"If this was a tweet people would be fine with it"
Actually, some folks do care about how the leader and public face of a project conduct themselves regardless of venue. If a different public figure ie some CEO wrote something reprehensible about some particular ethnic group, is it more excusable or forgivable if they did it on their personal social media account rather than the company blog? Same basic thing.
Public writing in a personal space is still public writing. Being held accountable for publicly stated views is an inherent part of sharing them in public, no?
Other people (not meaning this about you) very frequently seem to throw around the BFDL acronym uncritically without remembering or caring that Benevolent is the first word in there.
This blog post is mostly made up of pettiness and is not an isolated incident - he is often pretty "spicy" or downright hostile in comments sections when making an appearance.
Yes but through iterative ratcheting, some portion of that unsafe can likely be migrated to idiomatic code without unsafe. And the other 96% of the code now has more mechanical guarantees than it did before.
Static linting in Rust via clippy also makes it pretty straightforward to begin enforcing things like "unsafe blocks need to have safety doc comments" as a CI warning or failure, and there are community tools that focus on this topic too.
I can't stand the practice of "LLM porting" personally but if you're going to do a mechanical rewrite from something else into Rust, this (permit unsafe and unidiomatic but 1:1 translation at first) is a fairly reasonable strategy imo.
Andrew's online social behavior is largely a streak of pettiness imo. This is not even close to the first time I've seen him write something I felt was overtly mean spirited, not just euphemistically "blunt".
Nothing about Iroh usage as operator or end-user entails billable metering of keys, clients, QUIC endpoints, bytes transferred etc and to be honest you could deploy pretty extensive Iroh-based software without ever having a financial relationship with number0.
Correct, they do not meter keys, it's a subscription. There appears to be a free tier followed by paid tiers for increased usage (https://www.iroh.computer/pricing).
I don't use Iroh so I could be wrong, but the goal is definitely a paid service.
The paid component in question here is not necessary to use Iroh, though. You can have elaborate Iroh-based projects entirely based on the OSS components without losing features and without paying anything. There are public relays and self-hosted relays, anything else is the concern of your application(s).
As for anything being a "goal"? They do have dev salaries to pay and they offer managed control planes with SLAs or consultations with the core devs to accomplish that.
Iroh is free-to-use, permissively licensed, relays are self-hostable, and it's all fully open source for all necessary components. The only proprietary thing n0 visibly has is a managed platform for private relays with SLAs and observability. Which is IMO a bog-standard business model, it's not open-core nonsense. T There's no billable metering of users, bytes, QUIC endpoints, etc.
Relays can't observe the contents of traffic per the design, but if censorship was possible and meaningful based on the tuples of the paired connection endpoints, I guess? The public number0 relays are (honor-system) running the open source relay code that can be inspected for such behavior.
With the relay daemon being self-hostable and OSS any use-case that needs to be more censorship-resistant than that has the option to run their own relays as needed.
Andrew was still way out of line in making many of the points included in this post, you don't have to be pro-AI to feel that way.