otl

Huh wow didn't know Teams didn't have multiple screen sharing. Nice work.

Something does irk me about the whole approach, though. We have accomplished some amazing stuff in the software world. But Jesus almighty we have some serious interoperability problems, to the point where we literally just send pixels to one another because that's all we've got. Reminds me of that glib statement "the web has become just 4 websites full of screenshots of each other" (or however it goes).

No worries! Writing that down actually helped clarify some of my thoughts.

Something extra: distributed computing.

Let's say you have 3 processes that need to communicate with one another. There's heaps of tooling available in OSs to manage those processes. Logging, networking, filesystem access, privilege separation, resource allocation... all provided by the host OS without installing anything. But what if those 3 processes can't run on one "machine"? Which process should go where? What if it needs 8GB memory but there's only 6GB available on some of the machines? Who controls that?

Systems like Kubernetes, Nomad, Docker Swarm etc. offer a way to manage this. They let us say something like:

• run this process (by specifying a container image),
• give it at least these resources (xGB memory, xvCPUs)
• let it communicate with these other processes (e.g. pods, overlay networks...)

These systems manage containers. If you want to do distributed computing and want to take advantage of those systems to manage it, stuff needs to be run in containers.

Containers are not the only way to do distributed computing - far from it! But over the past few years this particular approach has become popular in the, umm... "commercial software development industry".

Opinion. Are Linux containers something to look into as someone who doesn't work in the industry? Unless you're interested in how containers themselves work and/or distributed computing; frankly - no. Computers are still getting faster and cheaper. So why is all this stuff so popular in the commercial world? I'll end with some tongue-in-cheek.

Partly it's because the software development industry is made up of actual human beings who have their own emotions and desires. Distributed computing is a fun idea because tech people are faced with challenges tech people are interested in.

Boring: can we increase our real estate agency brand recognition by 200%? We could provide property listings as both a CSV and PDF to our partners! Our logo could go on the PDF! Wow! Who knows how popular our brand could be?

Fun: can we increase throughput in this part of the system by 200%? We might need to break that component out to run on a separate machine! Wow! Who knows who fast it could go?

When you specify To: [email protected] how does the bridge know if you meant https://aussie.zone/c/localtesting or https://aussie.zone/u/localtesting instead?

Good question

The process of going from that email-like address to an ActivityPub Actor (https URL) is done by WebFinger. So whatever we get back from that lookup is who we send the message to. For example, when we look up [email protected] we get this response (truncated for readability):

{
  "rel": "self",
  "type": "application/activity+json",
  "href": "https://aussie.zone/c/localtesting",
  "properties": {
    "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#type": "Group"
  }
}

The value for type, application/activity+json tells us that we can send ActivityPub stuff to it.

You can play around with WebFinger in the browser.

• your account: https://webfinger.net/lookup/?resource=binomialchicken%40lemmy.blahaj.zone
• my one: https://webfinger.net/lookup/?resource=otl%40apubtest2.srcbeat.com

Hope that makes sense?

Markdown was originally designed for exactly your use case. The Daring Fireball blog has been using Markdown for 20 years now.

I always forget how old Markdown is. And the syntax it's inspired from - plain-text email - has been in use for even longer!

Containers are used for a whole bunch of reasons. I'll address just one: process isolation. I'll only do one because I've ran into times when containers were not helpful. And it may lead to some funny stories and interesting discussion from others!

A rule of thumb for me is that if the process is well-behaved, has its dependencies under control and doesn't keep uneccesary state, then it may not need the isolation provided by a container and all the tooling that comes with it.

On one extreme, should we run ls in a container? Probably not. It doesn't write to the filesystem and has only a handful of dependencies available on pretty much any Unix-like/Linux system.

But on the other extreme, what about that big bad internal Node.JS application which requires some weird outdated Python dependencies that has many hardcoded paths and package versions? The original developer is long gone. It dumps all sorts of shit to the filesystem. Nobody is really sure whether those files are used as a cache or they contain some critical state management. Who wants to spend the time and money to tidy that thing up? In this scenario containers can be used to hermetically seal a fragile thing. This can come back to bite you. Instead of actually improving the software to be portable and robust enough to work in varied execution environments (different operating systems, on a laptop, as a library...), you kick the can down the road.

roger that

Hey mate thanks for writing all that down. Gives me a few ideas - in particular how NNTP could fit in to the equation.

LKML can be accessed by a usenet client at nntp.lore.kernel.org. In theory, then, it should be possible to at least read both LKML and ActivityPub stuff hosted at the same NNTP server. To get that working means making sure all the conversion and mapping of concepts are as clean as possible. It's a good test!

Thanks again!

Don't tempt me :D

I'd much rather have this put in front of LKML than the terrible interface they have right now.

Interesting. Could you go into this a bit more? Do you mean for example being able to use the Lemmy web UI to read LKML?

Oh wow awesome. Thanks so much!

It needs a bit more fleshing out, removing a bit of hardcoding too. And of course I want to publishit under an open source licence too. Thanks for the tip - I've written it down in the growing TODO file! :)

This is interesting, but have you considered porting to Usenet?

Yes that's on the list! Now that I have a whole bunch of RFC822 files, (in Maildirs) I can also serve them over read-only NNTP. This was the original goal actually - I like the idea of using the simpler protocol NNTP over IMAP to read stuff.