Fascinating

Yup, it's on the website, but not in the conference app. Let's see

Are you sure? I'm the agenda I only see her on a workshop today...

80% що ллм

Likely they have a registry of issues to fix and the moment something's in that registry, it's not considered a major, but a known issue and is accepted as a "temporarily" acceptable as long as it will be eventually addressed before a deadline. The usual way to address it is to extend the deadline.

Having worked in heavy controlled/regulated environments, my conclusion is that they likely knew what needs to be done, just weren't doing it because it was just one of the processes and there was an easier process to "mitigate" this gap.

My guess is they knew but did it anyway. That's the dilemma of consulting.

Encrypt the backups with a key/method stored outside of the cloud and it will not matter where the backups are. If you're a government, use a post-quantum encryption approach. It all costs extra, of course, but the value of backup is measured in the cost of losing it. Now they will have a number.

Ох, я вже й забув як глибоко цей трек заходить

More like cancer wants its opinion included in the treatment plan.

Absolutely. Godspeed.

Then I'm with you. There will be legal questions of "what does it mean to make profit" and who will be checking that, but that's a different story.

E.g. must Wikipedia pay? Should they pay for everything including Apache and Linux?

Etc etc

I know it's happening, what I'm saying, this is not a problem with the OSS, but with the expectations. Attachment is real, but if you ask psychologists, all examples of OSS developer burnout when not being paid, fit the "unhealthy attachment". As sad as it is, sometimes you just have to walk away.

there's a clear statement in the project "1/4/8 hours of my time costs $XXX, here's the current balance, here's the collection jar, the moment there's enough for me to work, i'll do that. those that contributed will be prioritized based on the amount", then I absolutely agree with the idea.

i did and my opinion stands. i'm all with you to encourage people to support open source projects, but the moment it becomes mandatory (for instance in form of preventing people from building their own releases), imo, it's open source de jure but not de facto.

if, on the other hand, you mean that

it all goes back to the first principle: "Every good work of software starts by scratching a developer's personal itch."

i had a choice of implementing it myself or asking the maintainer. as an adult, I know that if I need work done and I cannot do it myself, i'm expected to pay to somebody.

would you mind answering why the maintainers feel obliged to maintain for free? is somebody forcing them?

i remember i once made a PR into an opensource project and the owner simply ignored it. it was annoying to me, but what i ended up doing was simply build my own version and use it.