Install Guix
but I’ll probably pick up a steam controller!
See ya in 2027… 👋
You don’t like the one you posted to the Jellyfin comm
I don’t know enough about it to form an opinion about it.
If not then why share it?
Because I thought it was interesting.
So I guess you can just hook up IPTV directly into Jellyfin. But there also seem to be helper apps like xTeVe, Dispatcharr, Threadfin, and others?
Are these helper apps worth an install? I’m curious if anyone has a favorite.
Ah, yep. :/
From the readme:
Disclaimer: This repository contains portions of code, documentation, or text generated with the assistance of AI/LLM tools. All outputs have been reviewed and adapted by the author to the best of their ability before inclusion.
You do have to ask for permission. https://docs.codeberg.org/ci/
Asking permission involves creating an issue on the Codeberg-e.V./requests repo: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-e.V./requests/issues/new?template=ISSUE_TEMPLATE%2FWoodpecker-CI.yaml
Here’s an example issue asking permission for CI: https://codeberg.org/Codeberg-e.V./requests/issues/1663
They get back to you fairly quickly. I think the main thing they check for is if your project is FOSS. They don’t seem very strict otherwise.
After you get permission, you can go to https://ci.codeberg.org/login to access CI.
You’ll also need to create a .woodpecker folder in your repo.
Woodpecker docs are here: https://woodpecker-ci.org/docs/usage/intro
# .woodpecker/my-first-workflow.yaml
when:
- event: push
branch: main
steps:
- name: build
image: debian
commands:
- echo "This is the build step"
- echo "binary-data-123" > executable
- name: a-test-step
image: golang:1.16
commands:
- echo "Testing ..."
- ./executable
I mean, if Zig and Guix can do it. It’s possible.
I’m in a similar boat. So far:
Next I gotta update the readme on GitHub telling everyone that I’m going to move to Codeberg. I’ll let that sit for a few months.
Also, I gotta update consumers like homebrew to consume from Codeberg instead.
I was gonna close/merge any open PRs on GitHub.
Issues, I’m not totally sure about. I thought I read there was a way to migrate those. Although, I’m kiiinda ok with starting fresh… not totally sure this part needs more thought.
Once the Codeberg repo is ready, I’ll make the GitHub repo read-only, with the readme pointing to Codeberg.
Way, way, way down the line, I’d consider deleting the GitHub repo (and finally my account).
I’m OK with breaking things. I’m gonna try my hardest to not break stuff, but I’m not going to let the fear of breaking stuff prevent me from getting on ShitHub by Macroslop.
Why Forgejo Actions and not Woodpecker CI, isn’t Woodpecker on Codeberg more stable? Yes, absolutely, in fact the documentation for Forgejo Actions on Codeberg is out of date right now
Waah?
Forgejo Actions will just feel way more familiar coming from GitHub Actions. The UI and YAML syntax is almost identical, and the existing actions ecosystem mostly works as-is on Codeberg.
Ah, ok. I don’t care about that.
Setting up woodpecker.
I really do not understand the hate :/
The itsfoss interviewer goes into this:
A lot of backlash isn’t about the code change, but about what it represents.
You say this is “just attestation, not verification” but we know that infrastructure always gets repurposed later. This is where the legit fear lies.
Do you think regulations like these will reshape desktop Linux in the next 5-10 years where we might have “compliant Linux” and “Freedom-first Linux”?
Sam Bent’s article also goes into this (although, fuck that clickbait title): https://www.sambent.com/the-engineer-who-tried-to-put-age-verification-into-linux-5/
He read the laws, decided compliance was the correct response, and went to work. Every objection the community raised went nowhere: that this enables surveillance infrastructure, that lying is trivially easy, that the laws themselves are unconstitutional overreach. He’d already accepted the law as legitimate and moved to implementation.
He read the law, took it at face value, and started writing code. The word for what that is sits somewhere past malice, something more insidious: an engineer who treats compliance as engineering, who sees a legal requirement the way he sees a technical specification, and will implement whatever the spec says regardless of who wrote the spec or why.
The reason to name him is the pattern. The surveillance state runs on volunteers: people who do the implementation work for free, out of genuine conviction, with no paper trail connecting them to the money that wrote the laws.
Not surprising, this guy is also onboard with Google locking down Android: https://dylanmtaylor.com/posts/2026-03-19-googles-new-android-sideloading-flow-is-a-fair-trade
Why not let someone else do it then? Why eagerly sign up to be the one to do it?
squidward opens chair: ooh, AGPLv3, nice
squidward closes chair: sign our CLA
It’s a little more nuanced than that.
I will gladly write my own small, half-assed framework that I 100% know, can reason about, can debug, and can extend to fit my requirements. I will gladly pass on a fat-assed, bloated framework with a million dependencies, where I only need a few features, and where if I need something that isn’t offered by the framework I have to submit a PR or add some janky-ass workaround.
But for the past several months, Wayland has been well supported out-of-the-box on upstream Electron. An Electron blog post this week outlined the technical work done for achieving good Wayland support.
Finally! Now to wait several years before all of the electron apps actually update their electron dependency.
A satirical website dubbed Malus (malice) has been making its rounds and fooling users after claiming it’s deploying AI tools to recreate open source projects from scratch with corporate-friendly licensing (my personal favorite is Emergency AGPL Removal in the footer links)
Hahaha. That’s funny. Oh, guys.
This isn’t exclusive to Open Source projects. This happens all the time with proprietary apps as well: https://killedbygoogle.com/
Even things like TV shows can get killed after 1 season.
Neat! I’m currently using GNOME Calendar and Thunderbird, but not really in love with either.
I’m in favor of heavy AI users adding an
[AI]tag to their posts. I don’t think we have to worry too much about AI users trying to pass their work as organic. Almost all AI users I know proudly and annoying shout about how great the AI is. So I think only a minority of AI users would try to hide their AI usage.I think we should encourage users to add
[AI], but also make it voluntary. We need people to complain in the post when someone doesn’t add the[AI]tag, but they should have. I’m guessing here, but I think the more people complain about the missing[AI]tag, the more likely the project used more AI. I’m guessing if the AI usage is low, like 1 or 2 commits out of 1000, then not as many people would complain.