this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
44 points (95.8% liked)

Linux

6174 readers
228 users here now

A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system

Also check out:

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is why centralization is bad.

Maybe this will encourage more engagement in projects like i2p and ipfs. I'd be happy to donate some compute and bandwidth to these projects.

Maybe there isn't a good solution, but throwing money at it doesn't address the underlying issue that these important OSS projects are at the mercy of Big Hosting.

I just made up a new boogey-man!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The highest cost for most projects comes from the CI runners.

i2p only provides anonymous transport, so not relevant at all.

ipfs is joke tech (you would be better off building something on top of good old torrents).

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago

There are dozens of projects to share storage; what's needed are systems that share compute. Crypto currency controversy aside, things like Etherium with smart contracts, or the more venerable - but centrally controlled - seti@home, are more what's needed. I suppose having the ability to support some mechanism of micro payments isn't unreasonable, but I think it it were something like "I'll donate X% of my unused C/GPU cycles to any processing request signed by the public key from this project," I'd feel more comfortable about it. Micro payments for selling unused cycles to arbitrary projects is just another capitalist market I'm not interested in participating in.

Caveat: I'd be comfortable selling spare compute to for-profit projects: companies, etc. But that's a side-note. What I'd like to see is a general-purpose way to donate spare cycles to specific projects. Definitely supporting whitelists, but optionally supporting blacklists. I think PK would be the foundation, as it would allow a True Believer to donate cycles to any project in the GNU Foundation, or specific projects from self-hosters.

Such compute would probably be horrendously slow, and figuring out how to parcel out and distribute e.g. compiling a project in an arbitrary language sounds like quite a challenge. I can see cases where the CI speed isn't especially critical, such as building assets for a release, but the technical challenges seem difficult.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

You can help finance them on OpenCollective, but it doesn't say how much they need. There's only a projection of how much people might donate annually based on current donations (~1k). Took them a long time to setup Open Collective...

Anti Commercial-AI license