plakar + openbsd
20 points by gonzalo
20 points by gonzalo
I feel backup related systems really need to earn user's trust. The amont of LLM images on Plakar's website are really discouraging in that regard.
Like this one,
I can understand the mixed feeling about LLMs but I don't see how it's technically relevant.
We work with a design studio who did our mascot, our goodies and more generally any illustration that has to be very qualitative. However, the process takes time and when I want to publish an article about something we did, I can't necessarily wait days to get a one-time illustration that's just here to prevent an article from being a wall of text.
I can understand why some people are put off by that, but in the grand order of things, I don't have radical views on things that are subjective and not technical-driven.
I would doubt your judgment on the radicality of one's non-technical views, as it is itself subjective and non-technical, non relevant as you stated yourself.
I think what jussi is getting at is that showing that you don't put care in some issues downplays the quality of your work and feels like the project is marketing features it cannot uphold. If you are using fillers on a regular basis, how can we assume the same is not done for the most important part, writing and teaching about the technical parts of the project?
I'm gonna be honest, none of Plakar's landing page is really getting to me. I can recognize the quality of a good design, the studio you hired did a good job, and I like cute hamsters too! But I would have been as interested in what the project has to offer if checking it through a text-based web browser. (yes, I do check lobsters from my terminal when bored, I'm lazy) We're talking encrypted backups, their inherent constraints, and how your work would make my life better. This is decided on technical matters, your technical writing. Which begs the question, do you really need to put some random illustration alongside your text? Are you that scared that it might look like a wall? To me, your filler signals me two things:
Which are pretty important if you ask me. If you feel like you need it, that you need to ease your target audience to your technicalities, then it is non-trivial work.
At the end of the day, I would go past it if I stumbled upon them, we can agree it is a minor factor all things considered. But it does show technical shortcomings, and more than anything, your comment shows humane shortcomings. I'm sure that you can seal the deal with a company, you're able to financially collaborate with a studio, but I would think twice to pour time alongside someone who only cares about the code they write. Trust me, I'm in that kind of opensource environment for close to a decade now. I won't mind if you brush it off as yet another radical view though
It was harsh sorry, even though I tried to be constructive. If you want to talk about the topic you can send me a DM!
For a project that supposedly is done by some OpenBSD developers, plakar's web site sure is overflowing with marketing speak. Also, quite a number of OpenBSD platforms aren't even supported because this is written in Go.
"Kloset does for data what Docker containers did for compute"
Docker is a shitshow of security issues and compromises. That's not a selling point. But if someone's looking for a quick how-to, this page is much, much more useful than the salespeakese plakar web site.
OpenBSD developers have all sorts of jobs or other projects outside OpenBSD. plakar is not an OpenBSD project.
You can criticize the plakar website, but expecting OpenBSD developers to make all their projects (personal and professional) align to OpenBSD is quite extreme.
Also, what does security have to do with this Docker comparison? I didn’t see that mentioned anywhere.
I don't look at a web site that has salesy, bullshitty copy throughout and think that the thing they're trying to sell is a product that has had care put in to it. My take is that I'm surprised that OpenBSD developers would want to participate in a project that has such a human disconnected web site representing it.
I never thought nor suggested that this was an OpenBSD project. If I thought that, I'd have very, very different ideas about it.
Regarding Docker, I can't tell if you're trolling. If someone says, "We're as good as Microsoft at security", many people would conclude that they suck at security, because Microsoft sucks at security.
"Kloset does for data what Docker containers did for compute"
So do you really not realize that if the primary component of this project is compared with Docker, and Docker has tons of security issues, this might suggest that a priority of the component is not security? I don't quite understand your inability to make that connection.
This project looks super corporate/enterprisey, but it's totally open source and usable without paying?
developer here:
Project has been opensource for ~10 years, ISC licensed, available on github, developed on discord and with blog posts documenting the whole process throughout the years. You can download and install with a single command and use it, some people have for years without paying.
The website is corporate because we sell an enterprise product that extends the base blocks of plakar, no requirement to use that enterprise product for a lambda user.
Ya, I couldn't easily tell how they are funding this, so I gave up and won't even try it. If it's not obvious how it's funded, there is a great chance it's shady or so expensive as to not even bother wasting my time.
very simple:
I created the open-source project, ISC-licensed, over ten years ago and worked on it on my personal time throughout the year as I've done with many other open-source projects, documenting the whole process on a blog throughout the years.
A year ago I decided to work full time on it, created a company and raised $3M to hire a team (mostly made of open-source folks) and create an enterprise product that would be built on top of the open-source blocks. This company is now funding the development of its own enterprise product + the open source blocks that are at the core of it, and it does so through the raised money + customer contracts. This models allows us to make the open-source project viable by having customers pay indirectly for its development.
I don't know why you would think it's shady given that the code is fully open-sourced and that the license is so liberal you could just fork the code and do whatever you want with it, you don't have to ever talk to us.
I don't know why you would think it's shady given that the code is fully open-sourced and that the license is so liberal you could just fork the code and do whatever you want with it, you don't have to ever talk to us.
I meant the company, not the code(I haven't looked at the code). I didn't say it was shady. I said it's either shady OR too expense to bother learning more about it(the adage: if you have to ask the price, the answer is not worth the ask). It sounds like, based on your comment, it's in the latter category, too expensive to bother learning about. That said, Good for you for finding a way to make money with OSS code. Go you! That's a hard thing to do, so I'm glad you found a path that works for you.
Around the code and the open-core model, if you want more OSS people to use the code, we have to easily figure out if what we want is in the open-core or not. I looked through the documentation and couldn't easily figure out what's open and what isn't. Most all open-core software is usually crippled somehow(sometimes very badly) without paying, so the assumption is that's also true here.
All that said, and seriously I mean this bit: I'm very happy you figured out a way to make open source pay you for your work, and thank you for releasing OSS code in the first place.
I think that's a bit harsh? From the website I'm assuming they're doing the whole "fully open source software but selling support licenses to organisations"
There's no pricing page, but a lot of 'book for a demo' buttons. Like they'll setup your self hosted instance and provide support for a price kinda deal.
Agreed, it was a bit harsh. I didn't mean the harshness, I was just distracted and wasn't thinking much about how my message could be received. Good feedback, thanks.
