@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Haha 😝

@prologic@twtxt.net Ta! Somehow, my unit tests break, though. Running the same query manually looks like it’s producing a plausible looking result, though. I do not understand it.

@david@collantes.us As far as I understand it, auto-completion is working, that’s the issue. :-D Instead of spamming the terminal with bucketloads of possibilities, zsh’s auto-complete is nice enough to ask whether to proceed or not.

@david@collantes.us Weird, I always thought that rsync automatically resumes the up- or download when aborted. But the manual indicates otherwise with --partial (-P is --partial --progress).

@prologic@twtxt.net I reckon, I could just hash the subject internally to get a shorter version.

lol, this flags looks like russian name

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org that -P is a life saver when running rsync over spotty connections. In my very illiterate opinion, it should always be a default.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Now increase the indexes on the Twt Subject form 7 bytes to 64 bytes 😈

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Congrats 🙌

Hmm this question has a leading “Yes” in favor of so far with 13 votes:

Should we formally support edit and deletion requests?

Thanks y’all for voting (it’s all anonymous so I have no idea who’s voted for what!)

If you haven’t already had your say, please do so here: http://polljunkie.com/poll/xdgjib/twtxt-v2 – This is my feeble attempt at trying to ascertain the voice of the greater community with ideas of a Twtxt v2 specification (which I’m hoping will just be an improved specification of what we largely have already built to date with some small but important improvements 🤞)

Three feeds (prologic, movq and mine) and my database is already 1.3 MiB in size. Hmm. I actually got the read filter working. More on that later after polishing it.

Starting a couple of new projects (geez where do I find the time?!):

HomeTunnel:

HomeTunnel is a self-hosted solution that combines secure tunneling, proxying, and automation to create your own private cloud. Utilizing Wireguard for VPN, Caddy for reverse proxying, and Traefik for service routing, HomeTunnel allows you to securely expose your home network services (such as Gitea, Poste.io, etc.) to the Internet. With seamless automation and on-demand TLS, HomeTunnel gives you the power to manage your own cloud-like environment with the control and privacy of self-hosting.

CraneOps:

craneops is an open-source operator framework, written in Go, that allows self-hosters to automate the deployment and management of infrastructure and applications. Inspired by Kubernetes operators, CraneOps uses declarative YAML Custom Resource Definitions (CRDs) to manage Docker Swarm deployments on Proxmox VE clusters.

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com I think all replies are missing the fact that your auto-completion isn’t working. LOL. Or did I misunderstood?

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com @mckinley@twtxt.net rsync -avzr with an optional --progress is what I always use. Ah, I could use the shorter -P, thanks @movq@www.uninformativ.de.

I think that’s one of the worst aspects of the proposed idea of location-based addressing or identity. The fact that Alice reads Twt A and Bob reads Twt A at the same location, but Alice and Bob could have in fact read very different content entirely. It is no longer possible to have consistency in a decentralised way that works properly.

One could argue this is fine, because we’re so small and nothing matters, but it’s a properly I rely on fairly heavily in yarnd, a properly that if lost would have significant impact on how yarnd works I think. 🤔

Unless I”m missing something here 🤔 But a <url> <timestamp> does not for me identify an individual Twt, it only identifies its location, which may or may not have changed since I last saw a version of it hmmm 🧐

Also I’m not even sure I can validly cache, let alone index feeds anymore if we do this, because if the structure of a Twt is cuh that I can no longer trust that an individual Twt’s content hasn’t been changed at the source, what’s the point of caching or indexing individual twts at all? This makes the implementations of yarnd and yarns (the search engine, crawlers and indexer) kind of hard to reason about.

Also you’re right I guess. But still that also requires the author not to change the timestamp too. Hmmm

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I don’t think there’s any misunderstand at all. I just treat every lines in a feed as an individual entity. These are stored on their own.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de So I obviously happen to agree with you as well. However in so saying, one of my goals was also to bring the simplicity of Twtxt to the Web and for the general “lay person” (of sorts). So I eventually found myself building yarnd. Has it been successful, well sort of, somewhat (but that doesn’t matter, I like that it’s small and niche anyway).

I agree that the goal of simplicity is a good goal to strive for, which is why I’m actually suggesting we change the Twt identifiers to be a simple SHA256 hash, something that everyone understand and has readily available tools for. I really don’t think we should be doing any of this by hand to be honest. But part of the beauty of Twt Subject and Twt Hash(es) in the first place is replying by hand is much much easier because you only have a short 7 or 11 character thing to copy/paste in your reply. Switching to something like <url> <timestamp> with a space in it is going to become a lot harder to copy/paste, because you can’t “double click” (or is it triple click for some?) to copy/paste to your clipboard/buffer now 🤣

Anyway I digress… On the whole edit thing, I’m actually find if we don’t support it at all and don’t build a protocol around that. I have zero issues with dropping that as an idea. Why? Because I actually think that clients should be auto-detecting edits anyway. They already can, I’ve PoC’d this myself, I think it can be done. I haven’t (yet), and one of the reasons I’ve not spent much effort in it is it isn’t something that comes up frequently anyway.

Who cares if a thread breaks every now ‘n again anyway?

@prologic@twtxt.net When I first started using twtxt, I was fascinated by the fact that it’s just a simple text file. This is already undermined a lot today by us using multiline replies and Markdown and what not. Still, I would love to retain this property of it being just a file that needs very few external tools to maintain. (Jenny is quite bloated, one might argue. One of the reasons for even starting the jenny project was the calculation of hashes – I was using a smaller, simpler toolchest before.)

If we were to use (replyto:…), I could just copy and paste the required info into my text editor. With echo … | sha256sum | base64 (+ the truncation step), I have to open a new terminal, make sure the tab gets copied verbatim, make sure that there’s no trailing whitespace in the content, little details like that. It is more effort.

This probably isn’t the best argument for (replyto:…), but it is an argument.

Would people do all this manually? I don’t know. Probably not. But part of the fascination with twtxt is that you could do it.

I’m speaking from a point of extreme minimalism here and all this isn’t strictly only related to (reply:…). It just reflects my general view on twtxt. The more additional things we build on top, the less interesting twtxt becomes (for me). My goal would be to find solutions that require less. Like, don’t solve edits breaking threads by adding another protocol, but by rethinking the whole thing, finding the root cause, and maybe come up with something that doesn’t need another building block on top.

This is all I have to say for now. 😃 I’m gonna let things cool off for a while.

@doesnm@doesnm.p.psf.lt Like maybe you need to check something, debug a client, or whatever 😅

@prologic@twtxt.net

Location-based addressing is vulnerable to the content changing. If the content changes the “location” is no longer valid. This is a problem if you build systems that rely on this.

What you’re mentioning is the primary reason, imho, for location-based addressing. You’re referencing a certain entry in a feed by its timestamp and the author is free to edit it. This solves the problem of broken threads after edits. And editing “raw” twtxt files is a very natural thing to do in the twtxt world (just not in *Yarn*’s world). It’s one of the core aspects and main selling points: You just have a file that you can edit with vi or whatever, done.

If you think changing content is a vulnerability of location-based addressing, then I get the feeling that there’s some kind of big misunderstanding going on here. 🤔 Either on your end or on mine/ours. 🤔

Sorry but i dont undestand b. New feed author? But why?

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com rsync -zaXAP is what I use all the time. But that’s all – for the rest, I have to consult the manual. 😅

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Yeah, it’s different for everone. 😅 I, for one, am not particularly interested (yet) in the underlying hardware. Logic gates and stuff like that, that’s not my kind of thing. Maybe in the future, but there’s still more than enough to explore in the world of software. 😃

Don’t forget about the upcoming Yarn.social online meetup coming up this Saturday! 😅 See #jjbnvgq for details! – Hope to see y’all there 💪

👋 Don’t forget to take the Twtxt v2 poll 🙏 if you haven’t done so already (sorry about the confusing question at the end!)

@doesnm@doesnm.p.psf.lt I don’t even advocate for reading Twtxt in its raw form in the first place, which is why I’m in favor of continuing to use content-based addressing (hashes) and incremental improve what we already have. IMO the only reason to read a Twtxt file in it’s raw form is a) if you’re a developer b) new feed author or c) debugging a client issue.

Aggred. But reading twtxt in raw form sounds… I can’t do this

And finally the legibility of feeds when viewing them in their raw form are worsened as you go from a Twt Subject of (#abcdefg12345) to something like (https://twtxt.net/user/prologic/twtxt.txt 2024-09-22T07:51:16Z).

There is also a ~5x increase cost in memory utilization for any implementations or implementors that use or wish to use in-memory storage (yarnd does for example) and equally a 5x increase in on-disk storage as well. This is based on the Twt Hash going from a 13 bytes (content-addressing) to 63 bytes (on average for location-based addressing). There is roughly a ~20-150% increase in the size of individual feeds as well that needs to be taken into consideration (on the average case).

With Location-based addressing there is no way to verify that a single Twt actaully came from that feed without actually fetching the feed and checking. That has the effect of always having to rely on fetching the feed and storing a copy of feeds you fetch (which is okay), but you’re force to do this. You cannot really share individual Twts anymore really like yarnd does (as peering) because there is no “integrity” to the Twt identified by it’s <url> <timestamp>. The identify is meaningless and is only valid as long as you can trust the location and that the location at that point hasn’t changed its content.

Location-based addressing is vulnerable to the content changing. If the content changes the “location” is no longer valid. This is a problem if you build systems that rely on this.

So really your argument is just that switching to a location-based addressing “just makes sense”. Why? Without concrete pros/cons of each approach this isn’t really a strong argument I’m afraid. In fact I probably need to just sit down and detail the properties of both approaches and the pros/cons of both.

I also don’t really buy the argument of simplicity either personally, because I don’t technically see it much more difficult to take a echo -e "<url>\t<timestamp>\t<content>" | sha256sum | base64 as the Twt Subject or concatenating the <url> <timestamp> – The “effort” is the same. If we’re going to argue that SHA256 or cryptographic hashes are “too complicated” then I’m not really sure how to support that argument.

@sorenpeter@darch.dk Points 2 & 3 aren’t really applicable here in the discussion of the threading model really I’m afraid. WebMentions is completely orthogonal to the discussion. Further, no-one that uses Twtxt really uses WebMentions, whilst yarnd supports the use of WebMentions, it’s very rarely used in practise (if ever) – In fact I should just drop the feature entirely.

The use of WebSub OTOH is far more useful and is used by every single yarnd pod everywhere (no that there’s that many around these days) to subscribe to feed updates in ~near real-time without having the poll constantly.

Some more arguments for a local-based treading model over a content-based one:

1. The format: (#<DATE URL>) or (@<DATE URL>) both makes sense: # as prefix is for a hashtag like we allredy got with the (#twthash) and @ as prefix denotes that this is mention of a specific post in a feed, and not just the feed in general. Using either can make implementation easier, since most clients already got this kind of filtering.

2. Having something like (#<DATE URL>) will also make mentions via webmetions for twtxt easier to implement, since there is no need for looking up the #twthash. This will also make it possible to make 3th part twt-mentions services.

3. Supporting twt/webmentions will also increase discoverability as a way to know about both replies and feed mentions from feeds that you don’t follow.

@doesnm@doesnm.p.psf.lt Welcome back 😅

Finally pubnix is alive! That’s im missing? Im only reading twtxt.net timeline because twtxt-v2.sh works slowly for displaying timeline…

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com Rsync has a ton of options and I probably still haven’t scratched the surface, but I was able to memorize the options I actually need for day-to-day work in a relatively short time. I guess I’m the opposite of you, because I don’t know any scp(1) options.

Been trying to get acquainted with rsync(1) but, whenever I Tab for completion and get this:

λ ~/ rsync –
zsh: do you wish to see all 484 possibilities (162 lines)?

I’m like: Nope! a scp -rpCq ... or whatever option salad will do just fine. 😅 [Insert: “Ain’t nobody got time fo’that!” Meme.]

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Interesting, it’s always good to know how things work under the hood. But I’m very glad, that I do not have to deal with this low-level stuff. :-)

@prologic@twtxt.net violent enough to be taken away by the police. 🤭😂

@prologic@twtxt.net @movq@www.uninformativ.de Luckily, we were only touched by the thunderstorm cell. Even though the sky lit up a bunch and the thunder roared, there were no close thunderbolts. But it rained cats and dogs. The air smelled lovely.

@eapl.me@eapl.me All the best, see you next life around. :-) On Twtxt I only meet my online friends. I’m staying in touch with some of my real life mates on IRC or e-mail. But that’s fine. That’s just how it goes.

Thanks, @bender@twtxt.net. :-)

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com Hahaha, brilliant! :-D

I know what keeps me coming back to twtxt. It is the little group of people with whom I interact. I don’t need a big audience. More often than not I have nothing interesting to write, but I enjoy the small interactions: bugging prologic, reading abucci, browsing Lyse’s clicks. I enjoy movq commentaries (I imagine him as a professor of some kind, don’t ask me why).

Anyway… cheers!

@eapl.me@eapl.me are you sure X will bring joy, and value? Will you have clear conscience knowing you are contributing to such despicable platform? It is your decision to make, sure.

Joy starts at you, not the platform you use. When you get bored, disgusted, offended, and leave X, come and let us know. I will be interested to read all about your experiment then. For now, “¡hasta pronto!”

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Yes, the tools are surprisingly fast. Still, magrep takes about 20 seconds to search through my archive of 140K emails, so to speed things up I would probably combine it with an indexer like mu, mairix or notmuch.