They provide plain good ol' GNU Mailman lists. You can bring your own domain or subdomain. They also have a good handle on privacy issues (GDPR requests and so on).
Related to this topic (spouse with Alzheimer), there is a touching story by Alice Munro: "The Bear Came Over the Mountain", the closing story of the book "Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage".
Just a remark: the person whose fingerprints have been reconstructed and that was the defense minister of Germany at time of the stunt (Ursula von der Leyen), is now the president of the European Commission (~= head of the EU government).
> If there was such small incentives I would've immediately subscribed $5/m to following project: Nodejs, Postgres, Node-Pg, [...]
Who would receive that money? Only the core developers? Anybody with "commit access"? In which share? Will it detract voluntary contributions? How should other companies working on the same code-base be treated? Are they allowed to contribute at all? Do they get some shares of the funds?
All these questions (and many others) that have been discussed in the Debian project for a long time and nobody has yet found an answer that is acceptable to everybody.
Debian's case is so complicated. Many of these complexities and dynamics don't exist in other software projects.
Most of the project's I'd support have central figures that can use the money and don't have such difficulties. Babel could've used my $5/m donations. Debian's theoretical
and moral dilemmas are not universal.
I used to be involved in a similar project for KDE [0] and it was KDE e.V that received the money. How they allocated their money is an entirely different question that depends on each one.
> it's very common - risc-v also has a 2-instruction compressed subset
>
> Note: "jalr zero, 1b" can also be written as "j 1b", "jalr zero, 0(ra)" can be written as "ret"
`j` and `ret` are so-called "pseudo instructions" [1], not compressed instructions.
Pseudo instructions are just shortcuts used in assembly language to pretend that some common operations really "exist" without the need to type (or display) the corresponding more complex (but actually existing) instructions. `nop` is a common pseudo instruction. RISC-V has no real `nop` instruction, but, instead, the "do nothing instruction" is canonically encoded as `addi x0, x0, 0`. The programmer can write a more understandable `nop`, and the assembler will write instead the binary code equivalent to `addi x0, x0, 0`.
The compressed instruction set (a.k.a "extension C"), instead, is a subset of the full [2] instruction set, in which a restricted combinations of operands are possible. The assembly (human readable) code of the compressed instruction set looks similar to that of the full instruction set (including pseudo instructions), but they are encoded as completely different binary sequences.
> While we're at it, can we stop replacing physical knobs and buttons by dumb touch sensitive buttons ? I feel like a cave man when I have to repeatedly press "+" on my induction hob and hear the stupid beep it makes x times.
Most induction systems can be controlled by ovens that have physical knobs. For example the AEG EU327MDE [1]. The hob-oven interface is more or less standardized. For unfathomable reasons such combined "induction hobs + compatible oven with physical controls" are not sold in all markets worldwide.
«basedir: support separate (vendor/local) trees and masking for config files» https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/merge_request...
«basedir: support drop-ins for configuration paths» https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/-/merge_request...