• dan@upvote.au
    2·
    8 months ago

    Keep in mind that software doesn’t have an expiry date. If a piece of software is unmaintained and doesn’t have an active fork but it still fulfills your use case and doesn’t have any major issues, there’s no need to replace it. Some of the software I use hasn’t seen any updates in five years but I still use it because it still works.

    Edit: As an example, a lot of people still use WinDirStat even though the latest release 1.1.2 is now 17 years old.

    • greencactus@lemmy.world
      1·
      8 months ago

      Do the Fossify versions already have new features? I’ll still using Simple Mobile Tools from F-Droid, without ads, and am asking if it makes sense to download Fossify apps already

        • theneverfox@pawb.socialEnglish
          0·
          8 months ago

          Holy shit… The balls of that policy. “Hey, we took two common words of the English language for our project. They’re ours now.”

          The psuedo-friendly tone where they define fair use as “all the places we want you to market for us, and none of the ones we don’t” (specifically “showing support of rust”… Not as in “our software supports rust”, but “I want to praise rust publicly”) and you use the word rust in a project… So I guess <my_sdk>-rust can probably be licensed if we ask.

          I think I figured out the hack - you use the word rust, along with the logo for the still popular game rust (released 2 years before it). They’ll be paralyzed by the mental gymnastics it takes to twist their stance into a “friendly cease and desist” for months. And when it finally comes, you can insist you were talking about the game, Rust, using familiar programming concepts allegorically to comment on game mechanics and emergent design and through player interaction and feedback.

          Then you say “I think I’ve heard of rust-lang in the last couple years, some people really seem to like it. But library availability is a concern, do you have a good package manager? Can I find a package for most things I might need?”

          • onion@feddit.de
            0·
            8 months ago

            I just wanna point out that what can and can’t be done with a trademark is defined by law and not by the wishes of some corpo

      • dukk@programming.dev
        0·
        8 months ago

        They’re both pretty on par for the most part. If it’s too much of a hassle, there’s no real need to switch.

        Now that Gitea is owned by a for-profit company, people are afraid that they’ll be making anti-user changes. This, Forgejo was born. It pulls from Gitea weekly, so it’s not missing anything. It’s also got some of its own features on top, but they’re currently pretty minor. Also, most of the features end up getting backported back to Gitea, so they’re mostly on par with each other. However, many features find themselves in Forgejo first, as they don’t have the copyright assignment for code that Gitea does. Additionally, security vulnerabilities tend to get fixed faster on Forgejo. They are working on federation plans, however, so we’ll see how that pans out.

        Overall, there’s no downside of switching to Forgejo, and you’ll probably be protected if Gitea Ltd. makes some stupid decisions in the future. However, at the moment, there’s no immediate advantage to switching, so you can stick with Gitea if you’d like.

        • PlexSheep@feddit.de
          0·
          8 months ago

          I thought gitea was doing federation too? Im pretty excited about that part, as I’ve wanted to move away from GitHub but the visibility it gives is just on another level. Users can’t register on my instance, therefore they also can’t open issues and PRs.

          Is switching to forgejo more work than just changing my compose file a little? I hope my database can get transferred.