset some people.

"Lemmy" provides 10 google sponsored results and then 'join-lemmy', the join-lemmy website has you 'join a server' and then presents you lots of options.

During the first Mastodon surge one of their issues is people felt overwhelmed by the options and it hurt Mastodon adoption, so a single website does make a lot of sense. Personally I would suggest lemmy.world its a general instance and the admins aren't linked to any extremist views, but you said that would be too long.

If you put 'kbin' into search the top result is kbin.social, that makes it seems like a reddit alternate. It keeps user choice limited and brings them into the fediverse. That means people aren't confronted with the complexity of the fediverse immediately and can learn and understand it at their own pace.

So if your goal is to advertise the fediverse I would push kbin, if your goal is to specifically get people to use a Lemmy based website I don't think you have a good option

I want a build job to be triggered when a merge request is raised/changed to verify merge requests. Primarily I want it to comment/annotate changes so peer review focusses on logic and warnings are clear.

I can do this with Concourse, Circle, Jenkins and Github Actions on Azure Devops, Bitbucket Cloud, Bitbucket Server & Github. All Gitlab can tell you is pass/fail, which was good in 2003 but seriously lacking in 2023.

Similarly I want the ability to trigger a release and supply a desired version for the release (or someway to achieve that since our projects follow semantic versioning).

The release DSL is incomplete and could not work on server/cloud last time I used it. The page claims it can do alot but there is a hole in it and even the writer clearly knew.

I want the ability to specify multiple reusable pipelines, in a central place. This is not possible in cloud.

Lastly I would like to have multiple potential pipelines in a repository (e.g. smoke test and release). You can hack this in via variables. This will/won't work depending specifically on the runner for your job. if self hosted or cloud you'll notice different parsing behaviour depending on what host it runs on. This is shocking.

I have an email somewhere where I went through every GitLab CI DSL and documented which didn't consistently work, which only worked consistently on cloud and which only worked on server. Also things like release that are broken on both.

The only way to make it work is to use multi stage docker builds and if your doing that build bot and a bash script would be better.

Gitlab marketing docs heavily mislead you on its capabilities. Technically they are correct, but the way something works is reality isn't often useful (epic boards are a great example).

This would be ok, but It's really tightly integrated and doesn't provide means for external tools to hook into it usefully.

For example I think GitLabs CI is the worst on the market but if you integrate another CI you don't have a means to feedback information into Gitlab.

The EU keeps attacking the UK through petty vindictive actions like this.

The EU spokesperson clearly knew using Las Malvinas would be perceived as support of Argentina's claim to the island which would upset the UK.

He justified it as the UK isn't a member any longer, so no one was there to object. However in Geopolitics the point of statements is to send a message to the world stage and they knew it would upset the UK.

Considering none of the Islanders want to to be Argentinian and "winning" would be subjugation and possibly genocide of its people. Someone really should point out to Germans and East European's that in their zeal to punish the UK, their leaders have directly endorsed such actions

I supplied the costings for everything and £2k doesn't change the realities that air source heat pumps are currently a rip off.

Air conditioning is significantly cheaper

I am currently getting quotes for that, the point of my post was to point out the cost of an air source heat pump is greater than switching your entire house to air conditioning.