Nova questão: Noutras distribuições, quando instalo o gnome, acabo ficando com aplicações que não me interessam instaladas como jogos, ou calculadora ou utras aplicações que vêm por defeito.
Gostava de ter uma instalação mais enxuta. Apenas com o gnome-shell e as bibliotecas necessárias ao funcionamento do gnome.
Dá para fazer isso com o Gentoo - escolher não instalar (compilar e instalar) toda essa “tralha”?
Relacionado com a questão da reprodutibilidade:
E bugs? Se eu encontrar um bug num utilitário, digamos… que descubro que grep não seleciona uma expressão que deveria, como reporto o bug?
A minha compilação seria diferente da de outros utilizadores… o bug só ocorre na minha versão (só quando compilado com as opções X, Y e Z… na arquitetura P, na versão Q), ou isso é irrelevante?
É uma pergunta genuína, não estou tentando depreciar o Gentoo - até tenho bastante respeito por quem tem a coragem, assim como pelo pessoal dos BSDs - mas sempre me deixou desconfortável essa questão.
Adorei a iniciativa!!!
Também achei muito boa, a ideia. Precisamos de mais gente como @rita@lemmy.eco.br. :-)
Agora que falei em comparação de hashes, parece-me que seria um serviço interessante, disponibilizar os hashes oficiais num site, com alguma API, utilizável por alguma ferramenta como o tripwire para comparação online.
se alguém quiser reproduzir minha build, só usar as mesmas USE flags que eu, a grosso modo
Mas há algum sistema de comparar os hashes de seus binários com os de outros utilizadores, mesmo que apenas aqueles que usam as mesmas build flags?
Se eu desconfiar (ou quiser confirmar) a autenticidade dum binário debian ou redhat, por exemplo, basta descarregar o pacote dum mirror e comparar os hashes.
Como poderia ser feito num sistema gentoo? Mesmo com as mesmas build flags, não resultam comilações ligeiramente diferentes dependendo do hardware, por exemplo?
Compilando você os binários com flags próprias, não corre o risco de quebrar a “reproducible build”? Ou isso não é valorizado no Gentoo?..
Há algum sistema de comparar os hashes de builds feito por si com os de outros utilizadores?
Went ahead and watched it. It’s great. Thanks.
It’s a good analogy as well. Others have suggested “home” - it’s a good alternative.
That’s another issue I have: Maybe that could be resolved by implementing something similar to (or exactly) openid.
I feel the software we choose might limits us on the kind of thing we’re interested in, that’s why I have to have a lemmy account - I wouldn’t have a discussion like this one on mastodon, for example - and a mastodon account. Maybe a pixelfed account, a peertube account… what a mess! But that’s a subject for another discussion (this discussion was “Permanently Deleted”?!).
Sorry, I misunderstood you, then. :-)
@julesbl@mastodon.me.uk argues that this has been tried and failed here.
You might be right about being able to do almost anything whatever the instance you choose, as long as you already figured it all out, but having an account at a lemmy server, and two at two different mastodon servers, I do have the feeling that the presence on any of them is a different experience.
Don’t forget that what most people’s experience on the fediverse comes probably via mastodon and that they start by getting most of their content via home and local feeds. Federated comes third, i guess.
I am still struggling to find content on some of my preferred topics…
Thanks for the guide.
And the term would reinforce the need do stick to that entity rules. I agree.
That’s what I was thinking about.
I have to acknowledge the point @otter@lemmy.ca makes about there being a collision with the term “community” in the threadiverse perspective. Maybe “home” or even “tribe” or “people” would be a better fit. But I still do think that “community” encompasses the feeling best, and that collision will be promptly resolved once the user understands what communities really are on that narrower scope.
That’s maybe a compromise we will (have to | want to) make.
Once again - that’s my feeling, but I could be wrong.
Wasn’t there something already close to this? “OpenId”?..
Just stumbled upon this: https://wedistribute.org/2025/08/social-web-foundation-is-betting-big-on-client-to-server-api/
Let’s just hope…
Couldn’t IpenId fulfill this need? Do we really need to reinvent the wheel?
I wouldn’t mind having my identity just be a hash (of username@domain and some salt, for example) and have all other fediverse servers use that to authenticate and authorize me but display the username, logo, bio, etc that I had registered on that domain.
Maybe let me overide some information for context per site or inherit from the original id provider.
Then I could be known as FatFingersJoe at the guitar players site where I’m learning scales and SenseiJoe at the karate forum for my dojo. :-D
,or maybe I’m just missunderstanding this fediverse thing alltoguether! :-/
What I allways felt we needed was a federated identity system. Then all posts on a platform could just be followed on any other platform.
Now, joe@one.site has to create a separate account on other.site, but joe@other.site is already taken, so he has to go with doe@other.site and resort to solutions like this one to post to several locations at once.
What I whould suggest is to just create some kind of federated identity provider so that Joe can just be joe@joe.site and post on one.site, other.site or whatever.site he wants and have his posts federate magicaly throughout the fediverse.
Of course, moderation would have to be based more on user accounts than on nodes, I gess…
Wasn’t there something already close to this? “OpenId”?..
Hum… good to know.
I have no experience with hubzilla. Only mastodon and lemmy. And have no idea of how facebook or twitter work.
Lets just hope the fediverse finds ways to deal with problems on the fly…
No próximo vídeo, mostre como pegar num porche e deixar ele igualzinho um fiat uno.