Apollo-11
pulsar
Our great sponsors
Apollo-11 | pulsar | |
---|---|---|
126 | 91 | |
56,273 | 2,882 | |
- | 7.8% | |
4.6 | 9.9 | |
19 days ago | 6 days ago | |
Assembly | JavaScript | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
Apollo-11
-
Mistral CEO confirms 'leak' of new open source AI model nearing GPT4 performance
I often like to think about https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11 as an analogy. It's public domain with available source, in the assembly language in which it was written... so it fills all the definitions of OSS!
But the process by which that code arose, the ability to modify any line and understand its impact (heh) on a real execution environment, is dependent on a massive process that required billions of dollars and thousands of the smartest people on the planet. For all intents and purposes, without that environment, it is as reliably modifiable as an executable binary in any other context - or a set of weights, in this one!
-
Software Disenchantment
My more positive take on this: our runtime environments are bloated because we have ways to enable trust, stability, and iteration speeds that people wouldn't have dreamed of in years past.
Your Notion desktop app and Google Chrome both support embedding & displaying multimedia content that's controlled by people that you may not trust, but they can draw on decades of engineering to sandbox that content. They can independently be updated without worrying about a centralized `flexbox.dll` that may or may not be the right version. They do not require building a new executable to make the vast majority of UI changes. And the cost is simply storage space and initial download bandwidth.
We can look with rose-colored glasses at an era of "every byte of assembly has been hand-crafted." I, too, look in awe at what was achieved with such things as https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/tree/master/Luminar... . But that software, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Softw..., took 1400 person-years of work.
We have to compare apples to apples - the abstractions we have today would not prevent such a piece of software from being built, and indeed would allow us to build that exact software, even bit-for-bit the same, much more easily due to abstractions on our tooling itself. We have not departed a world where, given a nation-state budget, one could pay for 1400 person-years of work and create the AGC (though one might make arguments about the distraction levels of modern society, but that's a different thing entirely).
But we also exist in a world where I can build and ship a cross-platform video chat application in an afternoon (well, not counting app store approvals) and be reasonably confident that my app will be compatible with, and secure on, practically any computer or mobile device sold in the past half decade, regardless of how many other apps may have been installed on each device. I'd venture to say that Apollo engineers would, and do, find this aspect of our world fascinating, too.
-
Apollo dev posts backend code to Git to disprove Reddit’s claims of scrapping and inefficiency
Extension pack for picking up Matt Damon
- Analysis of Twitter algorithm code reveals social medium down-ranks tweets about Ukraine
-
How much we accomplished over the years
We didn't destroy the technology. A lot of the original documentation still exists. For example, all the code for the Apollo Guidance Computer is available on GitHub if you're interested.
- A difficult decision to set us up for the future
-
Discussion Thread
Can we get networking on the Apollo-11 so we can browse the DT?
-
Apple Lisa source code release
It's not "just fixing typos", as this code was generated through OCR - and the publisher specifically ask to proof-read and fix typos (https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)
-
We invested 10% to pay back tech debt; Here's what happened
> the code for the space shuttle should be written carefully
Couldn't help but remember the comments in the Apollo-11 source code saying "TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE".
https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/blob/a13539c7c5c482...
pulsar
-
Show HN: Open-source alternatives to tools You pay for
You may be thinking of Pulsar (<https://pulsar-edit.dev/>)?
-
Open-Source Washing
> VSCodium is not "designed" to be less functional, since it is a project maintained by developers who are unaffiliated with Microsoft.
In today's (OSS) world, employment or affiliation doesn't matter much. Microsoft can propose what they want and get what they want from the project, at the end of the day. I don't think these independent maintainers have power to say "No" (if a VSCodium developer can chime in here, I'd love to be stand corrected), or they risk VSCodium to be forked to VSCodiumX, by developers who are friendlier to the megacorp which loves Linux.
Yes, VSCodium is a node to Chromium. "-ium" has a ring akin to "-ish" in today's conjecture. Freemium - Free-ish but not. Chromium - Chrome-ish but not. VSCodium - VSCode-ish, but not. This might be curse in the naming, but it feels like that, at least for me.
The blog post I linked quotes a tweet which supports what I'm saying, heck even the blog post does a much better job of detailing what I was trying to say here in my previous comments.
To circle back, the problem with -ium projects are, they are effectively banned from participating in the main ecosystem which drives these projects forward, and to be in "The Ecosystem", you need to use the closed source versions with pervasive data collection and whatnot. Heck, even Google abuses Chromium with "Experiments and Proposals", which they use to politely yet forcefully push the web to the places they want. VSCodium is the same getaway drug and test vessel for Microsoft.
Lure with Open Source version, trap with closed source version for "Full Benefits" (for the company, because user is the product).
> You're entitled to your own opinion, but Atom was developed by GitHub...
Yes & yes.
> which was acquired by Microsoft.
Yes.
> It doesn't help that Atom was discontinued last year, with the final version having been released in March 2022
However, it's forked as Pulsar [0], which I meant by "current form" in my previous comment. Again, it's MIT licensed, and that's not my favorite, but at least it's not a company editor now.
Atom's original developers started to build Zed, which is worst of both worlds currently (Open source with a closed backend, plus "All your data belong to us" clause).
At the end of the day, from my perspective "-ium" projects and their sanitized versions are just open-core versions of the "main tools" developed from them.
Just because these versions somehow work, and have a permissive license doesn't make them open source in the meta sense. Pedantically they are open source software, yes, but they are just the "Open Core" or Demo/Shareware versions of the tools which companies use to strange to ecosystems.
This is just enshittification of open source in my eyes.
More power to you if you're happy with the -ium tools, but I'd rather use truly free software (Like Eclipse), or use completely honest closed source software (like BBEdit), instead of using tools designed to look like open source but not.
-
Clarification question
Also, don't worry - we understand that there's documentation lacking on the "extend Pulsar" part and on package creation, but we're working on it. We're also working on better ways to test, document, and create packages (and grammars - see, for example, how we usually tested grammars in the past and how we're migrating to for example), so it's just a matter of time, really.
-
Noobie question - what do I use to write code?
https://pulsar-edit.dev/ - basically the spiritual successor to Atom.
-
What IDE do y’all use
You know about Pulsar, right?
-
Ask HN: Design of Emacs type extensible editor based on electron?
I'm surprised that nobody here mentioned Atom [1]. IIUC, Atom was designed to be hackable like Emacs.
A successor to Atom is Pulsar [2].
-
Should I use supercollider with Atom?
FYI, there is a community fork of Atom called Pulsar which may be worth looking into, if a particular plugin was a favorite. I remember Julia had a plugin for Atom which pretty much turned it into a Julia IDE. There were similar projects for Tidal Cycles too.
-
Has anybody else moved to Sublime Text?
Very happy with Pulsar so far.
-
Editors for Lua and where to start?
FYI Atom is deprecated. There's an active fork though: https://github.com/pulsar-edit/pulsar
-
Zed, the new code editor from Atom developers, has entered open beta
How does this compare to Pulsar-Edit?
What are some alternatives?
Visual Studio Code - Visual Studio Code
hydrogen - :atom: Run code interactively, inspect data, and plot. All the power of Jupyter kernels, inside your favorite text editor.
micro-editor - A modern and intuitive terminal-based text editor
vscodium - binary releases of VS Code without MS branding/telemetry/licensing
DOOM - DOOM Open Source Release
microwatt - A tiny Open POWER ISA softcore written in VHDL 2008
midimonster - Multi-protocol control & translation software (ArtNet, MIDI, OSC, sACN, ...)
WebKit - Home of the WebKit project, the browser engine used by Safari, Mail, App Store and many other applications on macOS, iOS and Linux.
Launch.nvim - 🚀 Launch.nvim is modular starter for Neovim.
Atom - :atom: The hackable text editor
Godot - Godot Engine – Multi-platform 2D and 3D game engine
OpenSkyStacker - Multi-platform stacker for deep-sky astrophotography.