My coworker used it till his HDD broke, taking his key into data heaven. The repository is still online thanks to radicale, but he has no way to ever get push access to it again.

So it is useless as any misstep can potentially kill your access to the repo.

It's just a git repo, so it does not replace a forge. A forge provides a lot of services around the repo and makes the project discoverable for potential users. None of that is covered by this thing.

I frankly see little value wrapping a decentralized version control system into layers of cryptography that hides where the data is actually stored (and how long it is going to be stored). Just mirror the repo a couple of times and you have pretty good protection against the code going offline again and you are done. No cryptography needed, and you get a lot of extras, too.

If you do not like github: Use other forges. Self-host something, go to Codeberg or sourcehut, use something other than git like pijul or fossil, or whatever tickles your fancy. Unfortunately you will miss out on a lot of potential contributors and users there :-(

GPL effects "derived works". So if your code is derived from proprietary code, you can not use GPL, as you would need to re-license the proprietary code and you can't do that (assuming you do not hold the copyright for the proprietary code). LGPL and permissive licenses are probably fine though.

Now what exactly is a "derived work"? That is unfortunate up to interpretation and different organizations draw the line in slightly different places. We'd need people to go to court to get that line nailed down more firmly.

Then how do you not see the point of a distributed sourceforge?

But this is no forge, it is just a git repo.

Again, have you even opened the webpage?

Yeap, I even put a repo into it. That's why I am so certain that it is useless.

Hosting a git repo is not a problem. Having an discoverable forge is. And this does not help with that in any way.

So github is not a problem?

Something can not be a solution independent of whether or not something else is another problem or not.

And regarding crypto, show me where in the code it forces you to use crypto. Show me the rad command that inhibits you from doing a normal git operation by bringing up crypto.

There is lots of needless crypto(graphy) going on all over the place. It is entirely useless for code hosting in a git repo.

No, I would prefer a world where not everything is concentrated on github, but that is the world we have to work with:-)

But how does this address any of the problems you brought up?

Do you think a project will be more discoverable when you say: "Clone foo/bar from github" or when you say "install this strange crypto-BS, then clone rad:xyhdhsjsjshhhfuejthhh just like you normally would"?

Apart from discoverability you get a known workflow for contributors, a CI and a bug tracker. Coincidently those make it hard for projects to switch away from github... how does this address any of that? "Use this workflow, which is even wierder than any of the other github alternatives!" and "just set up a server yourself"?

Sorry, this is just yet another crypto-bro solution in search of a problem. Technically interesting, I'm give you that, but useless.

The quote above covered exactly what you just said: "yet were also more likely to rate their insecure answers as secure compared to those in our control group" at work :-)

Censorship is about you being limited in the actions you can take to express yourself. It is not about cushioning you from the consequences of those actions from the people around you.

You obviously were allowed to take action: The contents was apparent upon on a forum and here as well. People reacted to your actions: Admins removed your contents and blocked you and I am telling you that your understanding of wayland as well as politics is limited.

Deal with it.

One more reason to run the steam flatpak: At least I can sandbox away things steam does not need to concern itself with.

The point of using the TPM is that it does not unlock the drive unless it has a certain set of software is loaded in a certain sequence on the machine with that specific TPM chip.

So if somebody breaks grub and makes it load a shell, then that results in different software loaded (or at least loaded in a different sequence) and will prevent the TPM to unlock the system. The same is true if somebody boots from a rescue disk (different software loaded) or when you try to unlock the disk in an unexpected phase of the boot process (same software but different sequence of things loaded, e.g. after boot up to send the key to some server on thr network. The key is locked to one TPM, so removing the drive and booting it in a different machine also does not work.

The TPM-locked disk is pretty secure, even more so than that USB idea of yours -- if the system you boot into is secure. It basically stops any attacker from bringing extra tools to help them in their attack. All they have available is what your system has installed. Do not use auto-login or run some root shell in some console somewhere...

Everybody needs just a small subset of that excel does, but everybody needs a different subset.

If you do not have all the features, most of your users will be missing something that is critical to their use case.

None of these even want to include support for features found in the Linux kernel, so that they work can work on all Unix systems out there. Thatbis a design decision eachnofnthese made.

So none offers similar features to lock down services out of the box, as those rely on Linux specific kernel features. Of course you can hack that into the init scripts somehow. Sysv-init has shown how well that worked cross-distribution.

Systemd moved the goal posts for what a Linux init system needs to do. I doubt any generic Unix init system can compete.

Maybe you are running Wayland and not X11?