stevecrox

MBin is a fork by a group who tried to push into KBin but couldn't. There seems to be at least 4 active committers and stuff gets merged.

You will see a number of the KBin instances moved over https://fedidb.org/software/mbin

The developer behind KBin seems to have issues delegating/accepting contributors.

If you look at the pull requests, most have been unreviewed for months and he tends to regularly push his branches once complete and just merge them in.

That behaviour drove the MBin fork, where 4-5 people were really keen to contribute but were frustrated.

To some extent that would be ok, its his project and if he doesn't want to encourage contributions that is his decision but...

KBin.social has gotten to the size where it really should have multiple admins (or a paid full time person). Which it doesn't have.

The developer has also told us he has gone through a divorce, moved into his own place, gotten a full time job and now had surgery.

Thats a lot for any normal person and he is going through that while trying to wear 2 hats (dev & ops) each of which would consume most of your free time.

Personally I moved to kbin.run which is run by one of the MBin devs

It does but for the 90's/00's a computer typically meant Windows.

The ops staff would all be 'Microsoft Certified Engineers', the project managers had heard of Microsoft FuD about open source and every graduate would have been taught programming via Visual Studio.

Then you have regulatory hurdles, for example in 2010 I was working on an 'embedded' platform on a first generation Intel Atom platform. Due to power constraints I suggested we use Linux. It worked brilliantly.

Government regulations required anti virus from an approved list and an OS that had been accredited by a specific body.

The only accredited OS's were Windows and the approved Anti Viruses only supported Windows. Which is how I got to spend 3 months learning how to cut XP embedded down to nothing.

The team/organisations knowledge is a huge factor but its easy to fall into a trap where no matter what the problem is the solution is X language.

If I have an organisation that knows C# and we need to build a Web Application. I would suggest we need to learn Node.js and Typescript and not invest in a solution that turns C# into web pages.

Technical Leads are not rational beings and lots of software is developed from an emotional stand point.

Engineering is trade offs, every technical decision you make has a pro/con.

What you should do is write out the core requirements/constraints.Then you weigh the choices to select the option that best meets it.

What actually happens is someone really likes X framework, Y programming language or Z methodology and so decides the solution and then looks for reasons to justify it.

Currently the obvious tell is if they pitch Rust. I am not saying Rust is bad, but you'll notice they will extoll the memory safety or performance and forget about the actual requirements of the project.

Docker swarm was an idea worse than kubernetes, that came out after kubernetes, that isn't really supported by anyone.

Kubernetes has the concept of a storage layer, you create a volume and can then mount the volume into the docker image. The volume is then accessible to the docker image regardless of where it is running.

There is also a difference between a volume for a deployment and a statefulset, since one is supposed to hold the application state and one is supposed to be transient.

So I know thats a joke but...

With Java 11's inclusion of 'var' I have successfully copied JavaScript code into Java without needing to change anything.

I judge the direction Java is going in

It isn't a good move.

A domain name can cost as little as £10, similarly most email services cost ~£5-£15 per person per month. Its normally pretty easy to link a domain to an email provider and doesn't cost anything other than time.

If a company can't be bothered to implement the most basic online branding people will make their assumptions and some will filter your company out because of it. With the cost to implement so low (e.g. £160 per year), even the loss/gain of a single customer would justify it.