If I had this requirement I would just generate a file of specific size, place it on one server and on the other I would have a shell script running via cron and measure the time it took to download the file.
It seems like a relatively simple problem.
BTW are you sure you want to test download speed and not latency? I think some routers might have the later built in.
I guess no one offered anything for .internal
I didn’t think about it, though if that makes it harder to track it (can’t they just check the user agent?) could that actually be good, as the sites will never know exactly how many users they will lose, so might be more hesitant to pull the trigger?
Absolutely. If you think you can switch when chrome will be completely hostile it will be too late.
The reason they are trying those things in chrome is because the market share of Firefox is currently low. They are counting that you won’t have the option to run Firefox anymore, because sites will stop supporting it. Don’t let that happen.
We saw other similar news from China which turned out to be a bunk. I wouldn’t hold my breath. I would love to be wrong though.
This is not “perfect is enemy of good” it would be if I was arguing about MIT vs GPL etc.
By signing CLA you’re surrendering copyright to the company and this allows them do do whatever they wish with your contribution, including switching back to closed source.
Hashicorp was able to change license of their products exactly thanks to CLA.
Yes, thanks for pointing it out. As long as it is some organization that can’t be bought it should be fine. I didn’t included that because it makes my response more confusing.
Essentially CLA gives the entire copyright to specific entity and that entity in case of FSF it likely could use it for fighting violations, while some startup likely intends to change license when their product gets more popular to cash out on it (for example what Hashicorp did recently before selling to IBM)
They just want to get profit from the purchase but they are no longer competitive.
Looks like they are looking for suckers to contribute to their code base for free without even making it actually open source.
IMO at this point WinAmp does not offer anything beyond name recognition and nostalgia. Isn’t qmmp essentially an open source version of WinAmp?
I disagree.
CLA gives them total ownership of the code (all contributors are surrendering their copyright), and allows them to change license at any point in time, including making it closed source.
If you’re contributing code to a project with CLA you’re not contributing to Open Source, you’re working for a company for free.
That’s how I understand Mastodon’s meant to work. You have your instance like you do a mail server, then you have full control over it.
In theory it isn’t mandatory, in practice you will see a lot of distros replacing it.
Three streaming (like pointed in the other comment) was my initial reaction too, but indeed at the time https for streaming would be very rare.
Another possibility is to realize that openssl isn’t just for communication, but also has implementation of cryptographic algorithms.
Perhaps openssl was used for validation of licensing key? For example they could sign the license with their private key and WinAmp could verify it’s authenticity with its public key.