No need for reverse engineering - it has already been done: https://github.com/RhetTbull/osxphotos
I figured this when IKEA started throwing out their current model for £5 a pop. Judging by how fast their stock was gone, they‘ll show up on ebay for a hefty markup any time now…
It’s the only CMS that runs on a classic AMP stack which is still the standard with cheap web hosters. And since everyone and their dog is using it, you can easily find support and ready-to-use plugins for almost anything.
In the car world, WordPress is your plain old petrol car that just runs, can easily be refuelled and you can get anything repaired at every other street corner. That’s why it is still so widespread.
Ghost runs on NodeJS which isn’t available at most cheap webhosters. Also it doesn’t do traditional blog things like pingbacks, trackbacks or webmentions.
BearBlog can’t be self-hosted at all - it says so right on their GitHub’s README.
WriteFreely is a Go binary that - again - isn’t supported on most cheap hosters. Also I can’t seem to find anything about it supporting pingbacks, trackbacks or webmentions. It seems to be more like a one-user Mastodon instance.
RCS dates back to 2007/2008 when it was still called lots of other names. (E.g. Joyn) And since then, not many cell providers adopted it. For all other providers (and those still sitting on an old version of RCS), communication will happen via Google-servers. It basically is a proprietary service under the disguise of a public standard. Especially because of this I’d rather use “proprietary” encrypted chats with it, so Google doesn’t get a copy of all my texts.
RCS at this point is just another Google messenger. And officially unencrypted as well. At least Google recently implemented encryption on top of it and it looks like Apple will adopt it as well.
Back when BlackBerry and their unified inbox (all messages from email, AOL, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, etc. in one single list of messages) was still a thing - did people get bullied because of their choice of messenger?
It pops up on BundleHunt every once in a while.
MountainDuck supports this. They call it “cache on demand”. So you could setup an SFTP connection and use it via that. The next version of MountainDuck - v5 - should even support SMB.
On this Reddit thread they suggested SeaFile as their client explicitly supports selective sync. And also MountainDuck which can work with various protocols.
EDIT: Mountain Duck 5 even adds SMB support.
Similar here. As I don’t need multi-user support, I don’t bother with self-hosting some tool.
Bookmarks go to Safari where they’re synced between all my Apple devices and pop up automatically in the address bar.
And long-term bookmarks (news articles, references, etc.) go into Anybox which keeps an offline copy of the website so I can still read it in 10-20 years.
Yeah, the link is completely mangled. Looks like it was supposed to be this:
You know you can basically implement Healthchecks.io completely in Zabbix using zabbix-sender or any compatible implementation of it? (Or find a better way, e.g. querying the timestamp of a logfile or even check the logfile for "OK" or "ERROR" lines... lots of ways possible.)
Google, Bing, and a plethora of others.
For me it’s the other way around. In Check_MK I was constantly writing new custom checks and it was all manual code and overall felt like Nagios on steroids (what it was back then) - just not in a good way.
In Zabbix you can do everything in the UI without messing around in the file system. And things like translating SNMP results to readable text works throughout the system without having to include a Python file and then call it from within your various other checks. All the alerting logic can be clicked together and easily amended in the UI. It’s so much more comfortable once you’ve figured it out.
But these 3 are all about metrics, right? While they’re great to monitor and analyse numbers (ping times, disk space, memory, etc.), they aren’t that great with e.g. plaintext error messages in log files. That’s how I remember it from a few years ago, at least.
No, that’s stupid. They don’t get anything from keeping that from you. And the main source of frustration comes from luggage handlers that are usually employed by the airports and not the airlines.
When they don’t give a damn, you won’t get your luggage. Like in this video where they insisted the luggage is still at a different airport. Because that’s what the computer said. And nobody looked for themselves which would’ve easily shown that somebody clearly forgot to do the arrival scan.
It clearly says:
These limits allow for nearly all types of lithium batteries used by the average person in their electronic devices.
This is in general for carry-on and checked luggage. And then there’s the other paragraph about Lithium Ion batteries needing to go into the carry-on.
No, they were trying to ban them (from checked luggage) because they are powered by a “Lithium” battery and airlines confused them with Lithium-Ion batteries. The latter ones are indeed forbidden in checked luggage.