As I age, this is one of my great regrets: not having written my about life more. Most of the past is just this vague smear. Writing is the only thing that I've been able to think of that answers the problem. I wish I'd known earlier.
I'm not sure it's even in maintenance mode at this point. I wish I had the skills to maintain it as I quite like SimpleTask and may, even if unsupported, go back to it. Nothing compares on Android.
> These days I have a little A6 lined notebook and manually list tasks there. Each page is a new day and the tasks are listed similarly.
Periodically my task system fails (the Taskwarrior 3 disaster being the most recent) and this is pretty much what I end up using. But then I forget a bill or something important because there are no bells or buzzers keeping me as a useful working unit. Then I erect the previous system, or some variant, and go with that until some inevitable breakage sends me back to paper. So it goes...
I always thought the same for todo.txt. Feels like showing a set of columns depending on the task and level of detail needed would be ideal. Someday I hope to tape together a proper todo.csv and calendar.csv ecosystem.
This paints it as if Gitea was not a fork of Gogs specifically to turn a profit out of something they did not make on their own. I might be more sympathetic if they'd created Gitea, but given it's a fork of another project, it looks a lot like they're playing the same game that beat them.
I don’t think this is quite correct. Gitea was a community fork of Gogs, because Gogs was limited by its single maintainer, who was often unresponsive for months. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13296717
In a way that makes it worse. A community fork that is repurposed by a select few to make money off of work that those few did not do for the most part.
> FOSS isn't a business model. It never was and never will be.
This seems an interesting point and one I share. Yet it seems equally unethical to enable the corporate extractavism that we now see. It's time the "users should have the freedom to do what they want with software" be updated to something like 'users and makers should be free of coercion and exploitation by software.' What, after all, are the grounds for such freedoms? Are they issues of property? Or are they ones of the dignity of the persons involved? It doesn't seem controversial that we tend to find it problematic if another uses us as means to their ends without our consent. In personal actions, many act as if they believe this. Yet corporations consistently do not act with those values. You're right: we should strive toward a system not in which it's viable to create businesses out of FOSS but in which both users and developers are not exploited or used unwillingly.
>Yet it seems equally unethical to enable the corporate extractavism that we now see.
If someone uses and benefits from your product, at what point does it become "unethical extractivism"? If I as an individual figure out a way to build a business centered around your product that you make for free, is that already unethical, or is it at a later point?
>It doesn't seem controversial that we tend to find it problematic if another uses us as means to their ends without our consent.
But you gave your consent by publishing software for anyone to use.
