Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)GR
GroundPlane @iusearchlinux.fyi
Posts 1
Comments 30
And don't forget RTFM
  • Literally C/C++. Most used out there. Now if you want to do everything with it, you're in for a long ride. You can do everything on every platform with C. But learning the language is the easy part. The hard part is learning good coding pratices, which library to use and how. Only guides and practice will help you there

  • And don't forget RTFM
    1. Turning into an executable is compiling as far as C goes. For Python, there probably is something somewhere to wrap a script into a .exe.

    2. For the UI: what matters is the data you generate, not the fluff around it. As the other commenter said, start with a CLI program. You can easily nest several levels of menus if that's your thing. This allows you to have user input. Then for outputs you can do it to a .txt or .md file. Use simple text-based formats. Then once you've got that down you could build a GUI? But tbh I have never built a GUI and I've been programming for 10 years at this point so I can't help you out. There are simple cross-platform libraries you can use out there

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • I'm trying to lay a plan in my head where some software parts of the project could be made as graduate projects. If I can get key teachers in on it they could really help out. I'll draft a plan in my head and try to gather people who showed interest here for a meeting once a better-crafted top-level view is set

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • Got you. It is a shame that this part of crypto is not more widely publicized, as it is its most interesting use in my eyes.

    Still think it can't be the only solution if we want wider reach. To avoid taxes and legal structures, I want to study whether we can interface with projects' available donation options and automatically split a user donation into several. Skipping the "finding the donation option for each project" problem which can be tediously human-solved for a proof of concept, the issue would be whether the process could be easy for the user while not getting obliterated by transaction fees.

    There is no need to develop a crypto side since I'm sure a way to interface with Kivach could be found if the other fiat currency problems are solved beforehand.

    Thank you for your input, it means a lot.

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • Ideally you would let picky users override every setting and provide fair enough defaults. That includes library donation cascading etc. At the end of the day it seems the core part of the project should be providing fair enough defaults

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • SPI is great, didn't know about it. Sadly, it would need more projects in it to be a core pillar of FOSS funding. They are clearly aiming to build something stable and that's good for them. But I feel like their application process is a little too long for simply distributing funds around.

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • You are not missing the point and bring up something my jaded views keep reminding me about. It is important to not believe too much in your efforts so as to stay grounded and not be too enthusiastic and get disappointed when downturns inevitably appear.

    I'm battling between two approaches about data collection: the tedious manual entry on behalf of devs or the fully automated scrapping a la other existing efforts in the field

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • The solutions you linked are interesting but ultimately neglect the most important aspect in my opinion: discussion among stakeholders. They also tend to use bitcoin, which has proven it could not gain enough traction to be mainstream yet.

    Taking the core principle of Kivach and making it viable in state-backed currency, using the platforms devs have already set up for payment would be a great leap forward. We need to get something going and build support from a critical mass.

    Why is Kivach not more widely used? We should tackle these questions and try to improve it.

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • You are indeed a good motivator! The reason I did not want to make this post at first is that I need everything: people to brainstorm with, people that can carry the project, people with the skills to create a prototype, people who can convince FOSS projects to get on board, and people willing to encourage others to donate.

    Overall too much labor, skills and connection for one person. I believe we would need a team of 10-15 volunteers, some already involved in projects, to put something up

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • That would be a nice option for web-based stuff. I guess the whole difficulty is to get a list of projects and to publicize it widely. I also believe donations should be stupid simple or they will never take off.

    The main difference between your idea and mine lies in who decides where the money goes. I do not think end users should decide 100%, because that ignores a lot of critical under-the-hood software. Users must however have a completely transparent report of who gets what. I guess at that point they should be able to adjust it to their whims, which circles back to your point 1.

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • That's sort of what is preached here. However, no one is gonna bother making a complete list of projects and dependencies. And we still have to define what is the even distribution among Lemmy and its dependencies for example, hence the need for a democratic structure

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • Thank you for the input. I guess it would be hard to track community engagement. Also, whatever is done with the donation is up to the project maintainers, in any case. Accepting the pull request in your case is also a great deal of work given the amount of spam they can create, so it is still fair in some way. No one will get rich off of donations anyway

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it
  • I did, and I was intentionally hopeful when I wrote that. I stand by the latter part of the argument though. I've seen enough situations where splitting money was not a problem as long as a common interest was there and the decision process was flear and fair

  • Love FOSS and want to donate? Here's how we can do it

    We all love FOSS. Lately, many of us have expressed their disarray at hearing stories of maintainers quitting due to a variety of factors. One of these is financial.

    While donating to your favorite app developer is something many of you already do, the process can be tedious. We're running all sorts of software on our machines, and keeping an exhaustive list to divide donations to projects is somehow more effort than tinkering with arch btw™.

    Furthermore, this tends to ignore library projects. Library maintainers have been all over FOSS-centered media rightly pointing out that their work is largely unnoticed and, you guessed it, undervalued.

    What can we do about it? Under a recent Lemmy post, some have expressed support for the following idea:

    Create a union of open source maintainers to collect donations and fairly redistribute them to members.

    How would this work?

    Client-side:

    1. You take some time to list the software you use and want to donate to
    2. You donate whatever amount you want for the whole

    Server-side:

    1. Devs register their projects to the union while listing their dependencies
    2. A repartition table is defined by the relevant stakeholders. Models discussed below.
    3. When a user donates, the money is split according to the repartition table

    How do we split the money? It could be:

    • Money is split by project. A portion of donations go to maintainers of libraries used by the project.
    • Money is split according to need. Some developers don't need donations because they are on company payroll. Some projects are already well-funded. Some devs are struggling while maintaining widely used libraries (looking at you core-js). Devs log their working time and get paid per hour in proportion of all donations.
    • Any other scheme, as long as it is democratically decided by registered maintainers.

    Think of it like a worldwide FOSS worker co-op. You "buy" software from the co-op and it decided what to do with the money.

    We "only" need to get maintainers to know about the initiative, get on board and find a way to split the money fairly. I'm sure it will be easy to agree on a split, since any split of existing money will be more satisfactory than splitting non-existent money.

    What are your thoughts on this? Would you as a maintainer register? Would you donate as a user? Would you join a collective effort to build this project? Let's discuss this proposition together and find a way to solve that problem so that FOSS can keep thriving!

    49