New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Congratulations! You've successfully discovered the hidden 'Live-Update' easter egg.
Since the community provided such 'enthusiastic' feedback, I figured the main branch deserved some real-time evolution to match the energy. Consider it a live performance of agile development. Stay tuned, there’s always more under the hood.
Nothing wrong, with some good old fashioned closed source.
i remember in the old computing days the same hatred against open source software... I introduced a php component to a legacy client server application. It was not done that time, who will support php???? open source, too dangerous not audited, no support, etc.. etc... Funny that opinion can change completely within a decade or two..
this is the weirdest tutorial posted here yet
Honestly, what you do with your project is entirely up to you. However, your actions have shown exactly why nobody should have trusted your solution in the first place.
Firstly, you say you didn't share your code and it wasn't open source. You literally give us a link to your github. Wasn't that intended to be sharing your code?
As for the github and your attempt to delete it. That just shows in the most comical way imaginable how out of your depth you are. All your source is still there, visible to anybody who could be bothered to get it. If you can't even manage something like this, how can anybody possibly trust you with any confidential data?
Looking at the way you ripped your tool out of service just shows how easily you would have pulled the rug from under anybody who had tried to use your service. This shows exactly why people prefer open standards with open source implementations - even if the project owner gets bored and quits, gets in an accident and hospitalised, or just plain has a complete meltdown because someone has criticised their project, in all of these cases someone using the project can continue working and/or migrate to something else without any issues and on their own timeframe.
I completely understand why you want your project to be succesful. It's a great feeling of validation when others are using your software. But if almost everybody points out exactly the same flaws in what you're doing and you won't listen to any of them, you've missed out on the best thing of all - the opportunity to learn and improve.
Finally, just in terms of trust - you had one single person who wanted to try this system out. That's already them taking a massive risk. And then you announce that you're going to put logging on that server so that everyone can see what it's doing (and by extension, what he's doing and when). If this was an actual product, this would be a huge red flag.
Next considering these next two quotes:
That kind of suggests that you've completely ignored all of our advice and think that you can sell this to somebody. All I can say is good luck with that, and god help whoever tries it.
You are overcomplicating a very simple dynamic. I am not here to 'seek validation' from a community that prioritizes noise over action.
I still welcome any genuine individual to experience the tool—on one condition: drop the arrogance. I am more than willing to make exceptions and provide private instances for those who approach with a sincere and respectful attitude.
The registration remains closed because the environment on LET has become toxic. As for my GitHub repository—it was always intended to host documentation. For those who found the 'easter eggs' and reached out with sincerity, my door remains open.
I'm not interested in being a 'standard' developer by your definition. I'm a solution provider for those I choose to trust.
You seem to confuse 'Service Uptime Monitoring' with 'Activity Logging.' I did NOT provide any tokens to the monitor—only the path. The public monitor shows nothing but a green line representing connectivity. It doesn't show who is accessing what, nor does it expose any data.
If an expert like you considers a 100% Uptime report a 'privacy risk,' then every status page on the internet (from Cloudflare to GitHub) must be a 'huge red flag' to you. This level of paranoia is exactly why I prefer selective access over public chaos. @sillycat knows exactly what's being shared: the fact that his service is alive. Nothing more, nothing less.
History has a funny way of repeating itself. People often mistake 'transparency' for 'security' and 'conformity' for 'trust.'
The irony here is that while some are busy reciting the 'open source' mantra as a prerequisite for trust, they forget that trust is a human-to-human protocol. I appreciate you bringing some historical perspective to this thread—it's a reminder that true innovation often starts outside the 'audited' comfort zone.
As I mentioned in my PM, the door is open for you whenever you want to see what's behind the 404. Let the others stick to their decades-old arguments.
ok i lol'd
You see guys what happening here? this guy just like he know everything
Yeah peak of dunning krugger
Does this mean that you can push unsolicited updates without the user knowing?
As in, if you wanted you could push an update that turned your "application" into full-fledged malware, and you could do that without the user being aware?
You said the purpose of your application is to be lightweight, but now you say "stay tuned, there’s always more under the hood", like that's a good thing. I mean, iif it's supposed to be lightweight then why is there always more under the hood?
Maybe I'm being harsh but everything about your product is sketchy as f*ck, and the way you're trying to explain it makes it ever more suspicious.
We can all vibe code sketchy applications to solve non-existent problems, so I've got no idea why anybody would install and run this when there are established and audited solutions available.
Full-fledged malware via a README.md file in the repo? That’s a world-class breakthrough.
Every release is an open invitation for a scan. Feel free to run them through VirusTotal or verify the SHA256 anytime, anywhere. The only external traffic is for whitelist/DNS queries essential to the logic. If you truly believe it's 'malware,' stop whining and report it. I'm confident enough to wait.🌸
🌸
You seem to have misunderstood me. I have no intention of doing anything with your binaries or your repo. The product doesn't make any sense to me and I already have better solutions deployed in my environment.
If you'd written the code yourself and you understood it then I might take a look and discuss it with you. But none of this is serious, least of all your responses to reasonable questions.
🌸
🌸
This is not what double blind means
You’re right—strictly speaking, "Double-Blind" isn't the precise academic term here. Thanks for keeping my terminology in check!
I was using the term to describe the complete decoupling of visibility from a privacy-by-design perspective: I provide the logic (the key), but I have zero knowledge of the user’s backend, their service, or the "door" they are protecting.
My goal was to emphasize that the system is built so that I (the dev) stay out of the user's private context, and the attacker cannot see the gate. It's about ensuring I can't snoop on my users even if I wanted to. 🌸
op please don't go
Don’t worry,I’ll never leave—I’m just focusing my energy on serving my friends and the community who actually appreciate the craft.
Before I forget, @Usagi -chan, what's your favorite anime? Is it Chiikawa?
As the founder of LET Weeb Club it's my duty to know.
Ura!Yaha!
Hachiware
deleted. holding my tongue
Would you be able to affiliate with my company, HAZI.ro?
It would be cool to have the motto ‘Zero Trust’.