Easiest way is a program called imapsync

Two weeks ago I laid off more than 20% of my workforce. I didn’t do it because Cloudflare is struggling. We posted record revenue growth, have strong free cash flow and are adding an unprecedented number of customers around the world.

And since we are doing so great let’s fire 20% of our workforce because obviously they were not a factor in our success. Besides what could possibly go wrong firing 1/5 of our company. Is not like there is lots of tribal knowledge that AI won’t be able to figure out.

Did you use any frameworks for the development? In particular any spec driven development framework?

As someone working on an opensource project myself wondering on a few questions

• How are you doing reviews? Are you reviewing code as it is written or letting the AI do the work and then checking? Or are you mixing AI generation with some code of your own?
• What, if any, framework for Spec Drive Development are you using

What I have found is that the more a human is involved the better the code, but also the slower it is. So, in my opinion, it is a tradeoff between quality and speed.

My take on the article

• If it was written by AI, the author should have done a manual pass to simplify it and make it more approachable
• If it was not written by AI, the author should probably have asked AI to review for readability

Either way, the article was done in such a way that it is hard to read. It also misses

• Why should I care about this?
• Why does this matter?

At least those things were missing early on in the article. I scanned through it, but the article did not seem to take into account explaining why one should spend cycles reading this.

I have been using sourcehut for mercurial private projects for about half a year without any issues. Also have some a couple of public repos which I develop in Mercurial and then mirror to Codeberg. Only issue I find with sourcehut is that they don’t produce files for users to download. So, if someone wanted something from your repo and they don’t have git / mercurial they would be unable to get the files.

Recommend you follow the 321 backup strategy. Adopted to modern times I would say it is broadly:

• Have your data in more than 1 place
• Use more than one provider
• One of your types of backups should be physical media like an external hard drive.

From what you described if apple was to wipe your data[1] you would be completely out of luck… for example if something deletes data in your Mac and then that deletion gets synced… For the most part syncing data is not a backup.

Lastly, recommend you try to put all your critical data in one folder, or identify folders with critical data and prioritize backup of those first while you figure out the rest.

[1] Not only can a deletion “sync” from your mac, but there can be any number of issues… like a bad update to a file. There is also the possibility, no matter how small, that apple could wipe your data. Over time you always see news of “company X deleted entire set of data for user/company Y”.

https://www.lunanode.com/ Only one data center in Canada, but affordable and have used them for years without issues. VMs starting at $3.5/month

You still need some means of outside backup. Figure what you have covers majority of scenarios, so now we are getting into the highly unlikely, but highly impact full like “my house burned down and now I have no data”. Something like B2 (or some other block storage with comparable pricing) is worth exploring.

You also need to consider your usage pattern like whether you may need to retrieve data (some providers charge for bandwith in / out). I would suspect most of the time between your ZFS snapshots and your disk you are covered.

Also, recommend to not leave the disk plugged in at all times for the scenario I mentioned: Your machine is compromised and the attacker encrypts data to ask for ransom; very low probability (I suspect those are mostly against companies), but really doesn’t hurt to prevent against it.

yes the ZFS snapshots are in the same disk, but the most common scenario when you need backups is to get a handful of files in which case the ZFS snapshots are super convenient and they use very little space. I use restic + (B2 | sftp) and zfs snapshots. I may literally go years without needing to restore from restic because most of the time I can get what I need from the zfs snapshots.

You did not mention if you are using a single disk or more. If you can afford it and the machine allows it, doing mirroring or RAID-Z1 (equivalent of RAID 5) is a good option

Suggest:

• Frequent ZFS snashots. There are scripts to make this easier like zfsSnap
• Two external backups which you rotate weekly [1]
• Instead of borg backup of ZFS pools if you have another machine you could sync the volumes to another machine or even use rsync to another machine of the data [2]

You did not mention where the target of the borg backup is, but you want an external service. I believe there is a service that works wells with borg backup, but have not used it.

Notes [1] Spinning disks are affordable. I suggest at least 2 because if you only have one and your machine was compromised, think disk encrypting malware, you disk may be encrypted too. Also, if the disk dies there goes your external drive backup

[2] If you have another machine with enough space to host a copy that is a good option. Also, there are services that offer backup/disk VMs. They have very slow CPUs and affordable disk. Those may be work checking

1 of which is off-site (in a safety deposit box, for example)

A potential compromise these days may be a block storage service. Safety deposit box is good, but because of it’s inconvenience people are very likely to do it seldom, which defeats the purpose.

I think this article Agentic coding impact on oss is related. In this case the author is outright saying “don’t submit PRs”, but in many other cases authors are not catching up with PRs so people just fork.

All in all, I think the impact of LLMs in open source will likely be significant over time.

Take a look at Restic Not the easiest, but so far as proven to be reliable and performant

People do not even notice things more complicated than buttons “join”, “login”, or “post”. They are lost on join-lemmy.org because >they don’t know why they should choose a server, read description, understand whatever is federation, and they’ll prefer going back >to their comfort zone.

Agree on this 100%. When I first found Lemmy I had no idea what instance to join, why it matter, or… why it really didn’t matter all that much… It was just confusing… and the first instance I joined ended up closing… which was less than an ideal experience as it was without notice and the instance just disappeared. Took me days to even find out why they had closed. Then took me several more days to find the next instance to join.

Federation is both a weakness and a strength in that there may be people who get turned off by that initial complexity.

Then, some people who join may see low volumes on communities they care about and end up not joining.

I think the ideal would be not how to make it “like Reddit”, but how to help niche and smaller communities have more members. Unfortunately, I think the easiest way is just to get more users to Lemmy in general.

It is not just niche topics, I find quite a bit of things that are not (in my opinion) niche, yet there is very little participation in Lemmy. Take for for example Postgresql. By now it is one of the most widely used databases yet there is a minuscule number of posts and users in the related communities.

Another example. Just did a search for largest communities in Reddit… One of them is music with an estimated 38 million redditors. In Lemmy the largest two music communities seem to be 9.9K (!music@lemmy.world) and 18.9K (!music@hexbear.net). That is an astronomical difference for something that is as mainstream as it gets given the broad topic.

I think the best each one of us can do is to participate and post as often as possible in the communities we would like to see grow.

I would say that you may consider first getting a clearer idea of what you want. For example

• You want some side work to generate some income?
• You want to explore doing consulting for a living?
• You want to find a project, or projects, that you can work on that produce revenue?

From what you wrote I think the fact that you work on so many things may be keeping you from been good at any of them. I recently saw an interview of the founder of Vercel. By the time he was in high school he was already getting job offers because he became know for been good at what he was doing.

I would suggest to try and get clarity on what you want and also remember that this is not a once in a lifetime decision… you can say “hey I want to try X…” and then after you actually try it realize is not what you wanted and then move to something else; the may takeaway is that trying to do lots of unrelated things likely will not help you achieve your goals… unless you could use all those contributions in open source as reference when applying to a job.

The issue is that anyone who looks objectively at the technology knows that AI / LLMs can’t replace knowledge workers in a large set of tasks, yet you see week after week… month after month the pattern

• Some new company says going to replace x% of employees with AI…
• X weeks / months later… said company reports the attempt was a failure and are having to hire people back

It is as the thought of saving the money of firing all those people is too much to resist for “top management”.

You would think after the first batch of companies go through the same, other companies would learn, yet I just keep seeing the same happen again and again.

There is also the potential backslash. Specially if “management” is dumb enough to try and present firing hundreds / thousands of people like a a good thing… for example Duolingo’s case

Have not tried opencloud yet, but one thing that I find interesting is that it doesn’t need a DB. Plan to test. Currently have nextcloud and find the installation a bit of a pain.

My take on the scoring

Very Easy: Multiple easy install methods (e.g., one-command OS package, single binary, and/or Docker). If only one install method it should be single binary or OS package. Great documentation. 18–20 points

Easy: Limited easy methods or only one. Some configuration may be needed, good documentation. 15–17 points

Moderate: Docker is the only method or manual setup. Average to pool documentation 11–14 points

Hard: Complex setup, needs regular updates or custom config (e.g. DNS, spam) 6–12 points

Very Hard or Proprietary: Little to no self-hosting support, undocumented 0–5 points