Tractor8626
Tractor8626 on Hacker News
This particular quote doesn't make any sense. This is not what "backward compatibility" means. Is there a bug or does it just do thing differently so benchmark is not "fair"?
I agree what you have to think. But example is kind bad.
We got strictly better version of application for cheap. What is there even to complain about?
Unless your frontend can be used instead of claude desktop you didn't built better claude desktop. You built something different.
I didn't said what you can't. I said you didn't.
There is one requirement which is more important than performance: Software should exist in reality, not in imagination.
You could dream all you want about how you would write better version of claude desktop. Fact is: you didn't. And you never will.
As user I would appreciate useful and quality software. Not artistic one.
Those software artists happy to implement happy path. When all data valid, no errors happening, user behave as expected.
Real useful code is ugly and complicated. Complete opposite of artistic.
So what? Do author thinks those people have skills or resources to do better?
Supported provider list is nowhere close to pi's or opencode's
Ai can't use any api out of box. It requires thing called "harness" to use anything.
Agent doesn't have api key to access service directly
Just elect correct politicians doh
> I don't know how to make debs and rpms
There is tool called nfpm for easy package creation.
To claim "highest revenue" you need to compare with other companies not with itself in the past...
Maybe your magic ipv6 configures everything.
My have certain shortcomings: it doesn't assign dns names to hosts and doesn't configure firewall rules
Yeah. ULA and nat66 would work nicely. Except you would get murdered for asking about nat66.
How do you setup dynamic dns in your network? Which software do you use?
No. People fail to configure it. Then start to question why this piece of garbage exist.
It doesn't matter what problems it supposed to solve if it doesn't work.
One would think that in 30 years there will be some sort of best practises established. Some articles to refer people to. Or at least some people to share their experience and answer practical questions.
And yet there is still only "you doing it wrong, and I won't tell you how to do it right"
Is there yet answer to question "how to get random self-assigned addresses into dns records, firewall rules and switch acls?" ?
> If you're processing financial transactions you want your isolation level to be serialisable. As the order in which the transactions are processed matters.
So you don't know what serializable level is.
> Even with 1ms latency. Amdahl's law will still make you cap out at a theoretical 1000 TPS if you have 100% row lock contention.
So why use 5ms and 10ms for examples?
> I'm confused. I invented transactions?
"Interactive" transactions.
Sqlite is very cool. But what was the point of slowing postgress down?
> But, wait our transactions are not serialisable, which they need to be if we want consistent transaction processing
You either don't know what serializable does or trying to mislead the reader. There is zero reason to use searializable here.
> Let's say you have 5ms latency between your app server and your database.
5ms latency is unrealistic. Unless you use wifi or you database is in another datacenter.
> I'm talking about transactions per second, specifically interactive transactions that are common when building web applications
No they are not common at all. You probably invented them just to make pg look bad.
> read-modify-write is the canonical transactional workload. That applies to explicit transactions (anything that does an UPDATE or SELECT followed by a write in a transaction), but also things that do implicit transactions (like the example above)
Your "implicit transaction" would not be consistent even if there was no replication involved at all. Explicit db transactions exist for a reason - use them.
> you can absolutely NAT without preventing the "outside" subnets from being allowed to route to the "inside" subnet
Under very specific conditions. Technically if you send packet with destination 192.168.1.10 directly to wan port of router - yes it can route it inside. The problem - how to deliver this packet over internet. You need to be connected to exactly same network segment to pull it off.
And you don't need statefull firewall to deny this kind of packets.
No. We can't.
We encouraging it because it works.
But NAT acts as a one way door to your private subnet, doesn't it?
Cybersecurity is easier? Isn't it all about constantly updating and patching obsolete vulnerable stuff - most annoying part of ops?
If you need sftp independent of unix auth - there is sftpgo.
Sftpgo also supports webdav, but for use cases in the article sftp is just better.
They supposed to exceed their SLA. SLA is guaranteed worst case.
Just false nostalgia memory.
20 years ago things werent any better. Software didn't consume gigabytes of ram because there was no gigabytes of ram to consume.
Interesting tool. Something like btrfs send/receive but on a file level and fs agnostic.
Looks like bcc was added for debugging and was not removed before commit.
Too obvious for backdoor. Replacing bitcoin addresses in email would be more useful)