bsgeraci
Joined 9 months ago
Joined 9 months ago
I love your implementation.
Here was my first stab:
This was first pass with no modifications. I might have to go back and forth but pretty dang cool if you care about the nitty gritty.
Currently active in some refactors. If anyone wants to test ArtifactKeeper I recommend waiting for my 1.0.0.a2 release. Hopefully by the end of the weekend.
Thanks again!!!
There are 7 or 8 repositories now in this org. Feel free to take, use, or help imrove the code. MIT Open Source.
https://artifactkeeper.com/docs/package-formats/ Check this, you should see around 35 then 9 alias's that map to the other ones.
If you have anymore details I would love to hear from your experience and what you think would be useful to look at. I will make a ticket based on this concern. I really want to make this as secure as we can and have people poke and do the code reviews. :)
Or analyse the code base. I am using security agents to harden the code base and testing end to end testing based on that.
Adding some security agents in the loop is a great idea!
Basically I am using end points so automation can be done with just curl requests. But as a linux nerd I do enjoy my share of CLI/TUI's.
I think if you follow a few rules whenever making changes and using all the latest tools like linters, security checkers, end to end frameworks, and any other helpful tool you can really make stuff happen.
If you find an existing full blown artifactory alternative that is opensource let me know.
My graduate research focused on common computer security misconceptions — one of the biggest being that open source is inherently insecure. The algorithms and systems we trust most are the ones open to public scrutiny. AES was selected through an open competition where every candidate was published for the world to attack. TLS, SHA-256, RSA — their security comes from transparency, not obscurity. I believe the same applies to software infrastructure.
Could a bigger player take this and run a competing service? Sure, MIT allows that. But I'd rather have the code out there being used, audited, and improved than restrict it to protect a business model I don't even have yet. If someone like AWS wraps this in a managed service, that honestly means I built something worth wrapping — and the open version still exists for anyone who wants to self-host.
I've thought about the Canonical model — paid support around a free product — and I might go there someday. But I don't have years of production use behind this yet. We all start somewhere. Right now I'd rather focus on making the software good and building a community around it than optimizing a license for a monetization strategy that doesn't exist.
AGPL is a valid choice and I respect projects that use it. But for me, MIT is a statement about what I actually care about — the code being out there for everyone.
I made a discussion here :) I can keep you posted but if you have a github account just make a commet there follow so you stay up to date with that change.