More importantly, email has become extremely consolidated. It has most of the disadvantages of being federated, and not very many of the advantages (Google sees most of the emails I send and receive even though I don't use them).
Not sure what you are talking about. I can sign up for an email right now with a dozen different services and not one will make me complete a mysterious task like "choosing a server".
The sign-up process doesn't actually begin until you pick an instance and go to it directly, just like with email. It's like complaining about a website that explains what email is and gives you a list of service providers to choose from.
The email service of your choice is the "server" you've chosen. If you go directly to a mastodon instance (the "server") the sign-up process won't require you to choose a server.
Right, and like I say below, there are very rational and coherent explanations for how Mastodon works, but those explanations mean nothing to the average user, many of whom will not complete sign up because it is so radically different than what they are accustomed to 99.9% of the time when signing up for a new website they heard about (like Twitter for example).
Each of those "dozen different services" is analogous with "a server".
You choose a service (server) and then sign up there. The sign up belongs to a server, not the server to the sign up. You can't ring a door bell before picking a door first. ;)
To the user, Mastodon is the service. But the very first step of sign-up, Mastodon says the user must "choose a server". They just did! It's called Mastodon.
Now, you may see it differently and want to offer an explanation. I'm sure your explanation would be coherent and rational. But your explanation means nothing to the average user. They click 'sign up' and expect to sign up and get to using this new website called Mastodon they heard about. And when they realize it's not that simple, many will abandon the process. It's a simple as that.
Not sure what you are talking about. I can sign up for mastodon right now with a hundred different servers.
Yes, people might be expecting a single corporate entity called "Mastodon, Inc," but that's why the (very poor) analogy to email is bandied about. You have to pick a service provider in order to use email (Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail, etc), and you have to pick a service provider in order to use mastodon, too.
Twitter, Inc, is the single provider of the twitter service, but that's falling apart because there's no way for the twitter service to route around the damage being done by Twitter, Inc's new owner.
So there's a dozen options. But in order to sign up, you have to pick a single server. Isn't that the same situation? There's no single "www.email.com" that you use to sign up for an email address.
> I can sign up for an email right now with a dozen different services and not one will make me complete a mysterious task like "choosing a server"
You absolutely, 100% had to "choose a server" for your email.
To the average user, how do you decide between Hotmail, Yahoo! Mail, GMail, Outlook?
This is 100% analogous, except Mastodon also makes it nearly trivial to change your server, with no effort taken by anyone who is already communicating with you. It's literally easier than an email server migration.
You are working under the assumption that people read the phrase "Mastodon" like the read the phrase "email". That is absolutely not true for almost all people. They think of Mastodon as similar to Twitter, and they expect a similar sign up process.
Also, "almost all people" have never heard of Mastodon, and will never hear of Mastodon.
I also think you're forgetting that most people had no idea what "The Information Super-Highway" was, and had no understanding of what an "ISP" was or why they needed to pay a monthly fee to access free content. And tie up their phone line.
People who were on AOL thought they were on the Internet. And Compuserve. Delphi. Prodigy. GEnie.
This is not a new problem.
But it's not like you could just make an Internet account, and just pay them. You HAD to use a federated ISP. And some of those ISPs tried to be Walled Gardens, with a weird side-door that ALSO let you get to "The Internet," but that was mostly porn and weirdos.
I get your intent - that people don't understand what federation means. But you're completely ignoring that we all live with federated email servers. Federated cell phone carriers, too, for that matter.
Once upon a time, you had to go to a college that had been invited to The Facebook, in order for you to get an account.
The beginnings of new things are always complicated.
We all learned the difference between .com, .edu., .co, .uk eventually...
Agreed! I, for one, am enjoying the small-town vibe of my chosen mastodon service provider, and I'm delighted that it can never become "to big to fail."
You keep saying "users" when you should probably just say "I," but maybe you understand it a bit better at this point. The onboarding UX is atrocious, mostly because people want it to be something it's not, and partly because developers often don't do UX well. But the UX isn't going to change, so focusing on helping people understand how and why it works the way it does seems more important than cursing the design.
You're welcome to stick with Twitter, Inc, if you want a single oligarch to control your chosen microblogging service and everything about it. Or you can venture out and pick a server that supports the mastodon service instead.
And who knows? Maybe someday a big company will grow a giant mastodon server so that something like 30% of all mastodon traffic happens there, just as with Gmail and email traffic[0] today.
RSS is still not dead! You are on a website, RIGHT NOW, that publishes fully operational RSS feeds! So do all the popular blog CMSes! So do all the popular static blog generators!
I'm not sure that there's any "peak" to compare it to. I mean, my whole wishlist for the RSS ecosystem is basically:
1) people stop inexplicably calling it "dead"
Being "dead" has its fringe benefits, at least, like no one proposing changes for the sake of change - it gets to be happily frozen and useful with no one trying to e.g. update it from the XML-everything mania of its time (embarassing in hindsight) to the JSON-everything mania of our time (I'm worried there won't even be a hindsight for it to be embarassing in).
Well, except when people propose to replace it with something else because it's "dead" (sorry, I have no interest in following anyone on activitypub - if I want updates from your blog, I will poll the RSS feed you have kindly provided).
2 weeks after you posted these comments, your enthusiasm for RSS got me back into it. I set up a self hosted RSS reader and I've been happily re-engaging with long form content. Getting long form content in my fediverse feed is definitely not the same (though it's nice!). Thanks for the comments!
RSS's (and Atom's) problem is not using XML, it's the woeful ly vague, and overly forgiving specification.
As someone who has written a parser library and a RSS reader program, I can tell you that it is an endless battle of users always reporting yet another feed that is "breaking your RSS reader".
When investigating why the feed does not work well, you always end up finding yet another way how a site can implement RSS/Atom badly while still following the letter of the specification.
I love the idea of RSS/Atom and the possibilities they allow, but hate the actual specs.
I don’t feel it’s fair to say that about Atom. RSS, sure; it’s a total disaster. And that’s kinda why Atom was made, and it seems to me to do a good job.
So given that, any chance you could elucidate on fault you find with Atom?
Yes, you are right, most of my grievances were against RSS - either old RDF, or RSS 2.0, or perhaps against Atom 0.3, which was not all that common before much better Atom 1.0 took over.
Still, I vaguely recall that there was at least one vagueness in the Atom 1.0 spec that I found abused in a real world feed, but can't for the life of me remember it - it's been a while.
I've never really used rss as a power user, but a long time ago subscribed to some feeds and tracked them in an rss app. I did that because it seemed like at one point I saw the rss logo everywhere and it seemed like everyone was promoting it. I didn't use the actual aggregator to look at the combined feeds, but I did have it all set up.
Now I can't remember the last time I saw a site promoting or even clearly mentioning above the fold that they publish an rss feed. I didn't know HN published one until now.
That's why I haven't argued with anyone claiming it's dead. It seems like it disappeared.
I personally use Feedly as my RSS reader and I followed my blog to see how many followers I get. Currently, I have 367 Feedly subscribers and it still continues to grow. Also, looking at my analytics, I can see people coming in from Feedly, so it shows that they are definitely active subs[0].
It's easy to convince a growing number of people of RSS's value: "If you listen to podcasts, you probably already use RSS."
Then you just expand on the options and uses to someone who's already favorable toward RSS because it was so painless to use they didn't even realize they used it to follow some of their favorite people.
I manage it at the playbook level. They go into the role as variables.
I’ve never really used Galaxy. You recommend it? I’ve always felt like I can’t depend on other people’s roles, especially since roles don’t have their own variable scopes.
Quality of the roles on Galaxy vary a lot, but there are some that are certainly useful. Usually the variables get namespaced with the name of the role, so you'd only get some kind of conflict if you were using two different code bases for the same role - or if the dev was really sloppy/didn't care about others integrating their code.
The actual study talks about it a bit more (linked in another comment). "Recent leak of highly confidential data (e.g. PII, PHI, IDs, financial records, plaintext passwords for production systems, etc.)"
