It’s kind of interesting to watch in open source which projects survive and which get forked and essentially made irrelevant. It basically becomes a referendum on the vision of the original individual or team and how well they’re serving the collective user base. If they aren’t accepting PR’s and competently managing development, they’ll likely be forked. So I’m glad to see that folks are making progress with mbin and I can’t help thinking that its entire existence is probably due to individuals not being able to agree on a roadmap for the platform. If anybody has any info on any drama that led to this, I’d be curious to read about it.
Hello! I had the same question and I’ve got a perspective from one fellow contiributor: Matrix thread. (There’ll probably be an error when you first open it: join the room with your account and try my link once more.)
I’m very excited for mbin. I hope it continues to gain traction. I’d love to see it get support with Artemis, the iOS app.
Mbin’s API is 100% compatible with kbin as of today, so @hariette should have little to no issues pointing Artemis at Mbin instances.
Cool to see it’s getting traction, already 14 instances!
we’re making it super easy for any existing kbin instance to migrate to Mbin, just a matter of pointing git at the new repo, pull, and update as usual.
@debounced eventually I’ll work out how to create my own instance but amazing to know that it is simple to migrate if I had a Kbin instance.
That’s great, well done!
A fun story: I was curating my magazine on Melroy’s instance and didn’t butt heads with any regression when he switched from Kbin to Mbin. Nice to see priorities set straight on migration!
@yogthos I’ve been really enjoying Mbin myself, have submitted a post about PeerTube not being supported and people have been talking about it and I love that they didn’t just shut the idea down straight away. Glad to be here and slowly moving everything I can across.
Personally I like to have “video” support in Mbin as well, just like we have photo/image support. We already discovered that PeerTube is using “groups” as channels, which are called “magazines” in Mbin. We might want to create a clear distinguish between “normal communities/magazines” and “peertube channels”. Anyhow, feel free to help us.
It’s a fun idea to explore, which is why I didn’t nod it off. 😄 Imagine: PeerTube channel as a magazine (under the hood, it’s a link between video posts made by actor/boosted by ActivityPub group and magazine entries). Not only we’d have a way to preview several videos on a singular page, but also see description and likes. There is certainly a room for improvement in this model, just leaving it here before I forget.
@melroy It’s good you’ve worked out the channels are groups / magazines. Sadly I’m not a coder myself so can’t really help on that part, my main goal is spread the word of the Fediverse as a user as well as try and see areas where we can improve as I feel as a user it’s good to see what we might ‘need’ on these amazing platforms like Mbin.
Does anybody know if there are significant differences in moderation or the federation of moderation actions? One of the few things keeping me from switching to kbin.
We’re busy fixing the cascading problems in PostgreSQL design, allowing the removal of magazines, something that is still not available for some reason. After that, the mbin community will most likely further improve the moderation system. Regarding federating, we do already support all ActivityPub types (incl Services, which are bot accounts).
