Ctrl + W

Seems that google's announced plans to restrict sideloading on Android are now in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's order to open the Play Store to alternative app stores and reduce its control over app distribution.

How will this play out in the end... 🤔

I wouldn’t say it’s only for the extra paranoid, but rather for everyone.

After reading the whole discussion, it’s clear that the repo transfer was handled in an extremely unorthodox way, at least by usual standards for repo handovers that I'm familiar/experienced with.

Communication from Catfriend1 was absolutely nonexistent, and there was only minimal info from the person who took over using a GitHub account created just two days ago.

Trust is something that must be earned, not given to someone you’ve never seen or heard of before.

Doesn't seem to be present on my keyboard. 😁

Doesn't seem "it's finally ready" when they didn't name the name.

You've got a downvote, so it seems not long. 😄

Mullvad remains the gold standard for privacy and anonymity.

Tangibly even less people use it than Signal.😅

@Goldflag

I appreciate the intent behind Rybbit, but I have to respectfully disagree with the "only very slightly so" characterization. Looking at your official comparison table, the self-hosted version is missing:

• Pages View
• Web Vitals
• Email reports
• Google Search Console integration
• VPN/Crawler/ASN tracking
• Google/GitHub OAuth
• Email support

That's 7 significant features—which seems more than "very slightly" different.

More importantly, this raises AGPL compliance questions. Under AGPLv3 Section 13, if users interact with modified AGPL software over a network (your cloud version), you're required to make the complete corresponding source code available to those users. If these cloud-only features are integrated into the same AGPL-licensed codebase, withholding them from the public repo while running them as a network service appears to conflict with the license terms.

There are really only two compliant scenarios here:

1. These features exist in the public repo but are just marketed as "cloud-only" (in which case the comparison table's misleading)
2. These features are truly separate proprietary code that interfaces with Rybbit without being part of the AGPL-licensed work (which would require careful architectural separation)

If it's neither—if these are AGPL-covered features running in your cloud service but withheld from the repo—that's exactly the "loophole" the AGPL was designed to close. The irony is that you criticized Plausible and Fathom for having "much inferior self-hosted versions," yet this appears to be a similar approach.

Could you clarify the licensing status of these cloud-only features? Are they in the public repo but disabled by default, or are they proprietary additions that don't derive from the AGPL codebase?

That'll be good, I think? 🤔

Cool, good luck with chips.

Aegis ♥️

And so it begins/ends.

Yep, not on my watch they won't. 😎

This doesn't support many boards.

Hereditas?

Podman😉

Completely agree that Atlas "browser" isn’t really a browser but an AI-generated simulation of one - looks like the web yet replaces it with fabricated, self-contained (possibly inaccurate) content rather than true browsing.

My thoughts exactly. That could be very comfy for us users, but many devs will be (and justifiably so) wary of verifying themselves.

That's not fair.