Server written in C++ and client in Java and Lua.... now that's an atypical combination. It still peaks my interest.
aksdb
joined 1 year ago
What I did to get rid of my mess, was to containerize service after service using podman. I mount all volumes in a unified location and define all containers as quadlets (systemd services). My backup therefore consists of the base directory where all my container volumes live in subdirectories and the directory with the systemd units for the quadlets.
That way I was able to slowly unify my setup without risking to break all at once. Plus, I can easily replicate it on any server that has podman.
Pangolin is the most user friendly self hosted alternative to Cloudflare tunnels. There are dozens alternatives, but none with that feature set and such a UI.
Yes. You can simply not expose SMTP at all and just use the IMAP/JMAP part. Unless you need also JMAP, I am not sure it brings you a lot to the table you wouldn't also get from a good old dovecot. IMO the big advantage of Stalwart is the all-in-one package it delivers plus the good defaults. It also shines when you want a multi node deployment. For a single node IMAP only it might not be the best choice, in my opinion. But it would work, if you want to.
We can ask, but the indicators are there:
- it has roadmap with bigger features that slowly shrinks as they get implemented
- new versions still bring big reworks (I think this is the third time now that the data structure is being migrated)
- optimizations happen between the versions
- benchmarks are still on the horizon
It's a 0.x release. It makes sense building the intended features first before optimizing heavily. There's no point having an optimized data structure that then falls flat once you need to add new features that brings new requirements to the data structure.
Once they label it 1.x (i.e. feature complete and production ready) I would expect it to be optimized. If it isn't, criticism is warranted.
view more: next ›
My impression of Starfield (after release, at least) was, that it was a bunch of pretty well intended and implemented subsystems (as is, to my knowledge quite common in game development; each team works on a different one), but they just don't fit really well together. All the subsystems are good parts of a theoretically good overall big picture, but the complexity seemed too high for them to actually flesh out the big picture.
Technically it all works, but IMO you feel the conceptual gaps whenever you transition (UX wise) from one gameplay mechanic to the next. It just doesn't (or didn't) feel like a cohesive game.