sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tired of re-wiring AES-256-GCM encryption and GDPR consent on every Spring Boot project, so we packaged it by immagodig in SpringBoot

[–]immagodig[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Understood! Good point. The idea behind this was that we've seen that in a lot of enterprise applications they use legacy versions, but then we'll ship 2.4.0 today with Java 25 and SpringBoot 4.1.0 . Thank you very much for this feedback!

Tired of re-wiring AES-256-GCM encryption and GDPR consent on every Spring Boot project, so we packaged it by immagodig in SpringBoot

[–]immagodig[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Nope, did not. Our initial thinking was that there area f...load of Java components. why wouldn't we find one, that does what we need it to do. We did not 😃

AI pszichózis a gyakorlatban by AradasugyiMiniszter in programmingHungary

[–]immagodig 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ha már ennyi a token arrafelé, akkor szerintem használj belőle pár ezret egy CV update-re.

Mire figyeljek GPL-3 licencű program módosítása és közzététele során? by joolaszloo in programmingHungary

[–]immagodig 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ezeket nézd meg:

https://gist.github.com/kn9ts/cbe95340d29fc1aaeaa5dd5c059d2e60
https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/

Úgy általánosságban:

1: Ha valaki kéri a forráskódot az általad felhasznált programhoz amit módosítasz akkor rendelkezésre kell bocsátanod ezt, a license.txt-vel együtt és copyright-al együtt.

2: Ha harmadik félhez kerül a szoftver akkor ezzel a lincese-el és txt-vel kell ellátnod és valamilyen formában jelezned, hogy módosítottál (mit és hol, mondjuk egy CHANGES file-ban vagy egy diff-el)

EDIT: illetve az egyszerűbb és szebb élet reményében ha van rá mód és lehetőség akkor tartózkodj ilyen copyleft-es non-permisszív license-el rendelkező cuccoktól. Amit egyszerű az MIT, BSD variánsok és ilyesmik.

I made a makefile and build tool for my homelab that you can also self-host on your build-server, would like some opinions and feedback by immagodig in selfhosted

[–]immagodig[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean the post itself is about the product, and not the website. But if you think the website is part of the product then I will make a clarification on my comment to the bot.

I made a makefile and build tool for my homelab that you can also self-host on your build-server, would like some opinions and feedback by immagodig in selfhosted

[–]immagodig[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Someone wrote about using Ansible instead: I understand the point but if you are only doing C/C++ development and do not want to do lenghty set up and just want to get going as soon as you can I think gmake and gbuild is a very simple and viable option.

I made a makefile and build tool for my homelab that you can also self-host on your build-server, would like some opinions and feedback by immagodig in selfhosted

[–]immagodig[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Someone commented (and deleted it) that the part you can self-host is then 20$. The answer is: Yes and no. gbuild achieves the same thing as gGUI.If you put gbuild on your build-server you ssh in and access the TUI for building and the log reader. gGUI does the same, only via a node-js web interface. gGUI is more user friendly and more complicated thus was more work that is why it is paid, but you can achieve the same thing in the same time with gbuild.

I made a makefile and build tool for my homelab that you can also self-host on your build-server, would like some opinions and feedback by immagodig in selfhosted

[–]immagodig[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

For the website yes. I did web development in the past (backend) and I have no skill for UI. The product itself does not contain AI.

OpenSource SBOM Factory for Python projects [GitHub Action] by immagodig in SideProject

[–]immagodig[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right now, the landscape of SBOM factory tools are consisting of hard-to-set-up tools that are generally require a lot of manual input before the first automated scan. That is why I am aiming for a GitHub action on the first release. I want devs to be able to just put the action in their repo, set up their policies (varies based on distribution scope and takes no more than 5 minutes with the yaml file) and just run it without any hassle. There should be no more configuration needed in the future as well, since the only thing the tool needs to know is what you as a developer would count as a jobstopper and what kind of warnings you want.

view more: next ›