roeme
Anyone working in this space can tell you that's still the age-old discussion: Wether it was mainframes vs. microcomputers, containers vs. VM's, microservices vs. monolithic applications. Sometimes a particular architecture was preferred, sometimes the other. And none have gone away for good, and none have taken up the market completely. Essentially, the answer depends on your requirements (And the world just isn't binary).
The only thing that's for sure is that distributed systems are here to stay – but how you call the various abstraction layers forming them up really doesn't matter. All that really changes (currently) is the size of the market, or the shares therein.
Some of you might remember that we did the 'cloud' before it was called as such, and while the terms I/P/SaaS weren't known under this moniker, it was already in use.
Eeeh...a simple HA solution can be developed in about a week (I was able to do so on 9.3, and so far, it held it's ground). Also, now with 9.5's pg_rewind you can easily switch back and forth between nodes (http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/app-pgrewind.html), simplifying things a great deal. Can't imagine that's 5-6 figures.
I agree that you don't get a Plug&Play-Solution out of the box, but from anecdotal evidence they often don't quite work as advertised anyway (remember 1995? And I'm sure your friendly DBA has some stories to share as well).
It's Zöpfli. Gopferteckel.
(The second word is a somewhat soft cuss word - But don't try to use it as a non-native).
Also, you can't "zopfli" something - it's a noun! You "zöpf" - or, since we're in the alemannic german space; "zöpfle".
/rant /vent
As Graham's piece concludes; if we don't do something, we'll get into trouble.
- « Terrific work causes us to think of additional questions. »
This mindset is what creates a _lot_ of problems; while some decisions do not matter greatly for oneself, they do for others and/or even more so for future generations.
I think many people grasp this concept in the context of polluted oceans et al., but fail to do so when it comes to the real-world manifestations of 1984 and the like.
As to "why?", I assume it's asked in jest.
She does. However, given a well-maintained engine, and 10 to 12 passengers, cars are easily rivaled, and given favourable conditions, even undercut. We did the math, briefly said, the plane has a higher cruise speed, and can fly in a straight line between destination, etc. pp.
> I'd always day-dreamed about getting one but I can't imagine it's practical.
Well...I co-own one with some other crazy blokes. While a 3.5-ton dry mass can't be put into the bike rack in front of your house, it hardly affects your daily life. I.e. she's next-to-none more inconvenient than owning a small Cessna or the like.
Edit: Judging from your user name, there's a different story though. From what I've heard, the U.S./FAA doesn't really like this soviet plane, and you've got some artificial prohibitive rules on it (compared to Europe).
Depends on how you interpret it. The bi-plane design does impose quite a drag at higher speeds. There has been research into making the design faster, so far, that meant getting rid of the lower wings.
On the other hand, the designer never intended her to go fast.
It's quite an impressive experience, especially while starting, when the audio of the power plant's huge displacement is felt by your stomach.
The conflict resolution is where the meat is, isn't it? And https://github.com/amark/gun/wiki/Conflict-Resolution-with-G... is incredibly hard to read and doesn't really answer questions.
And to be honest, GUN‘s docs sound similar. Heavy on how to use, and how awesome everything is, but as soon as one tries to understand stuff, it‘s either WIP or “team up with me/us!”. eyebrow rises
And the claim of “building up connection with academics and hiring them” falls perfectly in line with this. Why the hell can‘t you describe what you did by yourself? If it's so awesome, why don‘t you just die to explain it to everyone who asks? Or, $DEITY forbid, should the “academics” lend some credibility to GUN, even if it's with just their title? What's this HAM about?
Maybe it's just me, but all this with a rather complex naming convention (souls...) and code...
eh, I'll go with “show us teh algoz”. Or describe it.
¹) To illustrate: « I'm actively working [...]» – I'd like to see you passively working.
Doesn't have to be LaTeX for me, as long as it’s a comprehensive documentation.
(When OriFS was introduced here, the papers really helped to grok).
1. First of all, it will get you connected to the users which depend on your $APP/$SYS. Hard. You will get to know their struggle/woes - it's not just some ticket you can work on at your leisure.
2. If it's your stuff that causes problems, you will get your shit together and make sure that it works, code defensively, and test thoroughly - whatever necessary. After all, you don't want to deprive yourself unnecessarily of sleep – or others, after the experience.
3. If it's not your stuff that causes problems, you'll get the oppurtunity to “yell” at the people responsible for it. And they must act on it - nobody cares on the why or what, if people have to get up in the middle of the night, it costs the company¹, and everybody gets upset.
It only impacts your health if you get called up regularly, and no actions are taken to remove the root causes of it. Or you can't take any.
It's less of a technical problem, but more an organizational one, so – as it already has been said in here – you should talk to the people of the team, not HN.
¹) If it doesn't cost them, be wary.
Hope there will be more tracks in this style (skyur wasn't really for me).
> what's the point of building something badly that you can buy COTS from any hardware store for only slightly more than what she spend on this thing?
Tinkering. Hacking. Learning.
> turn AC on and off through cutting off power) will wreak havoc on her AC
I don't know alot about AC's (I generally eschew them), but there is one line in the article:
Make sure that your AC is always set to be ‘on’, we’re bypassing the air conditioner’s normal on/off control system.
I can't image they've got a complicated startup sequence if they've got an "always-on" setting? Or am I wrong?
Putting part of such a project to $SHAREDHOSTINGSERVICE however, that's were I'd stop.
Then again, more sensitive stuff floats around on the intertubes.
(Also, not serving it by yourself feels like stopping halfway, and not in the hackers-do-take-shortcuts-way).
> Really? He gave you two tips, didn't he?
I do stand corrected. Either the last paragraph was edited into the article after I wrote my comment, or I did not see it the first time. Unfortunately, I can no longer edit my previous comment.
But nothing, absolutely nothing, on how to protect myself as an ordinary user. The only thing I was able to infer from the craptastic video is that the user they're escalating from is member of the "admin" group, i.e. not a "Standard User" but an "Admin" in OS X lingo.
Among other things, the most obvious difference to regular Accounts is that "Admin" users can use sudo by default, but no clue whatsoever is exploited here. Some pipe-fu with sudo? Or a stupid setting by apple allowing "admin" group members doing dangerous things without (re-)authentication?
In closing, best make sure you're using OS X as a "Standard" User, not "Admin". In my experience, it's quite painless.
Edit: > "Normally there are 'sudo' password requirements, which work as a barrier, so the admin can't gain root access without entering the correct password. However, rootpipe circumvents this," he says.
This at least hints at the possibility that said exploit does not work from a standard user. So there's that...
¹most likely not the researchers themselves, but some "CEO" or other suit-level.
OTOH, now I have to disagree with you a bit. I'm currently using 1080p on a 24" and while I'm ok with it so far (everyone else using the screen, ranging from ages 10 to 55 has no issue either), I would under no circumstances go lower than this. And it's not like my vision has improved since my 20's (in the 30s currently).
But, as the interested reader realizes at this point, it really boils down more to the defition of 'average person'.
> To me, the main beneficiaries of the new 5K iMac are designers and people who work with (or care a lot about) video and photography
Did you intend to leave out programmers? I'm asking because for instance, I prefer to do my readings on paper than on screen; simply because of the higher dpi/'ppi'. And after having worked a bit with a Retina display, I can't almost can't wait to do my work on one...
The question is, how long will it take until high res becomes available broadly? Apple had to create their own¹ display here, and I doubt they'll share the secret sauce lightly. I suspect they're already holding back, since I'm in search for some Hi-Res desktop display for some time now. Almost everybody cheats by simply upping the display size, instead of the pixel density. And it's not like the retina display hasn't been around for 2 years now!
It's either that, or they're simply scooping up all or a significant amount of the available supply for themselves.
¹To some extent, i.e. at least the controller chip
TL;DR Article's point unclear, essentially a list (of existing-pre-apple stuff), the only remote possibility of a point long well known.
My guess is nobody bothered to replace these parts, since options were only added gradually; if at all. Coincidentally i'm in the same predicament with a tool a coworker of mine (initially) wrote, convoluted option parsing to say the least; but I'm too busy with fixing other parts or adding proper functionality to it than to replace it.
Sometimes, 'less is more'.