• 1 Post
  • 54 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle


  • Hoping this question is in good faith.

    I think that depends on what we mean by “pay.”

    My take:

    If our lives are better/easier/safer/happier than the lives of those who grew out of wrongs committed by those of our own heritage / lineage, then yes, I believe we should endeavour to make their lives better.

    Whether that’s financial reparations, return of property / land, sharing of resources, etc. should be up to communities to work together to decide.

    Put another way, if my good fortune rests on the misfortune of others - even in the past - my personal take is that I am compelled to help where I can.

    Sometimes that’s a simple as voting for the thing that benefits me less than others or me not at all because it aids those who need it most.

    So yeah, we should “pay” but “pay” can mean so many things.

    That’s just me.






  • It depends on many factors including:

    • visits of individual sites
    • requirements of each site (memory, I/O, persistent storage, ephemeral storage, caching, databases, etc.)

    So you’re right that you make an initial guess and go from there.

    Many tools/sites/projects will have minimum system requirements and you can get an idea of minimums using those stats. Some frameworks might even have guidelines available. The one I use most often for example has a configurable memory footprint. So that’s a datapoint I personally use.

    If they’re all the same type of site (example Ghost blogs) using the same setups then it’s often less intense since you can pool resources like DBs and caching layers and go below minimum system requirements (which for many sites include a DB as part of the requirements).

    Some sites might be higher traffic but use fewer resources, others might be the inverse.

    Then there’s also availability. Are these sites for you? Is this for business? What kind of uptime guarantee do you need? How do you want to monitor that uptime and react to needs as they arrive/occur?

    The best way to handle this is in a modern context also depends on how much and what style of ops you want to engage in.

    Auto-scaling on an orchestration platform (something like K8S) or cloud-provider auto-scaling of VMs or something else? Do you want deployments managed as-code via version control? Or will this be more “click Ops”. No judgement here just a thing that will determine which options are best for you. I do strongly recommend on some kind of codified, automated ops workflow - especially if it’s 25 sites, but even with just a handful. The initial investment will pay for itself very quickly when you need to make changes and are relived to have a blueprint of where you are.

    If you want to set it and forget it there are many options but all require some significant initial configuration.

    If you’re ok with maintenance, then start with a small instance and some monitoring and go from there.

    During setup and staging/testing the worst that can happen is your server runs out of resources and you increase its available resources through whatever method your provider offers. This is where as-code workflows really shine - you can rebuild the whole thing with a few edits and push to version control. The inverse is also true - you can start a bit big and scale down.

    Again, finding what works for you is worth some investment (and by works I don’t just mean what runs, but what keeps you sane when things go wrong or need changing).

    Even load testing, which you mentioned, is hard to get right and can be challenging to instrument and implement in a way that matches real-world traffic. It’s worth doing for sites that are struggling under load, but it’s not something I’d necessarily suggest starting with. I could be wrong here but I’ve worked for some software firms with huge user bases and you’d be surprised how little load testing is done out there.

    Either way it sounds like a fun challenge with lots of opportunities for learning new tricks if you’re up for it.

    One thing I recommend avoiding is solutions that induce vendor lock-in - for example use OpenTofu in lieu of something like CloudFormation. If you decide to use something like that in a SaaS platform - try not to rely on the pieces of the puzzle that make it hard (sticky) to switch. Pay for tools that bring you value and save time for sure, but balance that with your ability to change course reasonably quickly if you need to.


  • As per my other comment - the algorithm is only part of it.

    A big aspect however is the slickness and ease-of-onboarding for mega-Corp apps. It’s a thing that would relatively easy to begin work on.

    I’ve seen first hand the amount of time and money even growth-stage startups spend on onboarding and have lots of first-hand reports from peers at the big girls - it’s a critical part of success. Make it easy to get started and easy to stay using.

    It’s missing from most fediverse experiences. Pixelfed being a serious contender for an on-boarding rethink.

    “time-to-value” - we want that as low as possible.









  • Never used your project but don’t let this thread get you down.

    Clearly OP loves it - don’t let those who don’t know it or don’t like it be the voices that ring loudest in your ears even if they hurt the most.

    I worked professionally in open source at a company with lots of funding. The tools I worked on were used by millions and millions.

    Every negative comment hurt so much. Every angry user I wanted to talk to. Most of them wanted to TALK AT me. It all hurt. And I was being paid. The engineers on my teams were burnt by the community time and time again.

    If you love what you’re doing and you have a growing or happy audience - stay the course. Listen to criticism, decide if you agree (and maybe take some time when it hurts because the criticism might be valid), make a decision and move on.

    Also, and this is going to be tough, maybe think about expanding or modifying what you mean when you say making Lemmy accessible for everyone.

    Do you mean making a UI that will become the majority default or making a UI that brings some features (or perspective) for users who see value in those features? Trying to make something for everyone in a pond as small as the fediverse, where there are already a plethora of options is a big lift.

    Above all, do you. And that includes this comment which I encourage you to promptly ignore. ;)


  • Garuda.

    I’d never used Arch or Arch derivatives but if this is the experience I understand the memes a little more.

    The package management is easy and very up to date. I like the BTRFS snapshots, and it had everything game-related available right out of the box. My Nvidia graphics card, which was the thing I couldn’t get working on Ubuntu, performed as well or better than under windows.

    The only thing that didn’t work for me was ZFS - but because everything else was working well, I just went another route.


  • Longtime every OS user. But have been using Linux since the days of Mandrake in ‘96. Switched to Debian shortly thereafter though mostly as a server/SDN device. Then a long spell on Ubuntu starting with 8.something. While I don’t use Linux on the desktop as my primary work OS, I do use it daily.

    Recently, annoyed with windows, which I only used/booted up for gaming, I gave gaming on Linux a try. It’s been mostly flawless even when the games aren’t Linux-native. Hilariously Ubuntu was awful and I couldn’t get it working so I’ve switched to something more gaming specific and couldn’t happier.




OSZAR »