It does have that, the ecosystem is just really fractured and also not good.
Sort of the 'standard' way of managing dependencies is with Pip and a requirements.txt
. By itself, that installs dependencies on your host system.
So, there's a second tool, venv, to install them per-project, but because it's a separate tool, it has to do some wacky things, namely it uses separate pip
and python
executables, which you have to specify in your IDE.
But then Pip also can't build distributions, there's a separate tool for that, setup.py
, and it doesn't support things like .lock-files for reproducible builds, and if I remember correctly, it doesn't deal well with conflicting version requirements and probably various other things.
Either way, people started building a grand unified package manager to cover all these use-cases. Well, multiple people did so, separately. So, now you've got, among others:
Well, and these started creating their own methods of specifying dependencies and I believe, some of them still need to be called like a venv, but others not, so that means IDEs struggle to support all these.
Amazingly, apart from Rye, which didn't exist back when we started that project, none of these package managers support directly depending on libraries within the same repo. You always have to tag a new version, publish it, and then you can fix your dependent code.
And yeah, that was then the other reason why this stuff didn't work for us. We spent a considerable amount of time with symlinks and custom scripts to try to make that work.
I'm willing to believe that we fucked things up when doing that, but what makes still no sense is that everything worked when running tests from the CLI, but the IDE showed nothing but red text.
Uh, you sure, you're not somehow allergic or something? I glug pureed tomatoes like there's no tomorrow and I've never had heartburn or indigestion from them.
Seems like they just asked people "Would you be willing to give up owning a car for good?" and then people got to respond with:
It's described in the report on pages 19, 20 and 150.
The five on the left are where cars are most dispensable, and the five on the right are where cars are least dispensable.
There's two alternatives currently in development, inZOI from the PUBG devs, and Paralives from a smaller indie studio.
I'd say Organic Maps is quicker, if you know a specific information at a specific place needs to be updated, whereas StreetComplete is better for finding out where on the map information is still missing.
So, StreetComplete basically sends you on various 'quests' to check information on-site. It's more intended, if you're generally interested in contributing, but makes it rather fun to do so.
Big difference to the Wikimedia Foundation is how much money they need. The Mozilla Corporation (which develops Firefox) has around 750 employees.
Optimistically, only 500 of those are devs and work on Firefox. If you pay those a wage of 100,000 USD, that makes 50 million USD of costs just for wages.
Firefox has less than 200 million monthly active users, so everyone using it would need to donate $0.25, or alternatively 1% of users would need to donate $25, yearly.
That's a lot of money to hope people donate, and this is a very optimistic ballpark estimate.
Yeah, the amount of money they get from donations is so tiny compared to what they need for developing Firefox, that they don't even divert it for Firefox.
They use it for activism, community work and in the past, they've also passed it on to other open-source projects, which are also important for the web but don't have the infrastructure or public awareness to get donations directly.
Ich kann mir den Typen so überhaupt nicht in einer Führungsposition vorstellen. In der Opposition den populistischen Miesepeter spielen, das kann er ausgezeichnet, aber selbst Ziele setzen und umsetzen, kann ich mir nicht vorstellen.
Schon klar, dass er das als Vorstand der Stillstandspartei auch nicht unbedingt will, aber ist dann halt auch weniger Führungsposition und mehr Totgeburt.
@Ephera
@lemmy.ml