ZhongXina
ZhongXina on Hacker News
> the risks of playing outside today are equivalent
In Ukraine they are / will be for many years.
No, we definitely don't want "automatic IPSec" (especially IPSec!), or really any enforced encryption at the network level, even if it's something sane at this moment like WireGuard. Look at old VPN protocols or authentication schemes like RADIUS which have glaring security holes and are impossible to fix because of compatibility issues, and they're running at much smaller scales than the whole internet. Hell, the way the industry is solving TCP ossification problems is by throwing TCP away and reimplementing it on top of UDP, that should tell us something.
Who is downvoting this? Among the large Linux distributions, ZFS is only really supported by Ubuntu, and even that is on the level "Canonical lawyers reviewed this and
believe they're safe". If the unmentionable company ever goes to court against them, you're in hot water. You'll have to migrate to FreeBSD or support yourself by building dkms modules. So you're taking a non-zero risk by adopting ZFS.
If you're really conservative with these things, as some of us are, you currently don't really have a single safe COW pick. (Smug FreeBSD users incoming.) I have most trust in bcachefs over the long term.
Why should it matter? It's an extremely niche technology that's only interesting to
some home users. I see no reasons why other users should care about a RAID level they're not interested in.
(I don't use btrfs or any other COW filesystem because of significantly worse performance with some kinds of workloads, but it has nothing to do with maturity of any of them.)
You're saying it like it's an absolutely good thing. Some (many?) users would rather pay the cost upfront in compilation time (doesn't really matter if it's AOT or JIT) than pay the same cost many times over through a significantly slower runtime. JVM also scales up to supercomputers (and everything in between) if you want it to, so depending on your requirements a single-threaded alternative might not even be an option.
Better for what? Quickly churning out short-lived code to get the next round of funding, definitely. Writing (and _supporting_) "serious" projects over the long term, which also require high performance and/or high scalability, and can rip through terabytes of data if needed, definitely not. (All IMHO from lots of personal experience.)
It's an understandable reaction against a loud and aggressive (political) minority we've been seeing for the past four years. Thanks for the link, this finally pushed me to support the developer.
Which two decades? They haven't even began trying to fight advertisers. There are a few browsers with aggressive ad blocker shipped out of the box; Firefox is not one of them.
This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kvass
is pretty popular in many former USSR states, and can be easily made at home. I have no idea if you will like the taste, I'm used to it from childhood. It has 1-2% alcohol and gives a slight buzz if you drink liters of it (which I tend to do in summer).
Precisely, ease of writing, not ease of reading (the whole project, not just a tiny snippet of code) or supporting it long-term.
Allegedly, supposedly... About 60 years ago, Hunter Thompson called out these words as propaganda devices that let you say anything about anyone you don't like without taking any responsibility for it. Nothing has changed in the journalistic standards since then.
afaik, your want of relatively fresh software with few patches excludes pretty much everything there is, except for really niche stuff. All other major options with good commercial support have been mentioned by siblings; I'll add Debian + Freexian to the list.
https://www.freexian.com
RHEL ecosystem is no less patched than Debian and its derivatives. Especially the kernel has only some resemblance to its stated version.
I wish people would stop recommending Rocky. It's a ticking time bomb IMHO caused by their decision to not play nicely with Red Hat and go for questionable tactics like renting temporary RHEL instances to download premade source packages, instead of working together as RH asked them to do. Anybody reading this, do yourself a favor and use Alma, or skip the RHEL ecosystem altogether if you don't absolutely need it.
Otherwise you're building on an operating system which rebuilds a commercial upstream while explicitly refusing to follow that upstream's rules. IBM has lots of experienced lawyers, as I've heard.
It's also slower at releasing updates, including security updates.
------
Sorry SSLy, I can't reply to you directly because I'm rate limited, it's very late here, and I'm not waiting for the rate limit to expire. So here's my reply:
I think previous decisions made by IBM have shown that they're fine at burning some community goodwill for short-term profit. People were called paranoid for worrying about the future of CentOS when it was taken up by Red Hat for "improved maintenance", and look where we are now.
Maybe you're right, but I personally wouldn't want to build anything serious on top of that "maybe". If something happens, lateral migration should theoretically work, of course..
https://almalinux.org/elevate
It was still the norm in Uzbekistan until just a few years ago, but with cotton instead of potatoes. Not anymore AFAIK.