Initial commit: HPR Knowledge Base MCP Server

- MCP server with stdio transport for local use
- Search episodes, transcripts, hosts, and series
- 4,511 episodes with metadata and transcripts
- Data loader with in-memory JSON storage

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>

hpr_transcripts/hpr1255.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+Episode: 1255
+Title: HPR1255: A life in a software project
+Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1255/hpr1255.mp3
+Transcribed: 2025-10-17 22:30:37
+
+---
+
+Hi, my name is Garjola and you are listening to a contribution to Hacker Public Radio.
+In this episode I will read something for you.
+A friend of mine wrote a blog post the day of his 40th birthday.
+The title was version 4.0 is out.
+I found it very interesting as he told the story of his life as if it was a software project
+with a major x.0 release every 10th birthday.
+So here we go.
+The new version of the software is out.
+With this new stable release many new features are available, but the main news is the complete
+refactoring of the core of the system.
+Indeed, after the discovery of the backdoor inversion 3, a complete revamping of the system
+was needed.
+As a result, a much cleaner and efficient code has been produced, free from memory leaks,
+dead logs and raised conditions.
+The project team would like to thank all the beta testers who have been kindly helping
+in tracking bugs and even in proposing clever fixes.
+I would like to take this opportunity to go back into the history of the project.
+Let me tell you a little story.
+Version 0
+This was an aid implementation and a rather incomplete code base.
+The API was of course very limited in scope, but users found it very friendly and easy
+to work with.
+It was written in Python, so everybody, even with nearly no experience, could understand
+the code.
+The license was public domain, yes, as an aid as the code.
+Version 1
+This was a very good release of the system which combined, breath, in scope, many new features
+were incorporated, but also a very efficient implementation of the major parts of the
+software.
+A progressive translation from Python to C++ was done, but no object orientation was used.
+It was C written in C++, plus some simple use of templates.
+The license moved from public domain to a BSD, mainly to gain popularity among users,
+and the goal was reached.
+These were good times for the project.
+Version 2
+We have mixed feelings about this version.
+It started as a follow-on on the 1.x series.
+Up until version 2.4, new features were added, not many of them, but some useful.
+As for instance, the internationalization support.
+In terms of paradigms, a move was operated towards object orientation.
+Again, up to version 2.4, same choices were made, but after that the OOP hip took over,
+but temptations towards multiple inheritance were avoided.
+In terms of licensing, an open core approach was adopted.
+The core of the system remained open-source, but the added features started to become
+closed-source, following the advice of the marketing team.
+Version 3
+These were hard times which nearly led the project to stop.
+Indeed, the marketing team was forcing the engineers to follow a dangerous path.
+This is what usually happens when there are no real goals and when people with no technical
+background and only money in mind make the rules.
+The team's hacker spirit was lost and a general lack of motivation could be felt among
+the most creative ones.
+OOP was officially adopted, but not everything was negative about that.
+Indeed, there were two very important features added, which would have never existed without
+OOP.
+The technical team admitted the responsibility for delaying them too much, and we'll always
+thank the marketing team for pushing these features.
+However, the marketing guys didn't understand that one should stick to base principles,
+nor they did understand that limiting the scope of the features is sometimes needed in
+order to ensure quality and a high degree of coverage.
+The engineers were forced to use technologies which were not suited, but which were pushed
+by buzzwords.
+Much time was spent on unneeded retrospectives.
+Many different languages and technologies were mixed up, Java, Ruby, PHP, to name only
+a few.
+And the hackers lost focus.
+The headquarters were moved to a new building which was too expensive and much energy was
+spent on this.
+When your release had to be pushed out every few months, but only the marketing team decided
+what the release dates were, as well as the feature sets.
+This was rather extreme, but not really agile.
+Last but not least, the license changed.
+After a couple of minor versions where a license contributor agreement was imposed on all
+the developers, the whole code base was licensed under a closed license.
+Many seemed to be the only goal for the company.
+Version 4
+Severe stability issues were detected in the system several months before 4.0 was due.
+The marketing team issued a press release which stated that the technical project manager
+was held responsible for many bad choices and that he had been fired.
+An independent audit of the code was made.
+Here's from the community of former contributors offered their help, which resulted to be crucial.
+Indeed, a backdoor in the system was discovered and the committee logs showed that a recently
+hired programmer was responsible for that.
+It was then discovered that he had been following orders from the marketing team who had other
+plans for the software and wanted to replace the technical team.
+The community decided to fork the project, but they had to start from a version previous
+to 3.0 because of licensing issues.
+Actually, these had many advantages and the price to pay, loss of a few features, was worth
+it.
+The main advantage of going back some versions was starting from a code base which was
+not bloated, even if the 3.x series was a bad one, many experience was gained mainly
+about what has to be avoided, buzzwords, shiny gris, etc.
+The hacker's spirit was back.
+The programmers were again happy to code.
+They were at last free to choose approaches and paradigms.
+For instance, the use of a functional language for writing extensions was adopted.
+This allowed them to keep the core of the system written using efficiency plus plus and at the
+same time use per functional approaches when needed.
+Only one thing from 3.x was kept, the good parts of OOP and inheritance that written
+in a list dialect, not in Java or Ruby.
+As a commitment to the users, the new gplv3 was adopted so the system could never be closed
+again.
+That's a conclusion.
+The hackers are back in business and have many ideas to keep improving the system.
+The user experience, mainly for users, alpha and beta is one of the main focal points
+of the team.
+Stay free, stay open and don't forget to hug your world, happy birthday!
+So that's what my friend wrote.
+Now I will give you some information about him.
+His wife left him several months prior to this 40th birthday.
+She left him from somebody else who happened to be a programmer working on a software project.
+My friend's ex works in the sales department of the same company.
+If you listen now again to work my friend wrote, you may understand different things.
+Okay, that's going to do it for this episode.
+If you want to send me any feedback, you can get in touch with me by email at garjola.net.
+Garjola is spelled G-A-R-J-O-L-A.
+Thanks for listening and thanks to Hacker Public Radio for giving every hacker the chance
+to become a podcaster.
+Talk to you again soon.
+Bye bye.
+Hacker Public Radio is founded by the digital dot-pound and the infonomicom computer cloud.
+HPR is funded by the binary revolution at binref.com or binref projects are crowd-responsive
+by lunar pages.
+From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to lunar pages.com for all your hosting
+needs.
+Unless otherwise stasis, today's show is released under a creative comments, attribution,
+share a like, feed us our own license.