dh997

Beijing takes the cake for both craziest bus drivers and bicyclists, beating Hanoi and Davis, CA.

Go CSP is minimal and ortongonal, I just wish it did three things:

0. could lto optimize or link against a shared library to reduce the titanic size of compiled programs and cut down on duplication of instruction. Therue is no practical sense in wasting memory and storage on systems with dynamic linkers: edge cases of including the world for rare situations but YAGNI in real production systems.

1. could output flat binaries and self-host runtime (panics) for practical kernel development in Go

2. Generics (both types and immutable constraints), I think C++1z has the right approach to this (and constexpr and constant arrays are nice and are able to provide more hints to the compiler).

I also wonder why Go wasnt developed as an IR compiler / llvm frontend, because it would've levered an existing debug and portability ecosystem with much less work.

GG&S: I had two separate MDs at a gym off campus and the head of my dept (biomedical informatics) exclaim "that's the best book I ever read!"

Exactly. Wealth transfer and mobility for some, but not growing a middle class sufficiently to realize these artificial investments. China could invest more in better equiping people to make and earn more value, so they can afford cleaner/nicer cars, homes, factories, etc.

Isnt there an entire replica of Paris with barely 1k people?

How can value be justified with whole half-finished cities with no customers?

Sounds like deferring a real-estate crash is only making a future event even more painful when that paper value evaporates and takes real comparables along with them.

File a patent on the generic supposed protection of intellectual, design and creative ideas to overworked, inconsisent and vague government entity that are then hoarded by lawyers with lots of money whom frequently visit Texas. Maybe that would wake up some folks to the fact that their ostensible protection process is right now a protection racket.

"OpenZFS" actually means ZoL, the only way to legally ship meant dkms until now, unless there has been CDDL/GPL reinterpretation, a different codebase or agreement with Redwood Shores. The three concerns are stability (battle tested in production at scale, not just some home torrent servers), performance (which wasnt yet up to other production fses) and lawsuits from the Emerald Kingdom.

If it works, great, but there's been ppas for ZoL and the docker zfs backed for a while (we've tested it but decided to go with whats faster and more supportable).

I guess this also means ZoL may be able to drop dkms after they consult their own lawyers, because I'm not entirely convinced Canoncial has this right.

Edit: confirmed this is actually CDDL ZoL code linked as modules, so perhaps Canonical lawyers reinterpreted zfs and spl binary modules shipped to users are still not part of the kernel to be copacetic. http://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/zfsutils-linux

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS

Most previous jailbreaks required an unlocked device with passcode disabled and find my iphone turned off (because passcode encrypts things).

I'm still waiting for JB for 9.2.1 or 9.3 when released but there are already semijailbreaks (browser based installs a temporary app) and some unreleased PoCs, but Cydia MobileSubstrate and other tools need to be ported / verified too.

Perhaps if Apple allowed the devices to be officially customer hackable (like flux, springboard replacements, transmission, 3G unrestrictor and changing fonts), there would be less need to develop exploits... Unfortunately, there is great demand from governments to buy exploits and keep those secret (not a conspiracy but tools in a market)

Tim Cook: a really nice guy with blue whale-sized cohones.

There can be no compromise because China, Syria and Turkey would also lean on Apple to break into phones of dissidents, and pretty soon, future whistleblowers here in US too in order to prevent leaks (iPhone 7 and iCar notwithstanding).

That's the tradeoff in not giving in to faint, vague "maybes" that there were "external coordination" when in all likihood it was the ultraconservative, Saudi half leading this duo into the kookooland of violent extremism.

The security services will just have to buy exploits, develop malware, cultivate human intelligence sources and monitor everything the old-fashioned way... It's not like that kid in a YouTube video finding a jailbreak exploit for an iPhone and not releasing a tool is going to sit on it, he's going to auction it off to the shop or country with the most $$$.

Controllers are important for being gatekeepers, which can be adjusted (think middlewares which add security, logging or other changes uniformly) and inspected outside of the MVC code, and separates outside from inside.

It might be worth the tradeoff in the short-term, but it's the lifecycle TCO of code counting support and modifications over many projects which will validate or invalidate a particular approach (there is also a cost in terms of hiring and learning curve for inventing an alternate convention).

I hope it works out.

It's still at the mercy of Apple, Intel and all the other opaque firmware vendors and microcode updates. Plus, it's not nearly UNIX enough, the damn linker doesnt do linker scripts so good luck developing non-xnu kernels without compiling under something else. And the sources aren't always released in a timely manner. Why is Apple still not open sourcing more of the OS?

In the future, I'd like to be able to choose a design of laptop or tablet online, modify it, choose an open cpu core and so on and create an entire, beautiful computer at home. Not everyone will want to do that, but I think enough people will realize open source hw is the future especially in terms of supply-chain security and reducing or adding features. (More broadly: How cool would it be to have company-specific devices, designed and built just for them?)

I like and use Apple gear but I dont like untinkerable black boxes or opaque firmwares.

I think we need a beautiful, functional servers,computer, handheld and wearables with opensource desktop lithography and 3d material deposition. It would take about $20 million and the right people to get going, but it could be hw UNIX -> Linux.

Isn't the bigger issues China's structural draconian limits to freer movement of capital, external investment, the imaginary/real value of ghost cities and scale of holding illiquid foreign debt?

All kidding about killer chairs aside, hacked self-parking chairs could potentially convoy over to a security door and pop it open, leading to a real robbery or industial espionage, or any number of other funny or embarrassing scenarios.

I once had a cold-call recruiter tell me Go was worthless. I asked the recruiter to never call me again and hung up.

People whom are both disrespectful and unable to see where their hockey puck sports analogies will be later on have marginal utility and are likely liabilities... don't get involved with those sorts.

The analogy is wrong because most all languages are Turing complete, and therefore equivalent despite paradigm and feature differences. The main reason seL4 was written in Haskell and again in C was to cross-verify behavior. C might be legacy ubiquitous, however it doesn't have to be the last word in shared library development by any means.

Any language which has a toolchain which produce flat binaries or use link scripts to specify sections can potentially be used for kernel and os dev. Bonus points for a toolchain which can compile itself.

There are kernels written entirely in Rust with some assembly glue. Others are writing production embedded domain-specific OSes in Haskell, OCaml, etc. for real, mission-critical systems right now and have been doing so for the last 5-10 years.

C inherently or inadvertently leads to giant codebases and subtle bugs when used too liberally, as opposed to higher-level, statically-compiled languages like Haskell and others.

The main issue with legacy code is how we choose to either keep investing effort in putting fingers into the levees or try something new in an incremental fashion.

PS: I would like to see Go get with it and support non-usermode, self-hosted and embedded development without including a giant, hard-to-port runtime in everything.

Oracle JVM/OpenJDK and .net CLR are deployed in production at basically every profitable company on Earth.

PHP... Is deployed because it's perceived to be easier and friendlier than other religions, and so wins with that popularity war (as MySQL did). Facebook HHVM is another approach. Folks know the likely warts and mitigate to shrink the attack surface by defending deeply from front layers down to backend services.

Postgres was harder to use in the 2000's despite having a clean codebase but got mucb easier to use, in large part due to MySQL, while leading on features inspired by Oracle DBMS and more recently NoSQLs with hstore.

Attacking popularity for what gets the job done is moot because defense is never ending vigilance for anything real.

Perhaps the focus should be on starting to formally-verifying core libs like zlib, OpenSSL, OpenSSH (portable), glibc, etc. for correctness and resilience against side-effects and ABI promises.

The overall goal of reducing deployed LOC, complexity and low-level boilerplate is laudable and doable so by using a C isomorphic linking language (can call into and can call from) to gradually, experimenting by converting one module at a time and increasing tempo of semver API refactorings for also reducing code and features to the essentials. "The journey of a thousand miles begins..."

Also, we need more unit testing, fuzzing and formally proven correct libraries (a-la seL4). Most C development is really bad about unit testing and fuzzing because it's incredibly laborious and verbose, even when it's known to be a good idea.

Nato has also had the H&K P11 since the 70's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_P11

Most of these single system image clusters have used custom, fast interconnects akin to Inifinband or hypertransport to ameliorate locality issues (latency and bandwidth)... Without such, it's neigh impossible without pinning all resources for a "process" to one physical box.

Good luck ever getting more than one box worth of performance or resources out of a single application instance.

Hence MapReduce, actors, promises, message-passing, etc.

There's only so many TB of ram / disk and cores that can fit in one box for sensible cost, whereas it's usually far cheaper and less limited to just add more boxes, plus the SPoF of one giant box.

It usually indicates developer/provider laziness / cheapness / lack of imagination when people say something "can't" be done. Have they even tried? Most real problems are diagonalizable. Plus any shop using RDMA and fast infiniband instead of Ethernet dont have to worry as much about node-to-node latency.

There is no magic solution for all use cases, but scaling veritically tends to encounter budget or technical limits where a little forethought beforehand could have scaled using modern tools instead of shifting burden down the stack.

If you're LMAX, scale up... looking for ET in radio signals, scale out.

Maybe I wasnt clear enough: what happens to these unfortunate folks that hand in bricked phones whom are unable to erase content? Refurbished by third parties, sent to engineering, recycled?

Computing's RAID0 with worse performance and worse reliability.

With traditional enterprise hypervisors, boxes are sized for least TCO and to be large enough to comfortably hold the largest VM... and then the farm is usually sized to have at least N+k (k >= 1) capacity to avoid killing off VMs in order to perform maintenance or be trapped without some spare capacity for new VMs. Critical VMs use lock-stepped mirroring on multiple physical boxes to avoid downtime from hardware failure. Furthermore, most enterprise hypervisors allow migrating both storage (disk images) and computing (the running VM's state) resources to different hw (hw failure notwithstanding).

If folks are trying to vertically scale one app or one system to become a giant box without using explicit parallelism, it's going to be slow and painful.

(As a teenager, I once ran an actual Fortran nuclear reactor simulator on Windows beige box and later played with making code using OFED performant over Infiniband... don't ever inherit two brands of gear and expect it to work)

Speaking of CC, Larry Lessig for SCOTUS is a genius idea from TYT: https://youtu.be/Kd8c6y9Cd4Q

Having been an HPC sys admin pre and post cloud, this unicorn comes around about every ten years... many previous startups failed because they tried to push expensive custom hardware with fancy interconnects, but most importantly, there isn't a need because scaling apps horizontally instead of vertically is usually more powerful, cheaper and more reliable as evidenced by Google's dominance. Plus, Rocks Cluster, Hadoop, Kafka, Kinesis, iPython, Erlang/OTP, Akka and more already make these sort of things moot because deploying a resilient cluster has not been as impressive as summiting Mt. Everest for a decade now. It's feels like trying to sell a magical product (cluster resource management) to get a major advance for free (single process system image). Maybe they can make the file system, ram, network devices, packets, firewall rule and everything else magically work, but fault handling and latency are big concerns that rapidly increase in complexity, orthogonal to anticipating understanding of how to most efficiently schedule what a process wants done when it would be simpler to code for parallelism such as MapReduce / actors from the beginning.

How was customer data erased or prevented from later being perused by employees on those "bricked" phones customers have swapped out? Because customer data would still be intact if such a device were looked at by engineering or others with sufficient test equipment, especially on a device that didn't have a passcode.

Segregation and slavery were legal, as extreme examples, but there are likely lesser but still immoral behaviors which are currently entirely legal in various jurisdictions. Plus, campaign finance corruption in the US has distorted whom gets access to all three branches of government, including providing tomes of bill text that's often not read and enacted verbatim because obscurity and length can be misused to conceal vested interests when staffers (whom do the bulk of the people's work) are overworked and skim over tens of thousands of pages.

What is moral maybe illegal, and what is legal can be immoral... so following what happens to be legal today is not a panacea for developing good judgement and independence from groupthink or peer pressure to comply.

Controversy sells, also sadly evidenced by the 2016 US political process. :/

Open source hw maybe the ejection seat from black boxes (tinfoil and real concerns) and proprietary facism, could solve much in the same way marginalized Unices. The issues are funding, talent wrangling and practical desktop lithography (FPGA is a stepping-stone).

This sounds like a tempest-teapot scenario because he doesnt seem to know about http/2 which includes the feature TBL is ranting about. Instead, he comes off as fingerwagging at folks for doing something to stop-gap fix the web because the http RFC didnt include security from the beginning. Adding tls to http/1.x is impractical, utopian mythology because there's too much deployed to ever change until http/2 becomes widely deployed.

Instead of ranting, downplaying the EFF and others for improving the situation or wishing for the impossible, TBL missed the opportunity to support adoption of http/2, which might not be perfect (PHK mentioned rushed process and protocol complexity) but it has been touted to supersede http/1, https and spdy.

btw: there's also unauthenticated opportunistic encryption like tcpcrypt which works via server and client plugins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP/2#Encryption

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7540