Responsibility is shared. It's not one or the other.
Many people don't know what they're doing. That's kind of expected. But a tool provider and seller should know what they're doing. Enabling people to behave in a negative way should be questioned. Maybe it's a consequence of enablement, or maybe it's bad design or marketing. Where criticism is certainly warranted.
Have you considered creating a ticket called "Can't ask questions without joining discord"?
Do you think it would have more answers if it were on GitHub discussions?
If you're fine with or want a two-pane Commander, Double Commander supports FTP.
I feel like a lot of alternative file explorers do!? Pretty sure I've seen it relatively often/regularly.
You point to Valve as a success story, but the "pick the work you want" also lead to less deliverables and focus and they had to refocus that approach. Free pick and experimentation is fine until you get to a point where you want to get something out the door - when it's a bigger thing, and you need more and focused people, to bring it to the finish line.
I can't speak how it would be elsewhere and everywhere, but I can speak from personal experience how my workplace is set up.
We're relatively small, work for various customers, some continuous and some contract-scoped. Developers work and speak either directly to and with customers, or have at most one person "in between" that is part of usually our team.
We have an agile and collaborative mindset, and often guide our customers into productive workflows.
Being on relatively small teams, with opportunity for high personal impact, and with agency, I was able to take initiative and work in a way I am very satisfied with. I am able to prioritize myself, collaborate with my customer to understand their needs, understandings, and priorities, and then make my decisions - explicitly or implicitly. Two-week plannings give good checkpoints to review and reassess intended priorities - which are only guides. Stuff comes up that takes priority anyway, be it from the customer, or improving code when you stumble upon it.
I'm glad to be on my current team where the customer pays monthly for how much we worked, so no repeated contract work estimation. I can and do decide on what makes sense, and we communicate on priorities, planning, and consequences. Either I decide or we discuss whether one or another solution makes more sense considering effort, significance, and degree of solution or acceptableness. One person from the customer is our direct gate to them, participates in meetings, planning, tickets, prioritization. They block all of their requests to us, and communicate to and with us on what they deem important enough. And they are our gateway to asking the customers roles and people regarding usage, functionality, needs, etc.
For me, this environment is perfect. It allows me to collaborate with the customers to match their long term needs.
I think it needs good enough developers though. There's those that are mindful and actively invested, but also people who are not. Some become great productive workers with guidance and experience, but it doesn't always fit. I feel like a lack of proactive good development given the environment and agency isn't a given, but I don't think "management" improves that. You're putting a manager on top in hopes they're a person like that. But why couldn't that be a team member in the first place?
Managers and more strict role splitting becomes more necessary or efficient the bigger you scale. I feel like smaller projects and teams are more efficient and satisfactory. You have less people and communication interfaces. And as a developer, you probably know that interfaces [between systems] are one of the biggest issue causers.
For context, I am Lead Developer (became when we introduced those roles explicitly), and our team size was 2 for a long time, but has now been 4 for a while, and is now 3 developers +1 now in semi-retirement working only half of the year.
Earlier this week for a character range.
/edit: Now I remember. For setting up a new entry in Jenkins CI build failure analysis - identifying the build failure cause in the log.
Ignoring secondary email addresses, what was my primary [onlineaccount] E-Mail address has changed four times.
many2one: so in this relationship you will have more than one record in one table which matches to only one record in another table. something like A <-- B. where (<–) is foreign key relationship. so B will have a column which will be mapped to more than one record of A.
no, the other way around
When B has a foreign key to A, many B records may relate to one A record. That's the many2one part.
The fact that different B records can point to different A records is irrelevant to that.
one2many: same as many2one but instead now the foreign key constrain will look something like A --> B.
It's the same, mirrored. Or mirrored interpretation / representation to be more specific. (No logical change.)
If you had B --> A for many2one, then the foreign key relationship is still B --> A. But if you want to represent it from A perspective, you can say one2many - even though A does not hold the foreign keys.
In relational database schemata, using foreign keys on a column means the definition order is always one to one, and only through querying for the shared id will you identify the many.
many2many: this one is interesting because this relationship doesn’t make use of foreign key directly. to have this relationship between A and B you have to make a third database something like AB_rel. AB_rel will hold values of primary key of A and also primary key of B. so that way we can map those two using AB_rel table.
Notably, we still make use of foreign keys. But because one record does not necessarily have only one FK value we don't store it in a column but have to save it in a separate table.
This association table AB_rel will then hold the foreign keys to both sides.
Without the toxic dismissal of other people this would have been a good comment.
When they asked whether I use AI tools I chose yes, but the followup questions made it obvious they were talking about more specific query-based tools. So I went back and chose no instead.
What I use is Visual Studio IntelliCode. Which is free and local-only, and offers single-line-completions from context. It also offers completing repeated edits in more places.
It's an AI tool too, but nothing like the query-based chat-/text-interface or more complex AI tools - especially in regards to the questions that followed, which did not apply at all.
It's about flying bugs with wings after all.
I've been using netcup for a decade. They're very reliable and high quality. (Management/Admin interface, functionality, help wiki. Never had reliability issues.)
I've used other providers before. I'm very satisfied with netcup.
Are you sure? I'm not very active in that ecosystem, but if that was prevalent in the past, surely there's still tutorials and stuff out there that people would follow and create such projects even today?
More than that, it seems to me that the official python docs for packaging [still] talks about setup.py. Why would people not use that?