Glitterkoe

TL; DR; PNG resized to 1080 pixels on the short edge.

Just recently started dabbling with Pixelfed, but I couldn't find the best upload settings anywhere in the documentation, bar the 15MB upload limit. The server documentation states a quality percentage to use and boolean switches whether to resize and/or optimize images using aforementioned quality.

Turns out: images are by default resized to fit 1080 pixels on the short edge and are re-encoded using https://image.intervention.io/v2/api/encode set to the server's chosen quality percentage (which usually isn't advertised for instances but is 80 by default). Luckily, PNG is accepted nearly everywhere and its compression is lossless.

Those PNGs are way bigger than actual full resolution WebP's with a quality over 80% for my 24MP RAW exports. Most resized and optimized images tend to be smaller than 1MB, though, whereas the allowed PNG's are just shy of 3MB.

A full-res 24MP test image on 85% quality WebP dives well under that 3MB. Restricting to something more modern say 4K monitor resolution at 85% WebP would be well within current optimized file size ranges of about 1MB from my experiments with Darktable exports.

From what I understood, you didn't want to open-source Summit because you don't want to allocate your resources to managing issues and reviewing pull requests amongst other reasons (correct me if I'm wrong!). I don't know if you can disable Issues/PRs on GitHub, but I think it would give a lot of (potential) users peace of mind if the source code could be reviewed. As far as licensing goes, you could go quite stringent with an AGPL if that is a factor, to prevent closed-source clones.

Anyways, I find it sad to see that Summit often gets bashed in Lemmy application discussions for being "yet another proprietary app, no thanks".

That said, if setting up publishing actions or other packaging shenanigans is a hurdle, I'm sure there's people who would love to help.

Short version of a past post: I'm considering to license my startup's software under the LGPL license, which mostly concerns our "applied science" libraries. Does anybody have perspectives worth sharing on the usage/reception/dependency on LGPL libraries from a personal or company perspective? How often would it still be "blacklisted" like the GPL sometimes is?

Amongst other things the libraries do include tooling for a domain specific language (parser, compiler, language server). The reasoning would be that we would like to lower the barrier to integration of the methods and libraries versus GPL, but don't want proprietary (language) flavors popping up instead of open-sourced contributions somewhere. It might also somewhat prohibit larger parties from "overtaking" the project into something proprietary entirely.

Side note: our low-level elemental libraries are mostly MIT/Apache because these things aren't our core business and are mostly filling gaps where standard implementations are missing.

Laat ik vooropstellen dat ik enorm blij ben dat er al een redelijk bevolkte Nederlandse Lemmy instance bestaat. Maar met instances als deze of bijvoorbeeld tchncs.de bekruipt mij toch altijd het gevoel dat het risicovol is met één persoon als beheerder. Moet de instance dan 'gewoon' verlaten worden in de hoop dat een nieuwe opkomt als de beheerder uit beeld raakt of wat dan ook?

Hoort deze fase van instances gewoon bij het zijn van 'early adopter'? Ik zou het heel vet vinden om een stichting of iets anders op te richten of te sponsoren als die zich in zou zetten voor een NL rijtje gefedereerde services met behoorlijke statuten die de gebruikers beschermen. Ik betaal daar met liefde en plezier een (vrijwillige) subscriptie voor van een paar € per jaar.

Of bestaat dit al?