I like Forth, but let us be honest, building stuff that last, that is efficient, that will not bitrot, that is built like a tank — you can do it with most of langauges!
Some projects (most popular one is CollapseOS) had reasons to pick Forth, but there are people with similar ethos who picked up C (check this game).
Welcome!
Mountain hut by Mario Botta. It was closed, but pleasant enough and di fit the colour shape of the mountain rocks.
It was really great to be outside again. Just two days, but we walked a lot, eat hearty dishes and had fun!
I don't mind moderators having their ideas or even ranting or even blowing off some steam in the thread they make/parecipate in.
Their moderating job is to avoid the community being drowned in spam/scam etc. and as far as I can see there are few to no spam posts in !opensource@lemmy.ml. In that particular thread they went wild but as far as I can see did not abuse their mod powers.
tl;dr: judge the moderator as the moderator, and the user as a user. I didn't particularly like that thread too, but from moderating POV, I haven't yet seem something by haui I disagree with.
If you are comfortable with the command line hledger is a great program which has good tools for importing .csv files from banks and other financial companies.
Scribus is an excellent libre desktop publishing program.
I used to write a small postcard game for the “Wish you were here” jam, but it is suited to any job up to professional level.
Excellent writeup!
I had the pleasure to try the client last week and it felt clean and responsive!
I am happier when I see copyleft but let’s be honest, I would contribute to an interesting, useful project regardless of their choice between MIT and GPL. Same for companies: some prefer MIT, but there is no way they are not going to contribute to the Linux Kernel just because of copyleft. So bottom line is: make something that people enjoy/find useful and see contributors flocking.
CLAs are a different matter: I do not contribute to projects which ask you to assign them copyright unless I 100% trust the organisation behind them.
As a contributor, I never particularly cared about permissions if I participate in a project with a few patches. It becomes useful when you are diagnosing a CI problem, etc. and you need to push a lot of tweaks to discover where the bug is located.
More generally, treat contributors like you want to be treated. Try to be responsive, compassionate, guide them through the process of having a PR merged, be ready to fix a minor mess or two, congratulate them on a job well done.
Open development is as much a story of people as a story of code.
Customization for big enterprises is actually a viable business model, only if it generates as much money as the company sustains and can continue to expand?
Yes, it is only a viable business model in the end if it generates enugh revenues to cover materials and labour, like every business on planet Earth.
I am sorry to say some of what you write is not correct.
Red Hat — I know they had their slice of controversies lately, but still — is a ≃33bn USD company, how is that not making money? They sell solutions based on OSS (different from selling software!), which is one viable way of making money.
Other ways are: selling support, selling licence exceptions (when you are the sole copyright holder of the codebase, MySQL did that), sponsored development for new features, SaaS (bad!), customization for big enterprises/public actors, open-sourcing software but keeping assets proprietary (some games do that), and many more.
I feel one of the most important things for a thriving open source project is easy onboarding.
Statement of friendliness and similar are not that useful if I don’t know where to start to contribute to your project. A clean, up to date CONTRIBUTING file goes a long way, architecture documentation is extremely good, optimal is having an experience developer checking your patches and offering help.
Repositories that I contribute to the most helped me in the first phases of the journey, it was awesome, I gave back.
Nope! Little known to people, you just need to locally clone your repository with --bare and upload that. You will see you can clone it even if you don't have a git server!
It is a very slick, minimalist solution.
It might not be a solution for everyone, but you can self host a git repository on your static site!
stagit is a static git site generator. It is lean, you can self host it even of the cheapest of shared hosting and it makes code browseable via html, which is a plus for sharing and receiving suggestions/contributions.
For a relatively small, low bandwith project it is a charm. As an example, here are my repositories.